I like the preface of your reply, indicating "a deeply held belief" (and therefore not a scientifically supported position), Mark.
The circumstances are as you describe, but the actual essence of a Black Hole, the collapsed matter, cannot be detected by our instruments. This cannot be denied if you agree with the next question:
The BH model contains a horizon, correct?
If you agree to this simple question, then I am correct to state that there are aspects that no scientific instrument can detect. A horizon automatically means there is an area that cannot be peered into by our instruments.
Black Hole model:
1. Invisible gravitational force.
2. Horizon beyond which our instruments cannot peer.
Black Eye model:
1. Invisible gravitational force.
There is nothing else to accept in the Black Eye model, other than recognizing that a collective outcome of all gravitational forces of all galactic masses can produce a synergistic outcome (the enormous gravitational depression), also invisible because based on that very same gravity, an invisible force.
That is why the wind force example of the Eye of the Storm helps out understanding what is going on.
An ordinary person not familiar with the Eye of the Storm will have a hard time believing that wind force can establish a location inside the greatest wind force expression on the planet in which there is then an entire eye of no (or not much) wind force expression.
That person could suggest that there must be a material reality in the center of the Eye causing that outcome, something we will reject simply because we know better. There is no material entity in the Eye of the Storm.
We also know that in a binary star system, there are three gravitational centers, but there are only two material objects, the two stars, and there is no third undetectable mass in the center around which both stars circle. That spatial reality is empty, except for containing that gravitational center.
When we add more stars to the system, we should still expect that barycenter to remain in place, but we should not expect an undetectable mass to appear in the center around which all stars circle.
Do you see that physicists go from a immaterial center in the binary star system to a materially-undetectable center in a galaxy without their saying a single word about switching models on us?
Something is really off in science, Mark. Scientists are so confident that they are working with the right models that simple structural philosophers like myself have to endure a storm of critique when proposing a different model, distinct in details. Instead of being excited and interested to investigate, folks are very much stuck on the path taken a long time ago, rejecting even the possibility.
But now you know as well why I am glad you are communicating with me. As long as you pronounce a deeply held belief, there is a chance you will consider and investigate the alternate model.
Yes, I can challenge the Black Hole model, and I can do so by pointing at the horizon which is part and parcel of the model.
But in reality, I do not care if the Black Hole model is weak or not. I wrote this article to show that an alternate model is indeed very easy to produce, and as supporting point this model is picked by Occam's razor simply because there is nothing special required to understand the gravitational phenomenon.
The Black Eye model is simple.
--
I am 62 years old. I am a structural philosopher, investigating all kinds of structure, such as political structures, economic structures, scientific structures.
If desired, we can talk about Spacetime (which is a tool about the behavior of matter and that says nothing about space or time), or we can talk about the materialization process (the Big Bang theory is flawed and another model is much easier, explaining the mechanics better without the need for cosmic inflation or a super-hot starting point -- but it does need the extreme high density just like the BB theory requires).
--
We have two eyes, Mark. Each eye is self-based and not based on the other eye. Together, we can see depth, but if we turn one eye into the product of the other eye then we created a brain fart. Different models can be produced when we work with invisible forces, such as gravity.
Only one model will be correct, but to declare which one is correct and which one is incorrect cannot be done by scientists unless they have the final piece of evidence that there is A/ no mass in the center, or B/ a mass in the center that exists beyond a horizon. It should be obvious to you that B is not a possibility because one cannot detect something that exists beyond the horizon of detection.
Thank you for your intelligent answers. Know that I appreciate them.
