I am keeping the best for last in this reply, bkuehlhorn. It should knock your socks off. But I have to show you first how very simple it all is, and how all data aligns ! ! !
The Black Hole model has two invisible aspects:
1. Gravity
2. Matter that collapsed onto itself
The specific findings we are discussing are declared in this model to have come from that #2.
The Black Eye model has one invisible aspect:
1. Gravity
To explain the additional outcome in the center of the galaxy, the word synergy needs to be recognized. We have an additional and distinct gravitational outcome without needing to provide anything additional. That is the essence of the word synergy.
The fun part? All data is already aligned with the outcome. Instead of a center mass explaining the results we witness, the collective of all masses in a galaxy created that enormously deep gravitational depression in the center. All data is therefore already aligned because the models are each other's perfect opposites. They are each other's inverse.
Two Black Holes coming together creating gravitational waves? Easy.
Two Black Eyes coming together creating gravitational waves. You see, no difference, except in the model explaining what we witness.
--
A binary star system has a barycenter. The barycenter does not have a material entity, yet we do have three gravitational centers: one with each mass, and one with the collective of both masses. No one declares there should be an invisible mass in the middle.
Yes, this barycenter does not show too much action all by itself; there are just two masses around it, so it is fairly weak by itself.
Add ten stars to the mix, and we have a barycenter around which 12 stars circle. We then have 13 gravitational centers. Again, there is no mass in that barycenter spot. No one says that there is an invisible mass there. However, the strength of the pulls by these 12 stars establish a more forceful barycenter already. A minor depression gets established and has more force to it, but still not all that much.
* Important to note is that even the greatest depression still has that net-zero spot in the center, just as you are pointing out with the gravitational net-zero spot within a mass.
Then, add 5,000,000,000 stars to the model, and the gravitational centers will be 5,000,000,001 at least.
Why oh why did physicists go from one model to using a different model? Why are they not providing any explanation for that?
Be my best friend, and provide me an answer to why a binary (or a small collective of stars) system would not have an invisible mass to it, and why all of a sudden when there are many, many, many stars there should be an invisible mass in the middle? Hw do you explain the change in model?
