Please disprove this theory I made on how black holes function

[bcefkm]

I made a theory about how black holes could work that to my knowledge is consistent with our observations and general relativity. Please help disprove this as I can't be the first to think of this.

To my understanding, any energy trapped within a container imparts mass on that container in accordance to E=mc^2. We know that any light (or any massless particle) traveling parallel to the event horizon of a black hole will loop around it in a circle. What if this energy trapped on the surface of a black hole is the source of it's mass? This would also mean that anything swallowed into a black hole would not feel mass until it reaches the edge again, being instantly stopped to travel around inside, slowly getting destroyed until all that is left is massless particles, which would then be reoriented until they reach the edge, looping around at the event horizon. This has the benefit of 1. explaining how black holes can have spin, and 2. resolving the information paradox as any particles within could have their position or velocity accounted for, and therefore a reconstruction of the initial object would be possible. I request those who are actually practiced to help demonstrate either why I am wrong, or if the current version of this theory has holes. Thank you!

[Moontanman]

1 hour ago, bcefkm said:

I made a theory about how black holes could work that to my knowledge is consistent with our observations and general relativity. Please help disprove this as I can't be the first to think of this.

To my understanding, any energy trapped within a container imparts mass on that container in accordance to E=mc^2. We know that any light (or any massless particle) traveling parallel to the event horizon of a black hole will loop around it in a circle. What if this energy trapped on the surface of a black hole is the source of it's mass? This would also mean that anything swallowed into a black hole would not feel mass until it reaches the edge again, being instantly stopped to travel around inside, slowly getting destroyed until all that is left is massless particles, which would then be reoriented until they reach the edge, looping around at the event horizon. This has the benefit of 1. explaining how black holes can have spin, and 2. resolving the information paradox as any particles within could have their position or velocity accounted for, and therefore a reconstruction of the initial object would be possible. I request those who are actually practiced to help demonstrate either why I am wrong, or if the current version of this theory has holes. Thank you!

All the things you assert as problems are currently explained by modern black hole theories. I am moving this to strange claims. 

[bcefkm]

44 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

All the things you assert as problems are currently explained by modern black hole theories. I am moving this to strange claims. 

Wait, there are explanations for black holes having spin? I am aware of proposed "ringularities", but I haven't seen anything explaining how they would be stable. As for the information paradox, yes there are other answers, but (to my knowledge) experimental evidence hasn't yet given us anything to lend credence to one theory over another. To be honest, I don't believe my theory is right so much as I want to know why it's wrong. That said, it does have it's advantages, it simply needs to be subject to scrutiny, which is why I posted it here. 

[Moontanman]

1 hour ago, bcefkm said:

Wait, there are explanations for black holes having spin? I am aware of proposed "ringularities", but I haven't seen anything explaining how they would be stable. As for the information paradox, yes there are other answers, but (to my knowledge) experimental evidence hasn't yet given us anything to lend credence to one theory over another. To be honest, I don't believe my theory is right so much as I want to know why it's wrong. That said, it does have it's advantages, it simply needs to be subject to scrutiny, which is why I posted it here. 

I would suggest you use the internet, google is your friend, a short google search showed me enough to indicate you had not done any research of your own on this subject. If this subject needs scrutiny then google is again your friend, waiting for others to satisfy your curiosity can be a long wait.  

[bcefkm]

14 hours ago, Moontanman said:

I would suggest you use the internet, google is your friend, a short google search showed me enough to indicate you had not done any research of your own on this subject. If this subject needs scrutiny then google is again your friend, waiting for others to satisfy your curiosity can be a long wait.  

After due research, I can conclude that you are correct, the kerr model predicts that a ringularity would be stable because it would rotate the local spacetime, and there is no upper limit on how fast spacetime can move. Thus, it maintains the observed property of being inescapable, while the particles can effectively move fast enough to consistently miss the center, balancing out in a ringularity. I am still curious to see if there is anything to contradict what I have modeled, but there is no real benefit to my model, and as the kerr model has been used to accurately predict information about black holes, meanwhile I am still trying to understand what my model would predict for the nature of a black hole at all. In addition, an imperfect ringularity would still be stable, so the information paradox is also not a problem for the kerr model. I am still interested in whether my model can be proven wrong/fails to describe reality, even if it has no advantages. But yeah, an overview on the rules on the forum does tell me this would be put in strange claims, regardless if I am really claiming it.