The currently accepted construction of black hole theory is one arrived at by general relativity and quantum theory.  The features and behavior predicted are as follows.  A black hole is the result of the collapse of a large stellar object where the mass becomes so concentrated that  the forces of temperature, electromagnetism and the atomic nucleus are overcome by gravity.  The object that remains is veiled within an event horizon that is located at the radius where an object traveling at the speed of light will just stay in orbit.  Light, radio signals and high energy particles outside the event horizon can escape into other regions of the universe.  Anything inside the event horizon can never escape but remains forever trapped within the black hole.  Space near the event horizon is highly curved.  In this region energy densities are high, allowing for the spontaneous creation of particles and antiparticle pairs.  Sometimes when these pairs form, one of them escapes out of the event horizon while the other falls in before they can rejoin and eliminate each other.  This allows for a certain amount of matter and radiation to escape from a black hole.  The result is seen as black body radiation that will allow a black hole to "evaporate" over a very long period of time.  Another aspect of the space-time curvature at the event horizon is that an object observed falling into the black hole is never actually seen to pass within but instead becomes spread out and frozen in time at the event horizon.  This effect is due to time dilation and spatial contraction that arises from relativity theory.  Once inside the event horizon matter is predicted to collapse into a singularity of infinite density at the center.  This in short covers the subject.

I would like to offer some practical observations and implications of the fluid space model.  The construction above and the fluid inflow model are completely consistent up to the event horizon.  The curvature of space-time predicted and black body radiation are essentially the same, only the path of reason followed to get there is different.  The predicted behavior of objects falling into the event horizon is also the same in that they become spread out and frozen in time.

Proponents of the model described above will agree that anything that "passes within" the event horizon of a black hole will never be seen in our universe again.  Also any signal that is sent from an explorer or a probe that has "passed within" a black hole will never get out.  In short, there is no hope of ever observing the inside of a black hole without actually going there.  Any attempt to imagine the fate of an object inside a black hole will therefore never be able to be proven to those who remain outside.  With no disrespect for theories about the insides of a black hole, I would submit my "pink hippo" theory.  As matter passes the event horizon it is transformed into pink hippos wearing tutus and toe shoes that dance their way to the center in an endless ballet.  However ludicrous this sounds, no one will ever be able to disprove it (unless they go into a black hole and then they will never be able to tell about it).  If someone were to bet on this, the only way to settle the bet would be for both parties to jump into a black hole together!

When it comes to objects passing within the event horizon of a black hole, I refer back to my first postulate of space time.  If an object cannot be observed directly or indirectly and has no effect on anything that can be observed then it's existence cannot be substantiated.  Thus if a thing can not be observed within the event horizon and it can have no effect outside the event horizon, then it can not be said to exist.  The argument I would make is that if space-time objects are observed to spread out and linger on the event horizon for all time, then that is what they do.  For all practical purposes for observers outside the event horizon, the effect is that all matter/energy remains at or above the event horizon.  Many would say "Ahh! but the matter inside a black hole still produces the effect of gravity that can be observed!"  I would respond by asking; "Is this gravitational effect truly projected from inside the event horizon or is it the lingering effect of the matter that is observed lingering on the event horizon?"  This would also apply to charge and angular momentum.  Many theorists will recoil at the notion of a discontinuity or void in space-time that cannot be penetrated or described in any way.  They will say, we can draw graphs and write equations that go to the center of a black hole, can't these give us clues and insights into what is happening there?  I would say, what's the use, and direct them to the pink hippo theory.

In the fluid space model, the event horizon represents a barrier that space-time-energy objects cannot pass.  This barrier represents the end of space-time and encloses a region that we cannot describe other than to point to it and say that it is not space-time.  This means that the total mass/energy of a black hole would exist within the gravitational field that begins at the event horizon and continues out to infinity.  The energy/mass would be most concentrated near the event horizon.  There should then be a relationship between the mass of a black hole and the surface area of the event horizon.  Any rotational or vibrational energy above the mass would increase the surface area.  Matter falling into the black hole would have to increase the surface area.  In order to do this, the diameter would have to increase by some small amount.  Increasing the diameter would have the effect of raising the surface, this would require work.  The amount of work required to raise the surface would have to be equal to the energy content of the matter that had fallen in.

