In the drawings of this article, the impossibility of the existence of black holes is exposed and explained, in a synthesized way, due to the supposed high mass and gravity that make them up (and therefore energy density), are not allowed by the force of expansion and redistribution of energy (magnetic forces of expansion) that the Cosmos produces and exerts throughout the cosmic space (according to my cosmic and atomic model).
The Cosmos as a whole is completely filled and saturated by cosmic energy (space + universal movement (time)).
This cosmic energy fills the entire cosmos, and then, it behaves like a fluid in a container, and therefore exerts a powerful energy redistribution force in the same proportion in all places of the cosmos or Universe (magnetic force).
And this takes place in all places and at all cosmic levels (microcosm and macrocosm)
Well, if there is an average energy density in the cosmos, it should have a Da value (mean energy density) at all points in cosmic space.
Although, this average value of the energy density can be "mocked" and increased with the construction of orbital systems (nucleus with high energy density and periphery with high volume and low concentration of matter) such as atoms, stellar systems , etc., with an average value of energy density in the whole system already allowed by the cosmos.
However, due to the cohesion and compression of these orbital systems when they rotate, there comes a time when they clearly exceed the energy density, and due to the action of the magnetic forces of expansion, and then these systems are destroyed and divided into other minor systems and particles (Uranium, supernovae).
That is, the exploding supernovae do not become black holes, (nor do these black holes exist), they simply destroy themselves forming stars and smaller particles.
Of course, the Big-bang did not exist as a great concentration of energy either, but as a great concentration of matter that exploded emitting all kinds of stars and smaller particles.
Nor does the space of the cosmos expand, but the stars and particles resulting from our great explosion or Big-bang.

I'm sorry.
I would not like to be killjoy or pessimistic, but what I see is not a black hole as it is theorized, (It would have to be a completely dark and symmetrical centre, with an equator and a large accretion disk also symmetrical, uniform and very extensive (ring-shaped) with thousands of stars revolving around it).
Then, this just looks like three simple stars (three star system) which revolve around each other.
I think it doesn't look anything like a black hole, and it's not to disqualify the observation work of these scientists, it's just that I see it that way.

So this deep, long and extensive research work can we consider it a great failure?
Not, quite the opposite: What this great work seems to show is that black holes do not exist.
If we look for them with great precision, detail, care, etc. and I can't find them, maybe they don't exist.
So where is the problem?
Well, probably in that the preponderance of Relativity induces and "forces" scientists of all kinds to make formulas, demonstrations and observations that justify Relativity; never contradict it:
Of course, if they want to be heard.

Thank you friends