Thank you for your fascinating article. I like that you recognize that the operative word is theoretical. The described option is based on a theory, and if the theory is not correct, then the outcome as anticipated will not occur.
Black Holes are outcomes based on theoretical models. Next to all information we have, a different model is still possible. Think Rubin’s Vase. If the Vase portrays the idea of singularity or whatever sits in between right beyond the horizon, then the same outcome is still correct when not a Vase but in reality Two Faces are the actual players.
Or in plain words: when we know that one part of the forces is zero, we can imagine it to a closed eye. Yet close one eye, and the other eye did not magically move toward the center and made us a Cyclops. There is a fundamental choice and particularly when scientists deal with something with zero value, they may not get the model right. They may think a Black Hole is just like a Cyclops.
There is still much that needs to be discussed, not about the scientific facts, but about the models that we use to make these facts fit.
Currently, a Black Hole is envisioned to have an invisible but commanding mass, yet that would only be true if a galaxy has the same gravitational model as our solar system. It is very well possible that the collective reality of a galaxy is far more complex, and that instead of an invisible commanding mass we are witnessing a phenomenon, with nothing on the inside.
Remember, for instance, that we have hurricanes here on earth, circumstantial realities of wind that do not have a command center, no mass at its center. We would not be listening long to a scientist claiming there was an invisible mass in the eye of a hurricane, commanding its movements.
The model may be the essential thing to investigate when talking about Black Holes. They could really be Black Eyes — for scientists.
