A. See my questions below. First, here is some information from the book “Black Holes and Time Warps” by Kip Thorne. So far this is the best reference book I can find on the original thinking of black holes. 1. Pg 122 Very compact stars were theorized to occur way back in 1783 by John Michell on the basis that light was a particle and there would be an escape velocity. 2. Pg 123 Pierre Laplace also supported the idea of dark stars in the second 1799 edition of his book Le Systeme du Monde. But in the third printing he deleted reference to it because Thomas Young’s theories that light was a wave had gained in popularity. 3. Pg 124 Karl Schwarzschild revived the idea of the dark star after reviewing Einstein’s theories of relativity. 4. Pg 121 Einstein didn’t believe that black holes existed so the thinking of black holes didn’t come directly from his writing or thoughts. 5. Pg 122 “When a corpuscle of light is launched from such a star (black hole) with the standard light velocity, it will fly upwards at first, then slow to a halt and fall back to the star’s surface”. 6. Pg 131 Light is redshifted basically to infinity trying to leave a black hole. 7. Pg 134 The speed of light is constant trying to leave the black hole. B. I’m interested in the really fundamental thinking that goes into scientists belief that black hole’s can exist. We know that Einstein did not support the idea of black holes while modern scientists do. So black holes were not explicitly written into General Relativity by Einstein. It appears that the whole basis of whether black holes can exist is based on whether light (boson) is affected by gravitationally warped space-time in exactly the same way as matter (fermion). On Pg 124 of “Black Holes and Time Warps” Kip Thorne fast forwards to a conclusion that General Relativity supports black holes but doesn’t go through the analysis of why. It appears that the whole basis of whether black holes can exist is based on whether a boson is more like a ballistic particle similar to a cannonball as opposed to a thing crawling in relation to a background entity. So here are some questions for discussion. 1. Did Einstein assume that light was a type of ballistic particle in his General Relativity theory? I know Einstein did not agree with what is called the ballistic theory of light, but this is the best terminology I can think of. I know he did not believe in a particle based ether that light waves traveled in relation to either. But did he clearly imagine that light would gradually slow down traveling in gravitationally warped space-time in exactly the same way as if a matter particle had been thrown upwards at light speed? 2. Einstein even said that light travels at constant speed while matter does not so didn’t he just say that bosons and fermions didn’t behave in exactly the same way in relation to space-time? 3. Did Einstein ever imagine that light was in some way crawling in relation to space-time rather than a just a ballistic particle? Is there anything in General Relativity that suggests either model? 4. How did modern scientists such as Schwarzschild come to the conclusion that light was basically a ballistic particle? Was it more or less an assumed thinking based on light being a particle or did they spend a lot of time arriving at exactly what kind of thing light was and how it behaved? I can’t really find a reference that suggests Einstein spelled out exactly what light was so scientists couldn’t have simply borrowed Einstein’s ideas on the topic. I know John Michell based his thinking on the Newton corpuscle model of light being affected by gravity. 5. Does Quantum Mechanics and the Standard Model also suggest strongly that light behaves primarily like a ballistic particle in very strong gravitationally warped space-time?