Does it make any scientific sense to be preoccupied in idle and brain-cooked logical/mathematical scholasticism (on anything at all, not to speak of "Black Hole") in Albert Einstein’s self-declared "Castle in the Air”; when Einstein himself said that “Black Hole” is impossible even in theory?

"The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the "Schwarzschild singularities" do not exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters whose particles move along circular paths it does not seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that more general cases will have analogous results. The "Schwarzschild singularity" does not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light.

This investigation arose out of discussions the author conducted with Professor H. P. Robertson and with Drs. V. Bargmann and P. Bergmann on the mathematical and physical significance of the Schwarzschild singularity. The problem quite naturally leads to the question, answered by this paper in the negative, as to whether physical models are capable of exhibiting such a singularity." A. Einstein, The Annals of Mathematics, Second Series, Vol. 40, No. 4 (Oct., 1939), pp. 922-936

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8dd0/dfafef0c53c428fdc3b58f8099aafcf7d089.pdf

Thank you sir .

The text that accompanies the title just doesn't make sense.

The formation of black holes was studied by Oppenheimer and Snyder,

``On continued gravitational contraction'', Article On Continued Gravitational Contraction

so it would be useful to read it first. To understand it, it's necessary to learn general relativity-from a textbook, not a popularized account-e.g. https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9712019.pdf or http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/gr.html

That black holes are solutions to Einstein's equations is easy to check; what Oppenheimer and Snyder found was that they can be the result of known physical processes-that was the question thy addressed.

Whether the statement ``black holes can end'' has any meaning isn't known.

Einstein's conclusion that black holes can never form was published on the same day as Oppenheimer & Snyder's incomplete analysis - which ended with a paragraph of unwarranted conjecture divorced from the mathematics presented in their paper. It is not Einstein's fault that the academic community does not comprehend what he said about the gravitational theory he himself developed, even after the academic community was granted ample time to do so. Nor should we blame Einstein for the irrational academic hostility towards him that continues to this day. The reality is that even if one incorrectly assumes that objects with event horizons can form during gravitational collapse, they are incapable of capturing any further material since gravitational time dilation reliably arrests the arrival of any incoming particles - which not only demonstrates the impossibility of BH growth but also BH formation. There are many other arguments against the existence of black holes by now - both theoretical and observational. They are riddled with various paradoxes, such as how their gravity and electromagnetism magically propagates at superluminal speeds through an event horizon, and their purported existence would directly conflict with cosmological inferences that led in recent years to the first scientific resolutions of the Fermi Paradox. Furthermore, patience with the academic community on this important topic has now been exhausted.