You don't even understand your own model!

You can't see that when you say something is collective action, in one case with a model that posits an enormous mass, and the other that posits no mass, that the two models are different.

The two models are different.

One says there is a mass. One says there isn't.

One says you see the effects of the mass.

The other says...something...else, which you never will actually reveal in any detail, just say "collective" over and over again.

The models are not the same. Saying they're the same does not make them the same.

One has a mass, the other has collective action.

One specifies how the mass works, the other gives analogies with city councils.

The data agrees quite precisely with the first model. The data does not agree with the second model at least because the model doesn't make the predictions that the first model does.

Far away from a black hole: same thing. Close: utterly different. In between: you won't say. Why is it different: you won't say. How does the "collective" idea work in different galaxies: you won't say. How can there be an apparent ejected supermassive black hole without the collective: you won't say.

Model B's idea of a "collective" is eminently testable. It's not the same. You just refuse to admit that there could be any test. You refuse to consider how a collective could work.

Your problem is that you don't understand your own model. You don't think about the consequences. You don't think about the structure. You don't think about how structure might cause consequences. It's all superficial analogies and claims that other people can't conceive of what you're saying, despite you not apparently being able to conceive of what you're saying yourself.

Collective action means something. It's not just empty words.

You say things which are blatantly wrong, like "Gravity is not cancelled out, but forms an additional gravitational center which we recognize in that circling action." This is wrong. There is no "gravitational center" there. It's at best a saddle point. But then, despite saying wrong things with measurable consequences, you insist that the models both agree with data. They don't. Not when you get stuff like this wrong.

You need to learn. If you learn, you will be able to understand what statements are two different views of the same thing, and what statements are actually different. You will be able to calculate what things are plausible and what are not.

You need to learn, and you need to understand your own model, and the consequences of your own statements about your own model.

I let you specify how anything worked, and you just agreed with Model A in the areas where I asked about. How is that me not understanding Model B, if all you can say about it is that the physics matches Model A, except in one region where you note a superficial similarity to a totally different phenomenon?

You're the one who said, "To explain the more complex conditions, I inserted the tug-of-war game with 100,000 teams playing simultaneously. It will be impossible for all teams to focus on all teams or assert their force on all teams."

That's different. That's measurably different. Gravitation has infinitely broad focus (in Model A). See? It's not just a matter of viewing the effects from the opposite direction. They're actually different statements about how things work.

You're the one who said, "The pull of gravity will establish a net-zero spot in the center, and yet immediately next to it gravity will be at its max for the entire galaxy."

That's also different. Measurably different. It's not a different perspective on the same exact things, it's a whole different set of predictions.

The mathematics for anything remotely like regular gravitational potential does not produce anything like what you say. And so there you have your problem: you say things work like Model A in one place, and they work utterly unlike Model A somewhere else, and when I try to look in between to understand the difference, you say I don't understand!

If you want to tell me that I can reparameterize forces and come up with the same answer, sure, no problem.

If you want to tell me that I can reparameterize and a vast phantom mass appears out of nowhere, then I am going to ask whether the math can actually support that, and it can't. This isn't looking at the same thing a different way. It's a different thing. If it wasn't a different thing, Model A would be Model B.

You need to start paying attention to your own model!