I take a WYSIWYG (what you see is what you've got) approach to black holes in that if you view them from the outside the effect that they can have on the outside world must be consistent with observation.  This puts me in the camp of classical general relativity.  Lets take a simple case of a non rotating black hole in a region of "empty" space.  In this thought experiment, there is a cleverly designed platform that remains at a fixed distance from the black hole without having to orbit.  From this platform one may drop test objects into the black hole and have a clear view as they fall directly toward the event horizon.  One might also lower an object into the black hole on a very long cable.  Another observation post is positioned at a great distance so that an observer on the first platform measures a 90 degree angle between the center of the black hole and this other observer.

Before going on, a discussion on the "size" of a black hole is in order.  Space is highly curved near the event horizon of a black hole (to most people saying this has little meaning).  specifically space becomes quite compressed in the radial direction as the event horizon is approached.  Along with this radial compression there is a proportional time dilation, the more space is compressed in the radial direction the slower time passes within that space as viewed by an outside observer (it is called time dilation because seconds there are larger than the seconds of an outside observer).  To speak of radial dimensions near the event horizon can become confusing if it is not stated who's yardstick is being used.  Suppose someone at the distant observation post computes the distance between the platform and the event horizon of the black hole from the optical angle between them.  An experimenter on the platform then lowers a test probe on a cable of that length.  To his surprise the probe does not reach the black hole.  He then reels out an additional length of cable equal to the first length.  Once again the probe would hang above the black hole.  In fact there is no length of cable he could reel out and reach the event horizon.  As long as the cable does not snap the probe will hang above the event horizon even though the cable is many times longer than the distance between the platform and the black hole as seen by the distant observer .  This is what is meant by curved space or spatial compression.  A unit of length in the radial direction appears shorter and shorter until it goes to zero at the event horizon.  This in effect gives a black hole a vast internal volume, perhaps infinite, it is truly the proverbial bottomless pit.  You can't measure the size of a black hole by poking it with a stick.

One might try to measure its size optically from a distance by measuring its visual diameter, light however curves as it passes near the event horizon so even this would be questionable.  A black hole would appear as a dark circular disk if viewed through a telescope.  It would be an unusual sight however because it would not obscure celestial objects behind it.  It would rather appear as a hole or distortion is space that has pushed aside other objects.  Suppose a scientist on the platform directs a laser beam toward the black hole.  He begins by shining the laser past the black hole and slowly sweeps it toward the event horizon until he detects the beam shining back from the opposite limb of the object.  I this instance the laser beam would be bent around the event horizon making its closest approach on the far side and returning to its point of origin. If the beam is swept any closer the light will be bent more and not return, perhaps making several circuits of the object before escaping in some other direction or making an unlimited number of circuits by going into orbit.  The returning beam might actually appear as a line of dots, each one corresponding to the number of times the beam has gone around the object.  A measurement of the convergence of the original beam and the returning beam would allow a computation of its visual size.  This size would have to be larger than the object itself however because the beam must have remained above the event horizon.  In addition the fact that the laser beam curved on its way to and from the object would also tend to increase the visual size.  We can therefore say with confidence that black holes will appear to be bigger than they really are.

It is interesting that being lowered by a cable into a black hole would be visually similar to being accelerated to the speed of light in open space.  As one nears the black hole, objects on the other side are visible as if they have been stretched into a ring around the massive body.  Inside this ring, nothing would be visible except the black body radiation of the object.  The visual diameter of the black hole will increase with proximity until at some point it will take up half of the sky and the observer will be able to see himself stretched into a ring along the horizon.  The other half of the sky will contain all of the visible objects of the full sky outside of the black hole.  Descending further, the outside universe will begin to appear as a ball of stars that shrinks until it is seen as a single point of light directly overhead.  Unfortunately someone actually experiencing this might not survive long enough to see it all.  How could this be similar to traveling at the speed of light in open space?  The similarity is caused by the effect of stellar aberration that shifts the visual location of stars in the direction of motion..  As velocity increases the effect increases as well and at some point even stars directly behind will be shifted to the point that they appear at 90 degrees to the direction of motion or even ahead.  Directly behind will be a region from which few light signals are received.  It will appear as if a hole in space has opened up behind the traveler.  Accelerating further, the universe will appear as a ball of stars directly ahead that reduces to a single point of light as the speed of light is approached.

How could a black hole be accurately measured?  If a series of objects were placed into circular orbits of decreasing circumference around the black hole, it would be possible to measure the period and velocity of these objects.  Observations of these satellites could be used to verify the curvature of space predicted and to refine the estimates of the mass of the black hole.  As the event horizon is approached the orbital velocities would become relativistic.  At some point the orbital velocity would reach the speed of light.  It would become increasingly difficult to track such satellites as they whirl around the event horizon many hundreds or even thousands of times each second.  A wide distribution of satellites would be the best means to determine the size of an event horizon, the final circumference would still have to be extrapolated mathematically.

