The Crother's thread obviously needs a new home, as the OP of this thread doesn't want it hijacked to discuss Crother's issues. I'm not sure how much longer the discussion is gonig to go on, but as a courtesy to the OP, I'll just move further discussion here, to avoid hijacking his thread. I really don't see the point in rehashing Schwarzschild's derivation. One can directly calculate whether or not a metric satisfies Einstein's field equations. If there's a problem with the derivation, it should show up as a problem with the solution. The Schwarzschild metric satisfies the EFE's but it contains some coordinate singularites. The significance of these singularities is not particularly clear, until they are removed by use of a different coordinate system - the Kruskal extension. No convincing "flaw" of the Kruskal extension has been demonstrated, only promises to "reveal it later". One can confirm via direct calculation that the metric resulting from the Kruskal extension satisfies Einstein's field equations - so that isn't the flaw. An important issue that has perhaps not been fully addressed is the completness of the solution. Imagine a 4-d space-time, with a standard x,y,z,t cartesian coordinate system. But imagine that one refuses to label any part of the space time with x<=0 with a coordiante, i.e. one insists that x > 0. This will be an incomplete description of the geometry of the space-time, ecause portions of the geometry exist that do not have coordinates. The symptoms of this incompleteness will be geodesics that suddenly "stop" for no particularly good reason. The Kruskal extension not only solve's EFE's, but it is as complete as possible. This is an important property that the non-extended solutions do not have. The Abrams paper, in particular, seems to advocate an incomplete solution of this kind, where geodesics suddenly "stop" at the event horizon. The geodesics suddenly "stop" because the allowable domain of a particular variable, r, has been arbitrarily limited. It appears that these incomplete solutions are being touted as "new and improved" solutions (even as "different" solutions) - when they are really just truncated versions of the Kruskal solution.