For some reason, people are objecting to me using academic references.

Cut the crap.

No one is objecting to you using references.

What they are objecting to is you using references which do not back you up in any way to pretend your position is justified.

Every statement I have made can be backed up by the best science available

Pure BS!

You are yet to provide a single thing which backs up your initial argument.

You are yet to provide a source which in any way justifies your claim that the infinite mass of an infinite plane would have infinite gravity.

You are yet to provide a source which in any way justifies your claim that this would lead it to collapse into a black hole.

You have literally nothing to back up your argument.

The closest you have come is by providing arguments which work for finite objects, which rely upon the object being finite to work.

The only other relevant thing you have done is shot yourself in the foot by repeatedly saying we have no idea how such an infinite object would behave.

Meanwhile, all the available science shows you are wrong. Either because we do not know how the infinite would behave so you have literally no justification for your claim, or based upon how we know gravity behaves at scales we can measure, which shows you are wrong as such a plane would be stable and not have infinite gravity. And there are the arguments from symmetry which again show it makes no sense for a infinite plane to collapse into a black hole.

Stop lying by claiming what you are saying is backed up by science.

What you are saying is only your baseless assertions backed up by nothing at all.

Again, if you wish to disagree then provide the reference which clearly states that an infinite plane would have infinite gravity and collapse into a black hole which does not rely upon any special properties of the plane such as it being a gas or fluid.

Provide the references or counterarguments which show how symmetry is violated.

The "service" you have provided to the FE community is by providing an argument which is pure garbage and repeatedly lying by pretending the best science justifies your garbage. You are making REers look like completely delusional fools that will spout whatever garbage they can to pretend to back up their delusions and completely ignore any refutation of it and refuse to justify it in any way.

If you wish to stop providing this "service" then admit your argument is pure garbage and move on.

Can Black holes be talked about or discussed meaningfully without reference to GR? True or not?

That is not a true or false statement. That is a yes or no statement.

And the answer is yes. Black holes can be talked about or discussed without reference to GR. People speculated about black holes BEFORE GR.

I pointed this out before, and you just ignored it.

As I pointed out before, it was first proposed in 1784 by John Michelle, long before GR was thought of.

It was based upon the idea of a star so large that the escape velocity at the surface would be greater than that of the speed of light.

This leads to the criteria of R<2GM/c^2.

This is the exact same criteria for a stationary black hole under GR.

I'm not sure how you can come to that conclusion. I understand them well enough, I have at least read them.

If you truly understood them you wouldn't be lying by saying they support you.

Your belief in a Flat Earth most certainly has a huge impact on both Mathematics and Physics. I am surprised that you are not aware of that. Your belief in a flat earth would overturn our understanding of Physics and the mathematics used to form all the known laws.

Pure garbage.

Someone believing Earth is flat doesn't magically mean they understand literally nothing about math and physics.

The only ones which would be a problem are those which cause a contradiction for FE.

Why does it need a center? Its infinite

What is an infinite black hole?

Not a black hole.

In order for it to be a black hole, it needs a centre.

You say the Earth being Flat would not change Mathematics? I don't think you have fully thought out the implications. Physics would not have progressed had it not been for the language of mathematics. Newton, Einstien and Planck would have struggled a bit. How would he have worked out his length? As for Feynman, Heisenberg and the rest, they would have been lost without it.

And that in no way indicates that math would need to be different if Earth was flat.

What, do you think if Earth was flat that 1+1=5?

If not, just what do you think it equals?

You seem to indicate that it must change, so it definitely can't equal 2.

While we are at it, what does Earth being flat do to integration, and differentiation?

What about exponentiation and multiplication? Complex numbers?

Vectors and matrices, including dot and cross products?

How do these all change by Earth being flat?

As regards the particles, the mathematics in that particular solution, showed, under the conditions described, how they would fall in a manner that was not uniform.

Due to the influence of the second particle. Nothing to do with the plane.

It provides absolutely nothing to indicate that an infinite plane would be unstable.