Back to our thought experiment, what will it look like to drop something into a black hole?  Lets say that we are dropping something the size of a baseball into a black hole of over a kilometer in diameter, not a grand piano into a black hole the size of a pea.  An object allowed to fall directly into a black hole from the platform will accelerate away from the point of release and having no lateral velocity it will not go into orbit.  Initially this acceleration may be predicted according to the inverse square law of Newton.  As its velocity increases relative to the point of release it will begin to behave according to the equations of general relativity.  What will be observed is that any light or radio signal from the object will begin to slow due to time dilation, it will take on a progressively greater "red shift".  A radar signal emitted from the platform and bounced off the object will take longer and longer to return, it will also show an increasing Doppler shift that is related to the velocity of the falling object.  If one had instruments with sufficient sensitivity, theoretically one could keep track of a dropped object for all time.  To an outside observer, the object would appear to become mashed flat as it entered the region of compressed space, it would also appear to become frozen it time as well.

The experience of the object itself would be somewhat different.  None of the effects of spatial contraction or time dilation would be noticed by an observer riding on the falling object.  The disk of the black hole would grow larger and the outer universe would shrink to a point of light overhead as described above.  In this region, the object would be floating in a long narrow corridor of space.  That is one could be free to move an infinite distance in the up and down direction (toward or away from the black hole) but one could travel only a finite distance forward or back before returning to one's starting point.  This distance would have a minimum limit that would be the circumference of the black hole's event horizon.  If the black hole were large enough it might seem quite spacious inside and an object could maintain its integrity for some time.  (A very large black hole at the center of the galaxy might even swallow up whole stars intact!)  It would be a bit like falling down Alice's rabbit hole, one might see various other objects that had fallen in floating about.  Signals would still arrive from the outside universe but they would be of increasingly higher frequency.  This would become a problem for our observer since even the weakest radar signal sent from the platform would eventually feel like intense gamma radiation.  In this environment eventually everything would be reduced to a soup of fundamental particles.

What if something big falls into a small black hole?  An object larger than a black hole that it is approaching will have to be broken down before pieces of it would be able to fall in.  The outcome would depend on the relative velocity of the two objects.  If a black hole the size of a pea crossed the path of a grand piano at half the speed of light, there might be a puff of smoke and a small hole left bored in the piano.  The black hole would hardly even notice the event.  If the two objects are brought together at a lower velocity there might be a lot of noise and light generated as the piano is broken down into pieces small enough to be consumed by the black hole.  It seems that there might be a law in here somewhere.  "In order to enter a black hole an object must be smaller than the black hole."  In our macro world this means that things get broken down into smaller pieces but in the world of fundamental particles there would be no smaller pieces and this law would take on more significance.

One of the most compelling aspects of the fluid space theory is that it has general relativity, uncertainty and quantum behavior built into it.  If fundamental particles are seen as little inflow fields, the four fundamental forces might all be related.  The general relativity aspects of the theory predict that every inflow field will cause gravitation and have a surface at some minimum radius.  The size of the minimum radius would depend on the amount of energy in the flow field.  Inside this surface will be a discontinuity of space-time.  The position of this surface will however depend on the relative velocity of the outside observer giving it an amount of uncertainty.   Considering that the surface would have wave like properties there would be a minimum size at which the circumference will equal one wave length.  This would then require that the size of the discontinuities come in quanta or multiples of the minimum allowed size.  The discontinuities could come in various diameters and lengths even in rings or loops.  When two of these inflow particles interact at long range they exchange a portion of their flow fields.  This is similar to the photon exchange concept of quantum theory.  When two inflow particles interact at close range a much larger amount of flow field is exchanged.  When the amount of flow field being exchanged is large enough it will give rise to a spatial discontinuity similar to the inflow fields themselves, this one will however be unstable and depend on the two or more stable flow fields nearby to create circumstances that allow its existence.  This is similar to the particle exchange concept of quantum theory.

One might ask what keeps these minimum flow fields from merging?  What is it that allows protons and neutrons in an atomic nucleus to maintain their identity?  If two flow fields of equivalent size interact very closely it would be like a black hole trying to swallow an object bigger than its event horizon, an object that cannot be broken down into smaller bites.  For fundamental particles this would mean that merging results in a much higher energy state.  Tiny black holes would therefore decay rapidly back to their original state as predicted by current theory.  Fundamental particles formed by flow fields cannot jump down each others throats.

