EdwardRo said:

Yes, like I said, I have a lot of gaps in my knowledge.
First, I realized that my nomenclature is wrong. I wanted to clarify what I meant when I used each term.
Second, I think the diagram you linked is the one I was talking about. And object at rest continues to move along the time axis, when it moves it's time axis slows and moves toward the space axis the faster it goes. My understanding is that once you enter the event horizon, the diagram basically flips, so that any motion accelerates your movement along the time axis. Meaning that any motion within the event horizon only speeds up your "impact?" with whatever is at the center. Sorry if I totally botched that explanation. But am I thinking about it correctly?

I would say that a black hole is about 4D geometry. There is no global "time" axis. In many ways, you need to free your mind of the simple concepts of classical motion.

EdwardRo said:

My thought process is that since mass=energy, the collapse cannot get rid of the mass that created it, even if the matter is destroyed. So I thought if the energy is still there, then there might be a finite limite that can be contained within a given volume.
Thank you for the reply, the link, and your patience. I plan on reading the article tomorrow.

It might be helpful to realise that a black hole means two different things:

1) The Schwarzschild Black Hole is a mathematical solution in GR where there is no mass, no particles and no energy anywhere. It's a complete vacuum. All you have is spacetime. Nothing else. The geometry of spacetime, however, is characterised by a parameter, using denoted by ##M##.

You can, however, introduce a small "test" particle into this spacetime (without significantly changing the spacetime geometry) and see what happens. By applying the laws of GR, the test particle "falls" toward the event horizon. As there is no universal, global time, it's best to use the proper time of the particle.

The particle, in finite proper time, passes through the event horizon. And, in a further finite proper time, the model ends - abruptly, you might say. This is because the Schwarzschild Black Hole has a mathematical singularity. The model breaks down and the lifetime of the particle ends, because the mathematical model end. There is no "centre" of the Black Hole, where the particle collides with anything. Quite literally, time just runs out for the particle. But, this is all a mathematical model.

2) A collapsing star of sufficient mass will eventually collapse in on itself and there are no known constraints to prevent its collapse. You could say that the star collapses into a something close to a pure Schwarzschild Black Hole. With the parameter ##M## being the residual mass of the star. What does appear to be clear, is that the star definitely collapses below the event horizon. There is evidence of that.

Again, however, this is a mathematical model for a stellar collapse. What eventually happens to the matter that falls below the event horizon that has formed is unknown. If we use the theory of GR, then eventually (in the proper time of the particles that make up the star), time runs out for the residual mass. Again, the model ends abruptly for those particles. In other words, the theory of GR breaks down.

This cannot, however, be a satisfactory physical model. We need a theory of quantum gravity (to replace or enhance GR in the region within the event horizon) in order to say what happens to the mass of the star.

You cannot understand this stuff by thinking about classical motion, forces, acceleration and classical time and space axes.