Exactly, but when we have Rubin's Vase, then the data is one and the same for two different models.

So, once we reach the overall level of scientific data (beginning of matter, center of a galaxy, spacetime), then we will find there are always two models available to explain the scientific data.

That is the message. Physicists in light of the Black Hole model did that calculation on paper first. Only later, when they saw there was something for real in the center of galaxies, they concluded that it was their Black Hole.

So, if I draw a Cyclops on paper, and I bump into a stranger at dark night, I can think it was a Cyclops?

Of course not.

So, the physicists need to pay attention to their modeling. The data is the starting point, but they must discuss both models.

Then, I come out with my position and I claim to have evidence that the other model is the correct model.

With Occam's Razor in hand, the Black Eye model does not contain any hanky-panky or Cyclops at all. It is very simple and everything is scientifically present.

The Black Hole model in the meantime contains at its heart something that cannot be shown scientifically because it is placed behind an event horizon.

Do you see that, Frederick?

They have the thing they call the thing but the reason it is the thing is not shown, hiding behind the curtain.

That's obviously not a very good model.

Thank you for your reply.