It is my manner of describing the feature of a Black Hole, Rex.
From wiki, first sentence:
"A black hole is a region of spacetime where gravity is so strong that nothing, including light or other electromagnetic waves, has enough energy to escape its event horizon."
If that suffices for you, then let's use that.
The description is accurate for Model A, not for Model B, though gravity being extremely strong is indeed acknowledged in both models.
When using this image that we have of the gravitational phenomenon, then we can declare that this visual information is both true for Model A and for Model B.
The interpretation of this image is distinct for both models.
Model A has an event horizon and everything in the center is pitch dark (no data coming out).
Model B has no event horizon. The image is explained via Model B further below with the repeated image.
In words, the gravitational monster for Model B is fed by the gravitational pulls from the many surrounding masses. This need not be all masses in a galaxy; it could be a (large) subset.
As such, we are looking at a gravitational depression (of enormous properties).
--
The trick is to first accept Model B as possible, and next to understand what evidence/facts are the same for both model, and next what evidence/scientific understanding is not the same for both models.
Rex, I don't like analogies in which I use gender, but they are very easy to show what I am talking about.
When describing a moustache, we have an aspect that fits quite well with males and, exceptions notwithstanding, does not fit quite well with females.
When a person is made invisible to a bystander, the bystander may (or may not) describe a moustache as one of the unseen features of the hidden individual.
I hope you get the point.
Where in one condition we can arguably discuss a moustache, in the other condition we should not be discussing a moustache.
With that, I want to repeat what I said earlier for Model B, using different words: It does not have an event horizon.
I like it much if you consider the structural possibility for yourself.
For the image repeated here, the Black Eye in the center is like the center of the storm, an eye got formed in which no wind makes it inside the eye. We know from hurricanes that eyes do not have any wind inside them (but they are depressions indeed).
Translation: No photon made it inside the dark eye in the image, and with no photons coming through, the center will be dark. All photons are swept up by the forces of the gravitational depression, pushed out of the way, not making it through the center.
The ring of light is created by all photons having been thrown off-course by the gravitational depression and then coming into our direction.
--
Model A and Model B can both be correct in theory, but only one will be correct in reality.
As long as the hidden person is not shown, the question about the moustache remains up in the air. Model A cannot be picked, Model B cannot be picked; both must be considered possible.
Event horizon or no event horizon, that is the unanswered question.
—
We only have the data about Black Holes/Black Eyes from our terrestrial perspective. As such, three-dimensional as the data may appear, we are dealing with a two-dimensional data set. Therefore, we must indeed consider both Model A and Model B. In many ways they are the same, yet in specific aspects they are each other's opposite.
My claim is that the scientific approach must be showing what the theories are and not pick one over the other beforehand. Picking one model over the other makes us one-eye blind.
