On Jul 24, 10:55 am, Chalky wrote:
This is more logical, since it gives increasing temperature (and
intensity) with increasing mass. According to you, this relationship
is inverted.

[Mod. note: I think you'll find that R is a function of M. Indeed, the
web page says

`Bigger black holes are colder and dimmer: the Hawking temperature
is inversely proportional to the mass'

Thanks for pointing this out. (That had escaped my attention.) I have
attermpted to emphasise several times within the current discussion
subject, that I am on something of a fishing expedition here, in an
area I do not completely understand. I am not, as Phillip claims,
attempting to present a completed thesis. If I were, I would stick to
the areas I do understand, and the areas where I have incontrovertible
evidence that this understanding predicts reality more accurately and
elegantly than established theory does. (And, to be perfectly honest,
if that were the case, I would not be presenting such a thesis here.)

Having said that, since I love to throw spanners into the works to see
what happens,
I would also like to respond speculatively thus:

If I am correct in concluding that EFE is not quite the full shilling,
as indicated by its prediction of singularities (a point first made by
Einstein), then its predictions are going to be progressively more
unreliable as one gets progressively closer to the singularity. In
this context, I would be tempted to argue that a more massive black
hole OR wormhole, would not necessarily have a larger radius.

Chalky


[Mod. note: quoted text trimmed. Please remember the speculativeness
criterion for s.a.r. in followups along these lines -- mjh]