You are right Tashja, this was a clear and straight forward description. In fact I believe that the way przyk approached the question, emphasizes the conceptual divide I have been trying to point out. If you approach GR as a mathematician, solutions emerge that predict a variety of things. Some seem to be supported by observation and others remain closer to mathematical science fictions.., at least at present. Which does not mean there is no value, in attempting to understand those results which seem to be mathematical science fictions. After all black holes once fell into that catagory. Over the last 8 to 10 years I have been trying to get a grasp on gravitation and inertia, from the context of QM. Some of the things that emerge from solutions to EFE seem to me to represent road blocks to any successful quantum theory of gravity. The singularity is one and the way spacetime is believed to behave at the event horizon is another, though the singularity is by far the more extreme problem, because it represents, in essence a sink hole where the mass required for a QTG to be successful, just disappears. Yes, I favor przyk's 1st variant as more likely representing reality. But I reject the mathematical conclusion that the collapsing mass just disappears, in a singularity. My referencing a singularity as essentially a point mass is really a statement that the mass cannot just disappear! And I believe I have said more than once that you cannot actually characterize a singularity as having any physical charateristics, including mass. To the issue of mass being the source of the gravitational field even in GR, My assertion that mass is involved is supported not only by the vast majority of what we observe, in that at the centers of all gravitational fields we can observe with any certainty, the exists a planet, star, even a galaxy or some other massive object. The exception being black holes where we cannot observe anything inside the event horizon. However, the following portions of przyk's comments, support the existence of a central mass even in the case of black holes. In that first section he points out that, Tμν is a quantity called the "stress-energy tensor", whose components include local energy density (including but not limited to mass) and momentum. If you remove mass from consideratation, what else is there that physically contributes to local energy density? If you remove contributions by mass/matter from the equations, what other than perhaps photons is there to consider as energy? And the momentum associated with a photon is not even certain other than as it interacts with an atom. And then later when he describes the first of his two variants he adds, 1) Black holes formed by gravitational collapse of matter (e.g. a star that collapsed into a black hole). In this case you can simply imagine you're feeling the gravitational field produced by the collapsing matter at some point in the past just before it passed through the event horizon, which is only reaching you now. As I said, I favor this 1st variant, and contend that if a black hole originates with the colapse of a massive onject, while that mass may retreat beyond an event horizon where it is no longer observable, it does not seem reasonable to assume that it disappears in a singularity. As far the existence of mathematical singularities are concerned, I agree with Prof Wiltshire, from one of Tashja's earlier posts, but where he was speaking specifically about the Kerr ring singularity, I would include all mathematical singularities. Without this last assertion, it would seem to me that there can be no possibility of developing a quantum theory of graviation.