Correct, Roy Kerr is still holding on to the idea that the universe is 'The Vase' and not 'The Two Faces' -- he still puts that mass in the middle. He does not say phenomenon; I say that.

Yet read the article, and he comes a lot closer to lacking that mass in the middle. The story plot thickens and even contains an outer and inner event horizon.

See the clear question marks with the article under the bolded 'revisiting the argument for singularities'.

"The third and fourth parts of the argument are airtight in General Relativity: if parts one and two are true, then you need a singularity at the core. But are parts one and two both true? That’s where Kerr’s new paper comes into play, asserting that no, this is a mistake that we’ve been making for over half-a-century."

That is starting to sound a lot like my position that we are witnessing a gravitational depression, a phenomenon therefore, no mass in the center at all.

The data is the data, but the model of the Vase encapsulated the same data as the model of the Two Faces. So, when folks hold on to the Vase as the essence, then they cannot agree that in reality it is the Two Faces.

On top of that, the essence in the Black Hole model is scientifically not detectable because it exists behind a scientific event horizon.

That is the funniest part of it all: The Thing that makes it The Thing exists behind the curtain and the curtain cannot be taken out of the picture.

That is very weak, model-wise, when the essence cannot be shown. My model does not have that problem. All is present and accounted for.

Thank you for your reply.