The Difference Between Einstein's Theory of General Relativity and My Theory

First, First, in my theory, space is only mathematically curved*. In my theory, masses change the relative scales of space. Thus, space seen from a distant point of view can be mathematicallyassigned an internal curvature. Physically, space only changes scales viewed from a distance.** Total ether freedom applies. Points have no properties other than the fundamental constants, and local scales are the same. Locally, therefore, the speed of light always and everywhere has the known numerical value. Let T=M•G/c˛, R radius. The "snow globe potential" 1/(1+T/R)˛ – the change in the relative speed of light from the point where the potential energy is set to zero – differs only slightly from the Schwarzschild potential 1-2T/R for ordinary stars. However, there is no singularity at the event horizon.
Second, I define a black hole differently. Einstein's definition is based on the Schwarzschild radius. At the surface, the Schwarzschild metric has a singularity; only Hawking radiation can leave the black hole.
My event horizon exists when the gravity at the surface is so strong that light is bent in a circle around the star. A comet has a hyperbolic or elliptical orbit relative to a star. Light that only assumes one speed (coming from a hyperbolic orbit) can at most deflect into a circular or spiral orbit. This radius depends on the mass of the star. Indeed, the larger the radius, the easier it is to bend light. If the radius is large enough, a weak central gravity is sufficient to bend light into a circle. However, weak gravity does not require a singularity in the potential. Nevertheless, every unpowered object disappears behind this event horizon because with light, the momentum per total energy reaches a maximum value.*** In my theory, however, everything must be mortal (except stupidity), even a black hole. The matter in the black hole has lost a great deal of potential energy. However, it can still build up Fermi pressure. In an elastic interaction between two masses, the lighter object generally receives the greater energy. The reason for this is the principle of momentum. Thus, it is expected that only small particles, such as protons, neutrons, and leptons, will leave the black hole again. To generate light, accelerated electrical charge is necessary. In the sun, it is plasma. But plasma has rest mass. If at all, it is only present deep within the black hole. The black hole would have to be largely dark, not to mention the redshift.
My guess:
A black hole is a neutron star so massive that light is deflected around the outside. This makes the neutron star almost invisible. Smaller black holes, then, cannot exist. In my opinion, potential energy has nothing to do with rest mass. It ends at a certain Fermi pressure. If you want to further compress this mass, you have to add energy. However, this creates mesons, which increase the number of particles, and this only results in stronger counterpressure. Decaying mesons might then give the baryons the necessary momentum to catapult them out of the black hole. Hawking radiation is thus superfluous, but not Hawking's idea that virtual particles become real particles under these conditions.
There is no gravitational collapse in my theory.
Important:
This theory has nothing to do with "Euclidean or flat spacetime." Since a tangent space has the same dimension as a manifold, it is possible to treat such a space mathematically as curved space. However, since there is no ether, the point property of "curvature" also does not exist.
*Since the light path—the integral over the inverse of the scale reduction—is longer than the radius, it is useful to visualize it by placing it in a curved space.
**Space curvature
***Derived from Einstein-Dirac's energy-momentum relationship, or c˛p/E_total = v and v (=velocity) is at most c. Here, the momentum is chosen perpendicular to the radius. If an object doesn't emerge from the star without propulsion, there is always a point in time where this is the case, or it falls directly into the star.
Note: Scientists of Schwarzschild theory also refer to this layer as the photosphere. However, if the accretion disk were located below it, this would lead to a contradiction, because at this point, all matter with rest energy would have to fall into the black hole.

Ludwig Resch