Oh. I'm not sure what you are Richard, a scientist or whatever (I didn't think Harvard was a great place to get any kind of science degree, but I've never checked out their program so I'm in the dark on that one) but I myself tend to see theoretical physics as a branch of mathematics - not science. Sure, it's got a lot of unproven theories, but there are theories that can be proven without ever being seen.
That's how I see black holes and the shape of the universe. We have never seen the inside of a black hole, nor have we "seen" the edge of the universe. But scientists - and mathematicians - have come a pretty long way because we don't have to see everything to know what it looks like.
I was aware that it is mathematically impossible for a black hole to collapse. In fact, I read a book by a scientist who was absolutely railing on anyone who treated black holes other than a math problem with a solution. So many people seem to see them in such a "what if" sort of way, when in actuality, they are merely mathematical singularities, governed by a set law, with a set outcome. It was an interesting book. And quite user friendly.
I get the same way about the shape of the universe. And I have read that the most likely shape of the universe is the one I described - going off of Relativity, gravity, and the fact that we live in four-dimensional space. The big bang theory also dominates our perception of the universe. Without these theories - and they are just theories, albeit good ones - we wouldn't be able to speculate on stuff like the shape of the universe.
This is turning into an epistle. Bye Harvard guy.


Lysithea