If you look back at my first submission on this topic in this forum, you'll see that I really was only describing my amazement when I accidentally learned from a netnews moderator that my conclusion that there was no interior of a black hole was the same as Dirac's in his 1962 paper (which I hadn't seen up until that time).

As several of us have pointed out, Dirac did not claim in 1962 (or any other year, as far as I'm aware) that there is no interior of a black hole.

The quote you have been referring to merely expresses Dirac's view (at that time) that nothing inside the event horizon can affect the universe outside the event horizon; therefore, any events that occur inside the event horizon are irrelevant to the physics of the external universe. That's all Dirac is saying, there. He clearly did not share your view then, or later. You have been provided with references that explicitly refute your interpretation. Can you not see that?

I still think the bizarre reversal of the roles of the time and spatial variables ("r" and "t") in Swarzchild's results for the r < 1 region is absurd.

It's a derived result from general relativity. It doesn't matter what you think of it, unless you can find some error in the derivation or in the theory of relativity itself.

And as to the criticism these days for Swarzchild's choice of those coordinates, I think the fact that he chose the r > 1 coordinates to agree with what things look like to us here on Earth was a good choice.

He chose the coordinate r because it matches the common-sense notion of a radial coordinate in the "external" region (r>1) of the black hole. The value r=1 for the event horizon is simply achoice of scaling of the r spatial coordinate, which is a measure of distance. Literally, in this case, we measure the distance from the centre of the hole to the event horizon to be equal to 1 "event horizon distance", and measure all other r values in units of the "event horizon distance".

In the quote from Dirac that was provided by foghorn, above, you will see that the event horizon is not at r=1, but at r=2m. In that case, the 'm' designates the mass of the black hole. Clearly, though, a radial distance cannot be equated with a mass, so what's going on here? The answer is again that the units are scaled; in this case some factors of $$c$$, the speed of light, are implied, along with the universal gravitational constant, G. It is quite common in the relativity literature to choose distance and/or time units such that the speed of light has numerical value c=1; that is what has been done here, in effect. For instance, if we choose to measure distances in light years and time in years, then the speed of light is 1 light year per year, or c=1. Similarly, we can choose mass units such that G=1. Then, from General Relativity, we find that the event horizon distance for a black hole is r=2m. A different choice of mass units gives r=1, as previously discussed.

I'm also a little suspicious that the new coordinates from the point of view of an infalling person through the event horizon might be a desired solution in search of a problem.

The interior solution from GR is what it is. Again, if you want to refute that, you'll need to find a flaw in the derivation, or a flaw in GR itself.

The interpretation of the solution follows from the maths, essentially.

Schwarzschild gave equations for two regions: r > 1 , and r < 1. I don't believe the term "black hole" existed then, but according to Dirac, the black hole doesn't include the region r < 1.

Dirac says the opposite in the quote provided by foghorn, above. He calls the r<1 region the black hole. Everything at r>1 is not the black hole.

Therefore Dirac said that there is NOTHING in our universe inside the event horizon of a black hole.

He meant that nothing inside the event horizon can affect our universe. The converse does not apply, however. There's no reason why our outside universe cannot affect the inside of a black hole. Moreover, observationally, it does just that.

And in his statement that you quoted, he was really just saying that the only thing we can observe is the region r > 1.

From the outside, yes.

We can't see the event horizon (at r = 1), and we obviously can't see anything beyond the event horizon (r < 1), since anything in that range of r is NOT in our universe.

He didn't say that. His point is only that nothing at r<=1 can send any kind of information out to r>1. But, again, the converse is not true. Clearly, information can be sent

*into* a black hole from outside.