Thank you for your reply, which I appreciate.

If we follow the scientific method, then we have a problem in the Black Hole proposal. We do not have any scientific data to support it.

If you can overcome that problem, Aaron, I would like to hear that.

Just to make sure we are discussing the same reality, this is what is considered in the conversation.

1. Many masses in a galaxy.

2. Gravitational monster in the center.

3. Invisible mass in that center.

Black Hole:

#3 explains #2

Black Eye:

#1 explains #2

So, #2 is real and we all agree on it. The conversation is therefore truly on the scientific support for position #3.

We can explain #2 already fully with #1, everything is present, and when talking about similar situations then all physicists agree already on this setup.

Everyone would be rolling in the street laughing if an educated person would say that there is an invisible mass in the Eye of the Storm controlling the storm.

We all know better. Yet somehow, physicists got themselves quite twisted up that they do not know their models any longer.

It is very easy to explain:

They used the Solar System model with a mass in the center and applied it to a Galaxy. They jumped to a model and then collected all data, and that is the religious approach, not the scientific approach. In science we start with the actual data, and not with accepting a model a priori.

--

Large stars collapsing needs to be reviewed in their own light. Let's focus on Black Holes in the center of galaxies because it should be obvious to anyone that #1 is the appropriate Occam's Razor explanation.