Thank you, Wayne, for your nice reply.
People are free to pound, and in a way they are expressing clearly to me what is contained in their brains. I like that they feel free to express themselves that way.
What I try to do (but often do not succeed) is to get a conversation going. I have been a structural philosopher since 1981 and I communicated with many physicists and scientists, including Nobel prize winners.
The problem I encounter is that the door with the interesting information behind it closes too soon, a few happy exceptions notwithstanding. I have given up hope that scientific journals will ever publish any of my (never well-articulated) articles, so I am waiting for others to take the baton.
I feel fortunate that this article appears to get some traction, Wayne. Negative or positive -- I'll take it.
--
Yes, I am specifically discussing the black hole idea that is based on a scientific horizon beyond which our scientific instruments cannot peer.
That should be a red flag for any self-respecting physicist, making them desire to go back to the modeling board, because it is weird to accept a spot in a model that scientifically can never be known. Yet very few are interested in remodeling the phenomenon we witness.
I am aware that the Black Hole idea is applied for other celestial situations as well, but the main point is that specific horizon inside the model. It is very easy to run away with pulsars and novas and sink into a swamp of very-interesting discussions. Therefore, the focus on the horizon as red flag in the model to not sink in that swamp.
The alternate model I propose is based on the collective of gravitational forces, together forming a central aspect. That synergistic outcome can explain what we witness better as a model because there is no scientific horizon involved. All is known.
Still, gravity is not visible so we have to take in what we can see and explain it via modeling.
--
The binary star system will not have a strong barycenter environment, yet add stars and the strength of the barycenter's environment will grow. Have a galaxy of stars and the barycenter will undergo enormous forces from all sides. Yes, the net-zero spot is found indeed in the center, just like the deepest depression also flattens out at the bottom in the center.
Physicists shy away from the more-than-3-body-problem because it becomes quite onerous to do the calculations. Modeling from the overall level provides a way out, capturing the gravitational phenomenon from a different direction. I recall reading that Black Holes' strength are related to the sizes of galaxies, but that was more than ten years ago, the conversation having gone into many more directions since. Yet, if correct, then that would support the notion that all masses in a galaxy are involved. It may be that not all masses are involved (after all, we can see arms in galaxies indicating how gravity is not experienced through-and-throughout, nor do we see a ball shape with most galaxies, but rather flattened shapes; gravity is and remains a fascinating force).
--
Gravity is still not well understood because most see the Sun, for instance, as the reason we are floating around as planet Earth in the Solar System, held in place by the Sun's gravity. They do not view the Sun as the direct result of the Solar System's spin itself nor do they work with the Solar System's spin by itself (as invisible entity). I don't want to take you into this rabbit hole too far. It is just an example of what physicists are not discussing because (apparently) they have their minds made up about gravity.
There is light-weighted material associated with the Sun, and yet the Sun is seen as solid, gravitationally enormous, and that may not be all about what the Sun really is.
Any future investigation of the Sun is based on the understanding we have of the Sun. If future physicists fail to see the underlying reality of the Sun as it exists (as a result based in the much larger reality of the Solar System), then they may tinker with the Sun, not knowing exactly what they are doing.
This is speculation, so don't take this too much as a grave warning. Yet it is based on both my understanding of models and my witnessing that physicists are working with a model that is or appears to be incomplete.
--
So, now you know the story, Wayne.
I added 'laughable' to the title of the article to attract attention.
I am hoping others will start writing about the alternate model.
Naturally, a model does not require evidence. Models are never proven. Models incorporate the data and evidence we have. Models are a fit, or they are not a fit. Models can be undermined or questioned.
Thanks again for your nice reply. If you want to help promote the idea? That would be very welcome.