This raises questions about how large black holes come into existence.  If fundamental particles can't merge to form black holes then where do black holes come from?  The answer must lie in what happens when a star collapses.  For a star, the first line of support against gravity is thermal energy, as long as it has enough hydrogen to burn it can exist as a normal star.  Within a star in this phase, the form of matter is similar to what we are familiar with here on Earth.  There are atomic nuclei that we could place on the periodic table.  Temperatures are so high however that few chemical compounds if any will be found.  Most atoms will be highly ionized or totally stripped of electrons. The reactions that take place are nuclear rather than chemical.  Once the fuel for this thermal energy is consumed the star will have to fall back on electromagnetic forces for support.  If the star is not too large the repulsive forces of electrical charges within the particles will hold it up, a white dwarf will result.  If it is too large it will have to rely on nuclear forces between the particles to hold it up and a pulsar/neutron star will result.

When a dying or exploding star collapses into a neutron star it must do so from the inside out.  Only at the core will pressures be high enough to overcome the repulsive component of the strong interaction and allow the star to begin to form into what is in essence a single giant atomic nucleus.  A star in this phase will already contain of many of the heavy elements from low in the periodic table and possibly many that are off the table and exist only in this environment of high temperature and pressure.  Once these nuclei begin to snap together, ones from further out rush in to fill the void and the density of the core increases speeding up the process until in a cascading collapse, the neutron star is formed.   The transformation from neutron star to black hole will follow a similar process.

It is interesting that the life cycle of stars reveal the many levels of material existence.  The initial dust and gas cloud exists in molecular form and the various elements are able to form compounds.  When drawn together by gravity, heat and pressure break down the molecular existence and reveal the atomic nature of matter and a star is born.  Inside the star, nuclear reactions (interactions between atomic nuclei) take place rather than chemical reactions.  After collapse into a neutron star the next level is revealed and the reactions that take place are those between the particles that make up atomic nuclei, neutrons, protons and the exchange particles.  If the next step in stellar collapse is a black hole, this might be an indication that fundamental particles lie just below the level of the neutron.  Perhaps there is such a thing as a "quark star" that would represent an intermediate step between neutron star and black hole.  At any rate a black hole must represent the final state of collapse.  This means that as we peel the onion of matter we can get to its core and we might be very close to finding fundamental particles.

A neutron star must also collapse from inside outward for several reasons.  First of all, if matter is assumed to be evenly distributed within the core and an event horizon forms around this matter this would violate the  premise that matter cannot cross the time space barrier of general relativity and fluid space theory.  Second it would represent the merging of individual neutrons or smaller fundamental particles that can't swallow each other for reasons described above.   Below is a collapse scenario for neutron stars that is consistent with general relativity, fluid space and quantum theory.

Within a neutron star vast amounts of energy and matter are packed in a very small space.  Neutrons are however presumably free to move about as they are in an atomic nucleus.  Neutron stars are also very hot but it is difficult to assign them a temperature in the conventional sense of the word.  A temperature can be assigned on the basis of black body thermal emissions.  As the neutrons move about and interact with each other they could give rise to quite massive exchange particles that would be associated with large numbers of individual neutrons.  These massive exchange particles would be equivalent to tiny black holes.  They would decay or radiate according to black body thermal radiation predicted for black holes.  There would then be a critical size for these mini black holes within a neutron star, if the black hole radiates at a higher temperature than the neutron star it will decay and such black holes could wink in and out of existence without prompting collapse of the neutron star.  If one of these black holes attains enough mass such that it radiates at a temperature less than the neutron star it will become stable and be able to grow.  As it grows it will radiate at lower and lower temperatures and the process will gain speed until the collapse becomes quite rapid.  The growth of a massive exchange particle above the critical size could then allow it to begin to swallow up neutrons.  The event horizon would then expand from inside the core of the star outward as matter falls into this new arrangement of space-time.

The collapse of neutron stars would then occur on the basis of probability of the formation of an exchange particle above the critical mass.  This would mean that a population of neutron stars of the same mass would have a half life that could be predicted.  Many neutron stars are rotating very rapidly.  They could be held up by this rotation and as they loose angular momentum conditions for collapse would improve.  Such stars might not collapse all at once but form a black hole in the center that would be surrounded by a ring of orbiting matter that is gradually drawn in to the event horizon.