You are still with the Black Hole model, Aaron. But... I do see a spot where I need to be more clear, so I have an opportunity to explain the distinction between both models better. I hope it will help you see the other model.
--
Let me try make the distinctions more clear first with examples that are not about gravity.
Black Hole model comparison: An ice skater rapidly circling on one skate, making beautiful figures in that single spot on the ice, spinning fast.
Black Eye model comparison: six folks dancing in a circle holding hands.
Since forces are invisible, let's imagine the ice skater and the folks invisible. In these imagined cases, we only measure the spin, and for the sake of making the point obvious, both examples produce the exact same amount of measured spin. We are unable to pinpoint the spin to its accurate source because the source is invisible.
It is up to us to figure out which model is correct.
Model-wise, the ice skater is in the center spot, and is the single focal point. All we envision is how the produced spin belongs to a single body. This model is therefore simple. Recognize how your use of the 'peak of the mountain' example has a simple, single position.
Model-wise, the six people have nothing in the center between them, but right around that empty center is where they are dancing. This time, the model is complex, exactly because the center spot is empty. The produced spin belongs to the bodies around the center.
-
In another quick example, the pull is expressed like 25 ropes between 50 people pulling on these ropes, having all ropes tied to a single center spot.
Or… in the complex model, how these 25 ropes are tied to the ropes themselves somehow and in the center the ropes form a circle. In the exact center, there is no rope at all. The inner circle of ropes has the most pull.
-
So, let me update my words to reflect better that in the alternate Black Eye model we have zero gravity in the center. I will therefore replace the use of the term net-zero with zero gravity. That way, the proposal is fully aligned with the Eye of the Storm having no wind. In somewhat crooked English: The Eye is empty of wind. Still, the center is a depression due to the pull.
In the Black Eye model, the exact center is empty of gravity. Yet right around it, the Wall with maximum strength is found in the complex model.
Then, looking at the Black Hole model, the known gravitational monster got that singular invisible spot appointed to it.
That is obviously the simple model.
You see? Two models!
One with the simple, single material spot, and one with the complex reality around an empty spot.
--
Yes, the three-body problem makes physicists rather shy to look at, for instance, the reality of six celestial bodies in one gravitational environment. They don't like to get involved at this level. For good reasons. They are afraid of the complex-body reality. They can’t do it; they can’t calculate it all.
In a galaxy, we have 10,000,000 stars or more. Isn't it obvious, Aaron, that we cannot use the simple model? We must use the complex model.
Thank you for continuing to gnaw on this. It is with your feedback that I can understand what you are contemplating.
I hope you recognize the complex model now, and how the empty position is the clue to understanding the Black Eye model.
