There is a second model for Black Holes, currently not considered by scientists. When considering a binary star system, two stars circle one another and there are therefore three gravitational centers. One gravitational center each for each star and the synergistic gravitational center found somewhere ‘in the middle’ of both stars. In simple math: binary star system = 2 + 1 gravitational centers.
Of course this is a ‘weak’ gravitational center. So let’s look at a galaxy of a billion stars. The simple math: 1 billion +1 gravitational centers are found in that galaxy.
Our instruments pick up information, for instance, photons. When a photon travels through the center of a binary star system, it probably wouldn’t change the outcome (by much).
Yet when a photon gets to the gravitational center of a galaxy, it will not be able to pass through that center. Like the eye of the storm being wind-still, the Eye of the Galaxy will not have any mass in it, not even the mass of a single photon.
So, there are two ways to explain the data we have.
Rubin’s vase is a good example of what choices should not have been made by physicists, but were made. Instead of seeing the two-dimensional images (of almost 3D quality) and declaring there are two ways to interpret the information, only one way was picked.
Must the vase be rejected in the Rubin’s vase? No. But the two faces must be mentioned as equally possible, because it is indeed possible. All our information is coming from a single perspective (our own solar neighborhood), so we have 2D information. We must therefore deliver two options until we have the 3D answer.
