I'll add one more reply to your original comment, Rex, this time describing what we are both agreeing on and where we disagree with Black Holes/Black Eyes.
We are both agreeing that the gravitational monster is real. All physicists agree on this. We have scientific evidence for it.
Yet the interpretation of that scientific evidence, that is where our issue begins. To explain the scientific data, we have:
* An invisible mass beyond a horizon (Model A)
* A strong collective depression for gravity in the center of a galaxy (Model B)
And we have:
* No strong collective depression for gravity in the center of a galaxy (Model A)
* No invisible mass beyond a horizon (Model B)
Based on this, we can distinguish both models by stating that Model A has a secondary reality for matter, which exists beyond a horizon. Anything beyond that horizon cannot be shown in specifics, scientifically.
Meanwhile, Model B remains within the ordinary material setting. The gravitational phenomenon is declared as coming forth from the collective field of gravity.
--
Since I am claiming that Model B is better than Model A (but not denying that Model A as a model is acceptable), I will provide three points that favor Model B.
* Occam's Razor favors Model B because there is no secondary reality in which matter exists beyond a horizon. All is explained simply by what we interpret based on the scientific data, no complicated reality beyond a horizon required.
* Einstein's reaction to the proposal of a Black Hole was one of rejection. His position was on some level diametrical to that proposal. A material reality existing beyond a horizon fits why Einstein rejected this proposal.
* Heron Galaxy
https://www.flickr.com/photos/24354425@N03/49263389288
In this image, we have two galaxies colliding. The reason I picked this image is that one galaxy is much larger than the other.
"The two galaxies, astronomers have concluded, have already 'collided' at least once."
What is special about this outcome is that the effect of that first 'collision' had major effects on the smaller galaxy and apparently lesser effects on the larger galaxy. The larger galaxy is indeed affected, of course, yet we see that it is far more intact than the smaller galaxy.
When reviewing two galaxies of similar size, we do not see this effect involving size; it’s more an equal effect on both galaxies when two galaxies are of similar size. That is why I picked this image of two galaxies with different sizes; it tells us more.
From this image, we can see that the gravitational field of galaxies is indeed present. We see different outcomes for the smaller galaxy when confronted with the gravitational field of the larger galaxy than what we see with the larger galaxy. Let me describe this better.
The point I am making is that the collective field of the larger galaxy is capable of remaining more in tact. As such, we have visual evidence that a gravitational field can indeed have a collective aspect. Both galaxies are not showing us that there is no collective field at all as you have tried to point out.
In plain words, and we see this for both small and large galaxy, the inside of the galaxy is the last to adjust to the new reality. This unraveling is not galaxy-wide therefore, which is evidence that supports Model B. The ‘remaining’ cohesion of each galaxy is clearly visible. The collective reality of a galaxy is therefore real indeed.
To have an Eye in the center (a major depression with net-zero gravity in the barycenter, and maximized gravitational effects exactly right next to the center) is therefore supported by visual evidence at this large-scale observation of two galaxies with a different size.
