Good point. Yet when we are looking for the Structure of Everything, the physicists are the underdog and the structural philosophers are doing the delivering.

Yet when it comes down to discussing the Structure of Everything, the physicists group together and without any evidence on their side at all they ignore what the structural philosophers are showing with clarity.

Case in point, I wrote about the alternate model for the gravitational phenomenon currently described as a Black Hole, and you should see the negative comments without any real scientific contents I received.

Structurally, the models are quite simple.

A: Behind a scientific horizon, a singular mass collapsed onto itself and is the reason for the gravitational phenomenon we witness.

B: The masses in a galaxy establish a synergistic outcome in the center of the galactic plane.

Model B is far simpler, all is scientifically know, nothing special is requires as is the case with model A.

But NO, many physicists reject even a good conversation.

I feel lucky that a good number of replies acknowledge that an alternate model may indeed be possible.

Yes, I did make the title of the article enticing (I used the word 'laughable' to attract attention, and it worked -- finally).

'Why a Black Hole is a Laughable Idea'

https://medium.com/@fred-rick/why-a-black-hole-is-a-laughable-idea-4721391bdca2