Dear Dr. Klingman,
Thank you very much for your kind and generous comments. Given how radical my proposals are, praise is rare, and your comments are without doubt, the most insightful praise I've ever received.
A few more specific responses:
According to standard physics and cosmology, cosmic largeness and gravitational weakness (smallness of Newton's constant) do not necessarily go with each other. Near the alleged birth of the Universe the cosmic scale factor was of essentially zero size (initial singularity). Furthermore, in standard cosmology the ratio always changes, as chunks of matter grow ever more remote from one another.
Whereas in the ("Rotonian") Space Generation Model, the size and strength remain proportional because they reflect a state of saturation, analogous to the conditions inside atomic nuclei, whose densities are constant due to saturation of forces.
One of my key points is that absence of tests of the interior solution is not at all a matter "of course." Schwarzschild's interior solution predicts that the rates of clocks decrease to a central minimum. This clock rate prediction corresponds directly to the kinematic prediction that a test object will oscillate through the center. The arguably more intuitive expectation that clock rates should increase to a central maximum (by symmetry) corresponds, kinematically, to the test object never passing the center. The kinematic prediction is quite testable, so of course it should be tested.
A possible point of confusion may be that the interior solution referred to here has nothing to do with the Schwarzschild radius---which is the limiting horizon of the Schwarzschild exterior solution. If one accepts the general relativists' practice of allowing division by zero, then one becomes susceptible to believe that, within this horizon, space turns to time, time turns to space, and matter disappears (or becomes infinitely dense) at the center. As Kip Thorne explains:
"The atoms of which a star is made are destroyed at the center of a black hole... The matter is gone, but the mass, in the sense of mass and energy being equivalent, has gone into the warped space-time of the black hole." [link:www.space.com/17086-bizarre-black-holes-kip-thorne-interview.html]
Prior to the repurposing of physics to an entertainment industry, holdout physicists like Peter G. Bergmann (once assistant to Einstein) could be found objecting:
"A theory that involves singularities and involves them unavoidably, moreover, carries within itself the seeds of its own destruction." [Some Strangeness in the Proportion (Addison-Wesley, 1980) p. 156.]
Perhaps other holdouts still exist out there somewhere.
I persist in my endeavor to generate interest in performing the experiment that Galileo proposed in 1632, not only because it has not yet been done, not only because I predict a revolutionary result, but because I am an optimist about humanity. You have validated this optimism with your supportive comments.
Now all that remains is to connect with someone who not only sees the sensibleness of living up to the Galilean ideals of empirical science, but who has access to the resources needed to see the project through to its completion. I now feel all the more optimistic that this connection will someday take place. The experiment will someday be carried out.
Thanks again to FQXi for facilitating this outreach.
