On 8/21/17 6:46 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
You ( Tom Roberts ) replied ( to me ):
the gravitational waves observed by LIGO are not consistent with
any known hypothesis other than that they were generated by
collisions between black holes.

They could've been similar to black holes, but not quite;

No. They merged in a ways consistent with black holes in GR, and inconsistent
with any known type of material objects.

A very dense objects, yes. TRUE black holes, no.
Black Holes violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

That theoretical prejudice does not invalidate
the observational evidence that black holes exist.

There is no evidence that TRUE black holes exist, none.

Yes, there is. Your "none" is WRONG. YOU may not be convinced by it, but a
majority of the astrophysics community is.

For Sgr A* to not be a black hole requires violating other
theoretical prejudices of comparable stature.

Like what ? It could be a "SemiClassical Black Star".

No, because we don't see the radiation that would come from the infalling matter
hitting the surface of such an object.

Nobody expects the GR model to remain valid deep inside the horizon,
because we expect quantum effects to become significant there,
and we don't know how to reconcile GR with QM.

Exactly, we don't know.

There are things we do know, and things we don't know. We DO know that there are
objects in the universe which are MUCH better described as black holes than as
any other type of object.

HERE'S MY KEY POINT:
Until some better model is developed, scientists will model them as black holes.
You seem to be seeking some sort of "complete and absolutely true knowledge" --
that simply is not possible for humans in the world we inhabit.

more data, from more observers, is needed.

Always true, and this is no different from essentially any other field.

Tom Roberts