I am bumping into an entire slew of physicists that rather believe there is an invisible mass behind a scientific horizon in their Black Hole model than accepting the far simpler explanation that we are witnessing a Black Eye.

The Black Eye model contains just one invisible scientific feature: gravity. In the Eye, the synergistic outcome is found of the collective gravity of all (or most) surrounding masses in a galaxy: collectively this forms an extreme gravitational depression. All is based on direct observation.

The Black Hole model contains two invisible features: gravity and that not-visible mass. There is not a shred of evidence that matter can collapse onto itself all the way to becoming invisible. It is a scientific unicorn. All evidence is circumstantial, nothing is a direct observation.

The Black Eye model is scientifically simple, with all being present. The Black Hole model instead is scientific only where all known aspects are concerned but then contains that non-scientific center on top of it all.

The real point is that the wall that physicists put up to discuss this alternate is near insurmountable. The demand for evidence for the Black Eye model is far greater than what is required for the Black Hole model.

Physicists are working with two standards, but they don't see that they are working with two standards.

Thank you for your reply, Mikael. I appreciate it.