Okay, Jim. I see you do not understand what a phenomenon is, and you come up with other words that state the same. You are making a distinction where there is none.
--
The Monty Hall problem is not just about people removing a door when one of the three doors is shown to not have the prize behind it. The true problem is that they subsequently do not acknowledge that they made a mistake.
So, there are two aspects not in order.
1. Reacting when they should not react (remove the door altogether, while the door remains part of the equation).
2. Not reacting when they should react (refusing to see that their brains are doing something incorrect).
People are stubborn, and that is ordinarily not a problem. But... if we want to see the correct model of the universe, then the brain must not malfunction.
People look for reasons to reject information, and they find something in the words of others, and -voila- the entire baby is thrown out with the bathwater.
That is part of the Monty Hall problem. The human brain's nature to reject everything as soon as one spot is considered undesired.
--
The Black Hole model is just the right example from physics to challenge you a bit further, Jim.
Because, on paper, physicists can remove any aspect with zero value from any equation, they end up changing the model. They are removing the door that has nothing behind it.
In reality, one cannot change a model because of a specific aspect having a value of zero.
In a quick, other analogy: Three people in three chairs, and one of them getting up, walking away, does not result in two chairs remaining. There are still three chairs.
Instead of a Black Hole, the model they should work with is a Black Eye, a major gravitational depression.
With the Black Hole, physicists incorporated a center in their model that is (for lack of a better word) a singular center. Yet the singular center cannot be shown directly because it exists behind the event horizon. As such, we have a self-fulfilling prophecy because the data of the singular center itself will never be available. Ergo, it must be true.
Physicists are so convinced that their model is correct, that they are not investigating the alternate model, the Black Eye.
In the Black Eye model, everything is shown and known. There is no event horizon in the Black Eye model.
The 100 billion stars in the Milky Way, for instance, all have a gravitational pull. In combination, this leads to the strongest gravitational depression in the center of the galaxy.
The images we now have available show clearly what is going on.
Photons trying to get to the center of the Eye cannot make it. Even though the center is net-zero gravity, the Wall of the Eye is where the monster lurks.
The photons cannot make it to the center, hence a Black Eye. The ring of light we see around it, that is where the gravitational monster is expressed. The photons are all swatted out of the way, and we see the ones coming into our direction.
As such, the model will remind us of the Eye of the Storm.
The Eye of the Storm has no wind in it, and butterflies could fly here without a problem.
The problem for the butterflies occurs with the Wall of the Eye. The strongest wind forces of the entire storm are found right next to the eye in which there is no wind. No butterfly can fly straight to the eye because the Wall of the Eye will swat them out of the way.
We have 0 (minimum) and 1 (maximum) sitting right next to each other. Further out, the 1 force peters out toward 0.9, 0.8, 0.7, 0.4, 0.2, 0.1, 0.0.
--
Compare both models, Jim, and the Black Eye model has no parts that requires a belief, none at all.
Meanwhile, the Black Hole model requires the belief that there is a massive mass of incredible (!) proportions collapsed onto itself to the point it cannot be detected directly.
That means that one model has a religious position in it, and the other model is fully based on scientific data.
Your turn.
