The Pixie Dust Theory of Black Holes

Light has no mass as only massless objects can attain light speed (Einstein interpreted). Therefore light is not subject (directly) to any gravitational influence but appears to be affected as it (light) flows through the warp in space created by an object having mass.

As an object approaches light speed its mass begins to expand exponentially (Einstein) into infinity and, as a result, it never attains 'C' or light speed ('c'eleritas, the Latin word meaning speed).
This conclusion has only been theorized using mathematics. Nevertheless, If we ever hope to attain light speed in a space craft then we need to find the oversight (if any) in Einstein's Theory of General Relativity (i.e. "Time goes slower when you are with your relatives").

The 'apparent mass' (i'll explain the 'apparent part later) of a black hole is so great
that the fabric of space is curved back on to itself and the path of light gets snared by the black hole due to the curvature and warp of space. The escape velocity, it is hypothesized, for leaving a black hole exceeds the speed of light. Einstein established that the speed of light was the speed limit in the unverse so, it seems that, once you enter into the event horizon (threshold) of a black hole there is no escape. (This is the point where everyone holds up a tarp with a bowling ball in it and applies for a grant, end of story...)

Nobody, it seems has answered the question, "Why does the gravity of an object warp space"? I think that I know why... An object warps space because objects do not 'occupy space' they 'displace space' (Displacement Theory of Gravity © ).

The Displacement Theory of Gravity accounts for why a black hole 'warps' space around it. Not only is space warped by black holes but also by every object that has mass. The warp is just more pronounced with a black hole. Even the Earth has an 'event horizon'; that location (distance) in space where an orbiting object begins to fall, more pronouncedly, under the influence of the Earth's gravity.

This leads me to a related and important point regarding the 'event horizon' (threshold) of a Black Hole. The 'zone' called an event horizon is actually (according to the Displacement Theory of Gravity © ) ... IS, in all probability, the relative location where two distinct gravitational fields meet. One gravitational field is beyond (within) the event horizon and the second gravitational field is (begins) just outside of the influence of the event horizon. The reason for this is that the space around (surrounding) an object is stretched by the presence of that object displacing space and the space between objects in space is compressed. Thus there are two gravitational fields:
1) Inside the object's 'event horizon' (eg. the Earth;s surface) and
2) Beyond the 'event horizon' of any close large objects, and to be otherwise subject to the laws of inertial movement and free floating in space. In other words, space is stretched around any object having mass (ANY object) and its resulting gravitational pull is felt most powerfully on the surface of that object; the space between objects is compressed and outside of the event horizon of that object the compressed space produces a gravitational force that is subtly repelling rather than attracting.

Oh yes... back to the 'apparent mass' of a black hole as mentioned above.
If Einstein is correct about an object's mass expanding infinitely as it approaches the speed of light then it seems that a 'Black Hole' (misnomer) could very well be a (relative) 'handful' of matter traveling at (just at) sub-light speed and the 'matter' part has expanded infinitely to create the phenomenon that we call a Black Hole.
If this is the case then nobody ever has to worry about being sucked into a black hole any more than they need to worry about falling into the center of the Earth.

If my Displacement Theory of Gravity� is correct and if a black hole is actually a handful of matter travelling just below light speed (expanded infinitely) then the actual mass of a black hole will be able to be determined by Einstein's "E=MC�" (how trite!!!). One simply divides the energy ("E") radiating from a black hole ("0", nada, none, zip, ain't none, or at best is a mere trickle) by C� to arrive at M or actual stationary mass . So, according to this approach a black hole has no (negligible) stationary mass but only velocity mass. This is because a black hole is composed of particles of matter that are being swept along by light and the minute (infinitesimal) mass of these particles is in the process of attaining infinite velocity mass. The Laws of Inertia (Galileo and Newton) determine that a black hole will continue travelling at the velocity that caused the infinite expansion unless and until it (black hole) is acted upon by an external influence. In the meantime you have an object of seeming enormous mass travelling at nearly the speed of light with no apparent force to either stop it or slow it down except for, possibly, yet another black hole. Two black holes merging is an unlikely event considering our understanding of 'event horizons'... they will always be approaching but never really meet, because the surrounding space is so powerfully compressed it would appear, to a distant observer, that both black holes have stopped, in relationship to one another. They can only ever be 'joined' like Siamese Twins.
When and if the velocity of a black hole ceases then all that is left is pixie dust.