I love the reply, Kurt, and I will apologize here for the push-back I delivered.

As structural philosopher, using analogies is an important tool to bring the desired perspectives on models above water. Analogies do have as flaw that they are not the actual described reality and will therefore not be a perfect fit, yet the nice part is that they can provide a shortcut, particularly where structural thinking is concerned. Discussing the known scientific details can end up in muddy waters, only interesting for specialists and not the public at large. Analogies can (sometimes) overcome that problem.

It is spin that I am after.

When discussing the whirlpool (good suggestion), I have to mention the eddy in the same breath. Only both in combination deliver what I am trying to show.

The whirlpool is a good example for what happens in the Black Eye model. Still, a whirlpool is itself affected by the gravitational (and rotational) reality of planet Earth. Meanwhile the Black Eye occurs in a spatial setting, which means it is symmetrical to a large extent (from the up-and-down perspective), while a whirlpool has a single point of delivery. (spin with downward center point only).

By comparing the whirlpool to an eddy, we can see how the slow speed of an eddy can collect matter (leaves, for instance), while leaves near a whirlpool will get attracted to it and are then pulled under. The eddy can contain matter in a self-sustained way, and the whirlpool simply does not.

So, good suggestion to focus on a whirlpool. I appreciate it.

What I consider the best argument myself for the Black Eye model is that there is just one invisible field in total: gravity. As we know, forces are never visible, so there should not be a surprise if a synergistic outcome exists in that invisible reality as well.

With synergy, we have an additional outcome without any additional input. Something extra got produced based on known ingredients; nothing extra required. A good example is the color gray that appears after mixing red, blue, green and yellow paint (or... something appears that is gray-brownish). Five colors are the result of just four colors. Gray is then the synergistic outcome.

Contrast that with the prevailing Black Hole model in which we need to accept two invisible aspects: gravity + the ability of matter to collapse onto itself to the point it becomes undetectable by our scientific instruments. That is a highly suspicious model from a structural perspective. To have an entity be the center piece of a model that itself cannot be detected directly? That should be a red flag.

--

I have known the Structure of Everything since 1981. I have communicated with many scientists. While super smart, these scientists have not been trained to think in structure (their modeling quality is weak particularly when they pick favorites). I learned from this article that by poking fun of prevailing scientific positions I can finally get some attention. I do my best taming my frustrations, Kurt, but I do boil over from time to time, nothing personal. When I am confronted with eggs and I desire to explain an omelet, then I have to use something to crack the egg, right?

Your reply is very much appreciated.