The following is considered unacceptable by physics journals. I trust that readers of OpEdNews conversant with the physics will be willing to consider, and conceivably refute my position:

Black-hole theory seems to be suffering from an absorption in mathematics
at the expense of physics, especially relativistic physics. When for example
it is said that an in-falling body will appear to "freeze" (stop) at an event
horizon^{ }(originally by Oppenheimer & Snyder [1]) there is a misconception:
The radiation from such an object will have already fallen far below the
visible spectrum of an observer stationed at a safe distance, and the quantity
of radiation emitted will approach zero as its wavelengths approach infinity.
What will be seen of a falling object still relatively high above the horizon
is already a fading and flickering -- then nothing. And to be clear, so long as an
object is visible, its *acceleration*
will be observed to increase (it is falling in an intense gravitational field!)
as its *clock* and *emissions* slow. There is nothing in relativity theory to suggest
that an object will appear to an observer to be accelerating slower the more it
actually accelerates. And there is nothing in relativity theory to suggest that observed
motion in space and observed motion in time are anything but inversely related.

What is curiously under-remarked about light emitted near an event
horizon is that its speed in relation to a distant observer will be close to
zero. This would seem to constitute an important addition to the one commonly recognized
exception to the constancy of light-speed, that it can be reduced when passing
through various media: Light speed also varies with elevation in a
gravitational field. Such variation is not *relative*
in the same sense as uniform motion, whereby observers will mutually measure
each other's clock to go more slowly. In a gravitational field, elevation
effects are *relational*, not relative:
Observers will measure clocks and light-speeds at lower elevations to be
slower, and at higher elevations to be faster; such observations are inverse
and actual, not mutual and relative. (Incidentally, this suggests a universal
standard time, calculable if not physically possible: the clock-speed at a
location with no gravitational influence, calibrated to a place such as earth
taken to be at rest. Star Date!) And to observe a higher level from below is
not to watch the future roll by, as is sometimes said; just as with the iconic
twins of the so-called paradox, bodies at different levels in a gravitational
field merely age at different rates.

A related misconception about the supposed "freezing" effect is the idea
that light emitted just above an event horizon will take a near-eternity to
reach an observer stationed at a safe elevation. Very little light will be
emitted by an in-falling object near the horizon due to its infinitesimal
clock-speed, and any that *is* emitted will
most likely occur at some significant distance above the horizon, and it will accelerate
(relationally) as it elevates, to impinge on an observer at *c* in a finite time-frame.

Regarding black holes themselves, it is thought that they have a material or quasi-material core (a "singularity") and a surrounding region out to the event horizon consisting of captured light and incidental in-falling matter, but otherwise vacant. And the conditions just inside the horizon are generally thought to be less than catastrophic to matter. Some say an astronaut might initially not even realize that she has crossed the horizon (Poisson & Israel [2]).

But the event horizon and its vicinity have not been adequately
considered in conventional math-focused interpretations. The tidal effects
that afflict matter shortly before crossing the horizon (an elevation with
conditions so severe that light is rendered almost motionless going up) will
already be extreme -- just as extreme for bodies going down as for those going up. The gradient of
field-strength between the smallest differentials would rip atoms apart. Matter
would be accelerating at *c* upon
reaching the horizon, and the smallest particle, if it could somehow endure as
matter, would have infinite mass falling on anything below. So it is utterly implausible
that matter could prevail in such conditions; it would have to be transformed,
annihilated, and its rest mass converted to energy at the crossing of an event
horizon. Realistically, physically-not-mathematically, there can be no material
core, no singularity in a black hole, just a nebulous sphere of light
compressed to the limit of photon density.

In the extremes of black-hole physics, as in no other physical investigation, mathematical equations can be completely undone by conceptual inequities. Let the mathematicians calculate upon a new physical assumption: A black hole is a quenching whole of whiteness.

**References**

[1] J. R. Oppenheimer and H. Snyder, Phys. Rev. 56, 455 (1939).

[2] E. Poisson and W. Israel, Phys. Rev. D 41, 1796 (1990).