Mark Oliver wrote:
The current accepted theory of a black hole is NOT consistent with current
accepted physics. Here are the problems;

1) All accepted calculations of gravitational pull are based upon mass and
the distance between two objects. It is not based upon the density or
dimensions of the same "singular" mass. Thus, when a quasar collapses it is
still the same amount of mass, only denser (smaller dimensions). Then why
would we assume that its gravitational pull will change, when its mass does
not change?

It is not assumed that its gravitational pull will change. But, if a black hole
is the power source for quasars, that black hole will be smaller than the mass
distribution that led to its formation. This means one can get much closer to
the mass concentration than in that extended state, reaching regions around the
mass concentration where the pull would be greater (of course, if one uses
terminology from relativity, one would not speak of pulls but a steeper gradient
of space-time, with the result being the same)


2) A black hole would be a self-feeding energy force, and grow at such a
fast rate, it would swallow the entire Universe at an accelerated rate.

The size of a black hole is linked to its mass. It can only grow if it is fed,
but at great distances from it, the gravitational influence it has on distant
objects is no different than the equivalent in its original mass distribution.
So things far away from it would not be pulled toward it to feed it any more
than they would have been pulled toward it when it was not a black hole. Black
holes are not vacuum cleaners, but a redistribution of preexisting mass.