Thank you, Huub, for your reply.

I fully support the scientific method, and I will never veer away from data and evidence.

However, modeling is the structural perception we can place 'on top' of data and evidence to then discover a view on how the known results could have come about.

With the Black Hole model, we have two invisible aspects:

1. Gravity (forces are always invisible)

2. A mass that collapsed onto itself (the event horizon) in the exact center

There is another model possible that is based on just one invisible aspect:

1. Gravity

The way it works is that gravity is associated with all masses in a galaxy, and that the combination of all (or of most) delivers a deep gravitational depression in the collective center.

The word to help understand the Black Eye model is therefore synergy. We have two distinct outcomes, whereas there is just one source.

A synergistic outcome occurs in the center (just like the Eye of the Storm occurs in the center of the Storm, with no wind in the Eye and a maximum of wind right with the surrounding Wall of the Eye; this is an enormous depression right here on the surface of our planet involving a force).

An enormous gravitational depression based solely on gravity of fully-visible masses is currently not considered by the scientific community. That is a mistake, and I am looking forward to discussing the model for which all data and evidence is actually the same as what is used to declare the Black Hole model (but with the structural explanations then distinct).

Ultimately, it is the human mind that declares the model with a center spot based on an event horizon, or the model with a collective synergistic outcome in place. The scientific outcome is the same; our understanding distinct.

I welcome your arguments for or against. Thank you for your reply.