I appreciate the reply, tongue-in-cheek comments are fine, too.

When we review a binary star system, then we see three gravitational centers. Two are found, each with one star, and one is found as the collective point, the barycenter.

No one would state that there is an invisible mass in that barycenter.

Somehow, when there are many stars, folks desire that invisible mass in there.

When reviewing the history of Black Hole modeling, then the discovery was made on paper first. It was not based on the scientific data, but rather on the theoretic models and insights.

It’s fine to draw a Cyclops on paper, but the ability to draw that person is not a guarantee that we will bump into a Cyclops anytime soon.

That is the simplest way I can say it. Scientists discovered something on paper first, and when they discovered the phenomenon they assumed it was exactly what they had figured out on paper.

It does not require a genius to see it, but it does require someone to stand up and call their bluff.

Fortunately, I received many replies (most of rejection, some of positive interest), yet the best was that no one undermined my position.

No one undermined the position that the Black Hole in the center of galaxies can actually be a Black Eye.

I actually have support for it, but folks reject that on the same grounds; they are not even investigating it. Papers aren’t publishing the question. People are not made aware that a scientific choice was made and the alternative not investigated.

Thank you, Ira. I appreciate the feedback you gave me.