Black Holes:- Existence highly Unlikely

I hear so much of Black Holes these days, as though already a proven fact. So called scientists then take this unproven phenomenon into science fiction land, with great discussions and lectures on how time can turn back as one approaches a black hole and to try to involve theories by names like Albert Einstein into their discussion, to give it some sort of credibility. In my own considerations as a seeker of truth I find myself unable to agree with the concept behind a black hole. I make my case for the great unlikely-hood of Black Holes as follows:

Reports I have read or heard over the years regarding exploding stars called ‘supernovas’, mention massive and sometimes prolonged bursts of energy, so powerful that they are visible many millions of light years away and often report intense axial cone-like bursts i.e. out from the two opposite ends of the star’s axis.
Vast amounts of matter are required to create such visible explosive energy. This matter comes from the star and is blown millions and millions of miles into space. The star has exploded from being a sphere into dissipated energy across a vast expanse of space.
The whole supposition regarding the formation of a Black Hole is that a star just collapses on itself, retaining its gravitational mass. And yet as described, the only thing we have witnessed is the supernova, which as described above, has blasted all this mass away from itself. There is no mass left to create a Black Hole.
If there are stars that have died, without the exploding supernova dissipation of its mass, it is far more likely that such a remaining ex- star mass has just collapsed into a dead compact ball of material, and not into the sci-fi idea of a so called Black Hole. The only reason that light is no longer emitted is not due to the gravity being so powerful that it doesn’t allow light to escape, but because the mass is dead; The star has shrunk into a dead ball of remaining matter, the nuclear reaction has stopped and light is no longer being created. Gravity does not stop any light escaping.

Time Does Not Slow Down With Speed

I am certain to receive criticism for this outrageous claim, considering that the premise that time is effected by speed of travel is almost set in stone in the world of academic science. I believe that many of the ‘tests’ on atomic watches in jets, bacteria spun in containers at high speed showing prolonged life etc are not to do with time but rather the effect on materials by moving across the pull of gravity, acceleration, centifugal forces etc, all directly effecting the motion of atoms and molecules (even living) compared with their normal state in stable conditions. This is a bit like the inertia effects standing on a tube train when it speeds up or slows down, forcing you to grab a handrail.

With regard to the visual and relative effect of time slowing with speed, consider the following. You are on Earth watching a hypothetical giant clock moving away from you at a speed approaching that of light. The hands of the clock continue to move at their normal speed to the observer travelling with the clock, but due to the time taken for the image of the clock to return to you on Earth, the hands look to slow down. The faster the clock moves away from you, the slower the hands seem to move, coming almost to a standstill near the speed of light.
Let’s say the clock has been moving away from you for 30 days at close to light speed. The hands to you on Earth may only show one hour’s movement in all this time, due to the slowing hand effect mentioned above. The chap travelling on the clock has experienced the full 30 days in travel; the same as the 30 days you have experienced of life around you on Earth.
After the 30 days travel, with the clock still facing Earth, the clock stops and speeds back toward Earth for another 30 days. You will now see the clock speeding up to about twice as fast as the normal clocks on Earth, because you will see 60 days (minus the hour you observed in the outward journey) movement of the hands of this clock in the 30 days the clock takes to return.
Once returned to Earth, the chap on the travelling clock has experienced 60 days of time pass since blasting off, you on Earth have experienced 60 days of time pass, and the clock has recorded 60 days of time. Time has not been effected by travel at speed.
Light travels at 186,000 miles a second or 700 million miles an hour. The sun is 93 million miles away so its light takes 500 seconds or 8.3 minutes to reach us. Whether you are looking through a powerful telescope or not makes no difference; if an explosion happens at that distance, you cannot observe it until 8.3 minutes later. If something such as a star is one light year away, and it explodes, we will know about it only a year after it’s happened. If a thousand or million light years away, it will take a thousand or million years for us to see an event from that star.
I mention the above to explain the slowing of clock hands, relative to the viewer, when such an object moves away at speed. If the giant clock moves away from you at an instant and constant speed to reach the sun in 10 minutes (600 seconds), then you will observe the second hand at 83.3% of the speed of light, which means that light will return back to Earth from the clock at 16.7% the speed of light, effectively increasing the length of time for each second by 5.98 times (say 6 times). Visually to the observer back on Earth each movement of the second hand on the travelling clock will take about 6 seconds, and equally one travelling clock minute will take six minutes in Earth time.