A "red herring" is a debating tactic that seeks to divert an opponent From wiki: 'A "red herring" is a debating tactic that seeks to divert an opponent. A digression can, similarly, be a verbal tactic of diversion, but has no place in a serious debate; and the diversion of digression may also be in play' And I must add: The wormhole(wormH) has been called a "red herring" by DaveC and I agree; as it is a diversion from the "normal" concerns of blackhole(BH) speculations. So, I must also say that "red herrings" attract "red herrings". Fact of life. Thirty days ago I favored dismissal of the "Stargate" bridge; but after reading wiki's and their links, I'm not so sure anymore. Instant, horizon to horizon flow through a wormH has an obvious symmetry, so what might be conserved?...Input and output entropies are what might be conserved. And the only way to effectively conserve entropy is not to damage the traveler in ANY way. Weightless free-fall is an extremely non-invasive choice of mechanism and I have chosen this mode as a way for any particle to cross the BH horizon. I've got problems with discarding the singularity in favor of a wormH, but my intuitive approach allows me to disregard that for now, and I've never taken the "singularity" seriously, anyway. I don't like Hawking radiation(HR) either. IE, HR is advertised as coming from the inside of the BH horizon, but there is reason to conclude that the pair-production is on our side of the BH horizon and is just another example of unstable orbits outside (but near) the horizon; our side.