I constantly see mainstream media, and even contemporary physicists, get basic points about the physics of black holes, according to relativity, patently wrong. The following set of points should be a basic starting point for anyone wishing to discuss this in the future:

(1) A gravitational space-time singularity never forms in finite time. It is an asymptotic limit due to time dilation. The singularity is probably only a mathematical abstraction, although current explanations about what space-time is are hopelessly confused so we cannot speak with any confidence on whether an asymptotic limit in time such as this can be obtained.

However, we are saved from our confusion in the case of black holes since, according to current theory, they radiate away in finite time. Thus, the asymptotic limit that obtains a singularity is not possible in this case. Related to this, an object never reaches the event horizon of a black hole. That too is an asymptotic limit. Perhaps what happens is, if a body is in free fall towards an even horizon, by the time it reaches it, the event horizon has completely vanished. This happens quickly from the point of view of the object falling towards the event horizon.

(2) A gravitational event horizon may be simplified to be a function of a mass distribution and a position x such that the escape velocity from the center of mass at some distance r from the the center of mass is strictly greater than the maximum speed c.

In this light, a gravitational event horizon is possible even in a more classical physics, e.g., if we posit that a closed Newtonian system has a total energy E and objects with mass have a minimum mass m_min, then the maximum velocity of any object is given by v_max = sqrt(2 E / m_min). Thus, a system with a center of mass M has a gravitational event horizon with a radius r given by r = G M m_min / E. This classical system has no time dilation nor Lorentz space contraction, only the more intuitive classical physics.

I'm done for now. Next, I will solve the problem of people's hopeless confusion about quantum mechanics. Note: It is mostly about making predications about statistical aggregates and doesn't really commit to the view that wavefunctions are a reality. (If you take the wavefunction seriously as a reality rather than a mathematical device, then I suggest removing extraneous extras not described by the model, such as the collapse of the wavefunction, and posit that the universal wavefunction is the object that exists. In this case, you will believe in at least one type of multiverse, but you will still grapple with issues like relative frequencies to characterize which states a person will more likely find oneself to be in, but that's another topic.)