You are incorrect about Einstein, and incorrect about Einstein's theory of Relativity predicting Black Holes. The funny part is that you write about 2D and that is exactly where the mistake occurred.
First Einstein. He objected to using his theory of Relativity as others were starting to use it. I am flabbergasted this has not received a whole lot more attention.
This is what Einstein did in an analogy:
The Scientific House has a fantastic foundation, extremely sturdy. However, the Scientific House does not have a finished roof. As soon as anyone tries to lift a roof off the ground to put on the House, everyone in science objects. Anything scientifically correct must remain on the ground.
In comes genius Einstein, because instead of lifting a roof on the Scientific House, he puts a theoretical roof on it. It is a perfect fit. He deserves a lot of credit for that achievement.
Then, other scientists take the 'roof theory' and turn it into the 'foundation theory'. I hope you see how easy it is to switch a 2D image inside out, think Rubin's Vase.
Einstein objected and was completely ignored. Like wild horses, other scientists ran away with his 'roof theory' and because it was such a good fit, it actually worked out really well.
But not at the spots where it matters the most.
Unfortunately, it is Einstein himself that we have to blame. His Theory of Relativity is pointing in the wrong direction. With spacetime, he points away from matter, while the essence is matter. We do not have any facts about the beginning of space, time, or energy. We only have facts that (appear to) point at the beginning of matter.
So, while his 'roof' is the perfect theory, it incorporated an incorrect vantage point, spacetime. Next, when scientists used the roof theory as the foundation theory, that incorrect single spot pointing outward was incorporated in the models, establishing centers with horizons that are unfortunately incorrect.
But let's keep everything in place and just accept that in good 2D fashion, we always have a second option to view at reality. The ingredients are then the same, but the human point of view, the eye of the beholder, ends up seeing something else.
The gravitational monster is real, let's immediately agree on that, Afiq. But the explanation can either be as you said it is or it can be the inverse.
The inverse of a Black Hole is a Black Eye.
In that case, the gravitational monster is built from all gravity coming together in a single spot.
The easy example is the binary star system. It has three gravitational centers. Two are found with each star, and the third is found with their combined gravitational field around which they do their dancing.
If we add ten stars to the binary system, then we have 13 gravitational centers (not counting the ones that change in strength between all these moving masses). In the center of the 12 masses, we have a gravitational center that is stronger than any of the stars, but perhaps not yet by much.
Then, in a galaxy, we have all these masses that collectively have the strongest gravitational monster one can imagine. It is so strong that light cannot even enter it.
And that is what we see, indeed. The photons coming straight toward us do not make it through the center. They are swept sideways. The ring of light around the Black Eye is formed by photons that are swept sideways, coming into our direction.
It is a Black Eye for scientists for sure.
Lastly, let me explain what Einstein should have done to be completely correct. Realize that this is of a total minor aspect, and Einstein can remain everyone's hero for sure.
He did not point the arrow to matter. he pointed it to spacetime.
He forgot the fourth action we are all involved in.
* Earth's gravity -- and spin
* Solar System's gravity -- and Earth's revolution
* Milky Way's gravity -- and Earth dancing along in the circular motion
* Milky Way's motion away from where matter originated -- and Earth speeding along
This fourth motion is the fastest speed we are involved in. The most important aspect is that it is NOT based on gravity. It is still based on the initial catapulting action of the materialization process.
https://fred-rick.medium.com/1-x-1-ff5ee1cb51a
In this article, I describe that further while trying to keep it simple. Many physicists focus on matter, but they forget to focus on the big picture and what happened so it could produce matter. The change is where they should put their focus.
Thank you for a good article, Afiq. You are a good writer and you provided much and good information. I hope you see that once we accept a 2D aspect in our thinking that we must then always make sure we see both versions. A hologram becomes real for our point of view, but the projection can be inside-out and can be outside-in and in both cases the brain sees the exact same thing. It cannot distinguish between the two versions of the single optical illusion.
Same for our understanding the universe. We have to have two versions based on our seeing it with instruments (i.e. to some extent always 2D).
