&gt; But they do -- the evidence is copious:<p>The evidence is non-existent. The only evidence is for supermassive objects, not event horizons.<p>&gt; Arguing that ... BHs aren&#x27;t real, is like saying ... an infinite series and an infinity of additions takes too long.<p>That&#x27;s a terrible argument. One is an actual physical process, the other is a mathematical abstraction. Do you not understand infinity? Infinity means you can&#x27;t actually do it. It doesn&#x27;t mean you can&#x27;t calculate it.<p>&gt; Think of black holes as objects of great mass, that have very bright accretion disks, surrounding an event horizon that is perpetually almost forming a singularity but never quite completes it (from the perspective of someone far from the horizon).<p>Eh? If it never forms a singularity, it has no event horizon. i.e. it has none of the physic breaking properties of black holes.<p>And accretion disks don&#x27;t have to be bright BTW, as stuff falls in time dilation makes them much less bright (they &quot;slow down&quot;, and emit photons less often).<p>&gt; From the perspective of a distant observer, the time horizon is located at the event horizon.<p>When I say center of mass of the black hole I am naming the object I am talking about, not describing the location of the time horizon. Sorry if it was confusing.