What is a Black Hole? - Stephen Hawking's final theory

Academia is incorrect with regard to many points; This include Einstein and Hawkins and Feinman and many others. Kudos, indeed Physics girl for regurgitating eloquently that which most of us have been taught. I mean it: wonderful presentation! The challenge with theoretical physicists is they live in a world of Unicorns whereas theories become models that have no basis in actual workings. The regauging of equations by adding constants is but one example. We end up with theories that only work at the macro scale and necessitate another one for the micro scale.We consider theories that throw away 96% (give or take) of the Universe, simply because we cannot yet observe it. We confuse attributes of things for the thing itself. My hand waving is still my hand. Waving is that which my hand is doing. A wave does not exist in and of itself. Something must exist, in order to wave, whether that something can be perceived, or not. We invent virtual particles for the sake of making equation work. We take all those things for gospel and current science is now more dogma than actual genuine science. A few succeed in breaking away from academic science and actually use thought, logic, intuition as well as retroduction to arrive to true understandings. Observations and explanations are two vastly different animals, unfortunately too often confused by scientists.What is energy? What is light? What is a field? The words we use must explain the phenomenon and not merely describe it, and the mathematics must also explain the phenomenon; not make up a model. It may not be simple to explain, but it can be simplex. Ken Wheeler certainly attains that level of understanding, even if his delivery is not always tasteful. See, also Nassim Haramein. I like those rebels of science that do not abide by the indoctrination of Academia and cannot stand the "dumification" of Humanity through a system that does not condone thinking and the scientific method, but that rewards regurgitation of ideas and dogma as basis for more of the same. These are most of the Phd's to which we are supposed to bow to. Hail to the rebels, with degrees, or without, who truly question everything and are open to changing their mind completely, if need be. It is just that it can be easier (not always) to change our mind and contemplate new possibilities when we have not yet been programmed by a system of science that rewards sheepish behavior and almost cultish allegiance to the religious dogma of the establishment. Even those who appear to be mavericks, such as Hawkins. I respect all of them deeply for their contributions. I am just not willing to conform for the sake of not rocking the boat. I want to understand, rather than regurgitate, or pretend to understand non-sensical explanations.  Sure, what is non-sensical today may become trivial, tomorrow. At least, let's admit when we make things up, rather than passing the as theories that become accepted and become the basis for new theories, each less sensible than the previous one.