The orthodox view is that light in a black hole is forced to go round in circles at the event horizon, so it isn't "stalled" as such, so the gravity doesn't need to pull it faster than light.<br /><br />Personally though my own cranky view is that black holes don't exist. I think they're one of those things, like tachyons, which can be described by math but don't actually exist in the real universe. The reason the laws of physics seem to break down in a singularity is that singularities are IMHO impossible, since infinities don't really exist as physically realised.<br /><br />Ranting on, IMV, the Pauli Exclusion Principle seems to me from the math to be as absolute as, for instance, c being the universe's top speed. So when "too much matter" tries to collapse on itself (i.e. more than the Chandrasekhar limit) the matter is crushed out of existence and disappears in a puff of energy. Which might be what is powering quasars, rather than energy released in accretion disks (though that would be a part too).<br /><br />Imagine throwing a tonne of extra matter onto a neutron star. Will it collapse into a black hole? I think not. I think, with little justification TBH, that the collapse will <i>start</i> but the neutrons at the centre of the star will, obeying the PEP, refuse to enter the same quantum state and, having no other choice, disappear and be replaced by their equivalent energy, which warms the neutrons a bit and halts the collapse.<br /><br />Just MHO of course <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />