Eric and Robin--- Everything gets squeezed to the other side through a worm hole, the same way some energy leaks from the other side (the vacuum) to reality in the known universe—its simple as that.
The black hole is like a strong rubber balloon that deflates as more energy enters inside its membrane. The positive curvature of space increases around the concentration of energy. And at a critical point of curvature releases some of the energy to anti- di Sitter space (the other side) with its negative curvature. The black hole poles are a little tricky since they produce an intense magnetic field depending upon the angular momentum that was accumulated inside their event horizon before the collapse happened. IMHO the magnetic polar field couples to the “other side” and allows the transport of spin energy back and forth eith related angular momentum. As Robin suggests, our existing reality sees the historic accumulation of mass (energy) and the extreme curvature of normal di Sitter space. Bob Cook From: Eric Walker<mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, February 2, 2018 8:23 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 10:02 PM, <mix...@bigpond.com<mailto:mix...@bigpond.com>> wrote: It's worse than that - nothing ever even gets to cross the event horizon from our point of view (because time slows to the point where the universe comes to an end before anything actually gets to the event horizon.) (Which BTW is what originally led me to the notion that there is nothing in a black hole.) You might be right about there being drama at the event horizon, but there are other possibilities [1]: The paradox [of an inconsistency mentioned earlier in the article] itself arises due to Hawking radiation, which demonstrates that matter can be emitted from a black hole, but initially it appeared that no information about the matter that once fell into the black hole is carried away. In 2012, a group of physicists studying this paradox found that three basic assumptions involved in this paradox cannot all be consistent. Namely, principles of unitarity and local quantum field theory contradicted the assumption of "no-drama"—meaning that nothing unusual should happen when an object falls through the event horizon. Instead, they proposed that the most conservative solution to this contradiction is that there would indeed be "drama" at the surface of the black hole in the form of a "firewall" that would destroy an infalling object. This seems rather surprising, because the curvature is negligibly small at the event horizon of a sufficiently large black hole, where general relativity should hold and one would expect nothing special when crossing the horizon. The conservative proposal mentioned by these theorists that there might be drama at the surface (event horizon?) of the black hole is in contradistinction to a "no drama" view in which objects merely cross over the point of no return, but otherwise nothing particularly interesting happens. I.e., it is not certain that there is drama at the event horizon. But even if there is a firewall that destroys everything approaching it, it might need to lie beyond event horizon in order not to have observable effects: "If a firewall exists, not only would an infalling object be destroyed by it, but the destruction could be visible, even from the outside," says Misao Sasaki, a contributor from Kyoto University. So your counterargument against the possibility of the electron and positron annihilating on the other side of the event horizon is merely suggestive but not conclusive. Eric [1] https://phys.org/news/2016-04-hot-problem-black-hole-firewalls.html
