Then you dispute the validity of GR metric values I gave as applying to particular cases? If not, what else GR-wise is relevant or needed to uncover the paradoxical conclusions?No, it isn't. That math isn't expressed in GR terminology.

You missed that the derivation contradicts that given by GR! But yes it is simple and can be done on paper. What I meant was, you would evidently insist one must labour away by setting up boundary and initial value conditions for the entire system - mass plus dipole say, and then try and solve that coupled system exactly via EFE's. I suggest a hopeless task and what's more a needless one. It can all be done on a semi-qualitative basis - just by looking at what is and isn't consistent if following basics of RN solution. Namely, that charge is supposedly unaffected by gravitational potential. Look at what that predicts in cases I gave.I don't see how that's relevant? Many of the GR derivations can be done on paper; see for example that PDF you linked to.

Where did you get that idea from? Certainly not from a careful reading of what I have consistently presented here. See, the basic idea is to work within GR paradigm, and by doing so, uncover it's inconsistencies. Further, re RN type situation, the assumed charge invariance wrt gravity is something afaik generically adopted even by rival gravity theories. We don't really need to dispute exact correctness of redshift expression GR vs say Yilmaz gravity - it's good enough to use GR approximation - particularly in weak field situation where differences are negligible.Yes indeed, so you agree that GR is valid? (Seeing that that's the only theory mentioned in this thread that can explain it.)

We have gotten to split the discussion from initial dispute over whether charge invariance logically holds in gravitational setting, into one over whether GR metric even for uncharged matter source is logically correct. Let's get back to just the RN/charge invariance issue.

The challenge remains - point out specifically where I have made any incorrect assumptions that would invalidate conclusions.Well, I'll have to dive into GR for details, but my guess would be that, since (almost) nothing is expressed in GR maths, it's some surprising feature of GR somewhere.

Existence of both EH and singularity are generic features within GR and independent of choice of metric. Surely you know that. And as per that Appendix A - a pathology as consequence of adopting a truncated approximation for gravitational redshift. Correct expression inevitably yields the exponential Yilmaz metric. No weirdness to worry about there. Like I said, this is a fork from main argument over RN/charge invariance issue.The choice of metric is critical in GR. For example, the Schwarzschild metric has a singularity (which is physically weird), but the Minkowski metric has no such problems. Many of the "absurdities" in GR come from the choice of metric, not from GR itself.

There are any number that do just that. I could point to many postings of GR buffs at PhysicsForums stating such but not much point in doing so.I know of no "GR gate-keepers" claiming this, and I agree with you that anybody who really claims this is not worth their salt in GR.

On the face of it that line contradicts what you admit in the previous one. I guess it's so ingrained that proper time of infaller is all that matters.Except for the infaller. Are you claiming the perspective of the infaller somehow becomes wrong as it crosses the event horizon?

Once again; coordinate speed of light c is zero at EH. Infaller never even gets to let alone passes through EH in finite coordinate time. And once again, this is a distracting fork off of RN/charge invariance issue.