The magic word is synergy, Olaf. All actual data is the same. Yet I do appreciate your reply.
If we include synergy in a model then the math would still be the same for every part that we can actually observe compared to when we don't include synergy. But we can do without one mathematical calculation when we accept synergy as real because that specific calculation is then redundant.
We have two distinct outcomes based on the exact same information. One with a synergistic outcome that need not be calculated but understood; the other outcome with a separate calculation to explain the synergistic outcome (and therefore a mathematical falsehood).
It's the same for Rubin's Vase. In one view, we see the Vase. In the other view, we see the Two Faces.
All actual data is the same.
--
Let me make a simple list of what Black Hole folks are saying and what I am saying. Perhaps you'll see then how there are indeed two different views possible with the exact same scientific data.
Black Hole:
1/ Lots of stars and planets in a galaxy
2/ Gravitational Monster in the center
3/ Invisible mass in that center explaining #2
Black Eye:
1/ Lots of stars and planets in a galaxy explaining #2
2/ Gravitational Monster in the center
See, that is how simple we can set both positions next to one another.
The funny part?
That #3 is invisible; it is found behind a horizon, and there is no scientific data coming forth from it, exactly because it is found behind a horizon.
Meanwhile, in the Black Eye model, all is accounted for, readily visible in outcome.
-
Another word to use instead of synergy is inherent. The outcome is inherent and exists due to the parts.
A house is more than bricks, wood, glass and metal added up.
No one in their right mind would calculate the house as a separate entity next to the parts. It is commonly understood that if the parts are fit together well, then we have a house. There is no magic. It is common knowledge.
P.S. Einstein was not enamored with Black Holes. He rejected (parts of) the idea.
