> spinning is an accelerated reference frame Not necessarily. The three definitions for a "spinning" black hole that I gave upthread do not require the presenc

> spinning is an accelerated reference frame Not necessarily. The three definitions for a "spinning" black hole that I gave upthread do not require the presence of any accelerated frames or observers. > what does it mean for a black hole, which we assume to be a singularity occupying no space at all This is not correct. A black hole is a finite region of spacetime enclosed by an event horizon. The singularity is inside the hole but is not all of the hole. > to be spinning? We don’t know. Yes, we do. We have known since the 1960s that the Kerr solution to the Einstein Field Equation describes a spinning black hole, and all of the geometric properties of that solution have been known for almost as long as that. > That’s one of the gaps in our theory. No, it's not. See above. > as the collapsed remnants of an object that was spinning, they should have done residual angular momentum. This is correct, but it does not imply or support your other claims.