Did you bother to look towards other thinking .
What other thinking?
Does your thinking go at all beyond the mere thought "Maybe black holes don't exist"?
The problem with that is not in imagining that things might be one way or the other. Of course they could be one way or the other, in the absence of any actual data. The problem you face is that a ton of data and observations supports the claim that black holes exist, and goes against the idea that black holes do not exist.
And who gets time on state of the art , telescopes ( Hubble , for example ) super computers , when you have alternative thinking , Zero .
That's incorrect. Scientists who get time on state of the art telescopes are always testing new ideas and pushing the boundaries of knowledge. At any given time, there are always lots of competing scientific hypotheses that are being investigated by scientists, and every scientist appreciates that some (most, even) of the hypotheses being tested against the data from state-of-the-art telescopes and the like will turn out to be wrong.
The difference between your average backyard wonderer who says "Maybe black holes don't exist" and the scientist who gets time on the James Webb telescope is that the scientist who is given time will always have a well-specified research proposal that says something like: "I need to use the telescope to collect data of types A, B and C on astronomical objects X, Y and Z, with an aim of testing the hypothesis that objects X, Y and Z should show features P, Q and R, according to my hypothesis H". In contrast the barkyard idle speculator might not have a clue on how to construct a falsifiable hypothesis, or what data he would need to collect to test the hypothesis, or how he could use the telescope to collect an applicable data set.
Telescope time is a precious commodity, especially if you're using a 10 billion dollar telescope that has a projected lifetime of only 15-20 years. You won't get time to point it randomly around the sky in the hope that an idea might occur to you at some stage as you look at the pretty images.
You can't prove me wrong .
I don't have to prove your claims wrong. You have to prove them right.
Start by reading the scientific literature on black holes and the evidence that supports their existence. Hell, start by reading the
popular science literature. Then come up with a coherent theory that explains why
all of that evidence is wrong, and how you will explain it all away in the absence of any theory of black holes. Once you've done that, I'm sure you will be able to get your "alternative" theory published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Having proved Einstein (and a whole bunch of other physicists) wrong, maybe you'll collect a Nobel Prize for your revolutionary new thoughts on what used to be thought of as black holes.
Good luck!