#3. Hubble's theories are much older than the current theories, which have the benefit of more information about the universe than Hubble had.

@AnonySchmoose

Hubble did astronomy. The more recent theories are those of mathematicians, aka theoretical physicists.

@AnonySchmoose The mathematicians don’t find black holes, dark matter, etc.

They write gravity-only equations and, within our solar system where gravity is strong, their equations almost correctly describe what they see. I worked in the Apollo program and knew of the mid-course corrections necessary to land on the moon.

In the vastly larger Milky Way galaxy, where electricity is vastly stronger than gravity, their equations do not correctly describe what they see.

They invent enough matter (black holes, dark matter, etc ) and add terms to their equations that make their equations correct.

If people are interested in astrophysics, they may know more about this.
I added a third option, in case you wish to comment on what it is that you know which answers the question. Best wishes.

And we know so little about the universe.

What evidence do you have that blackholes are fiction?

Black Holes Matter!

@xenoview

Timothy, the people who say black holes exist have the burden of proof. Like theists, they have given you only words.

@Petter, black holes matter only to those who are being sucked into one.

@yvilletom
Saying they don't exist has a burden of proof.

@xenoview I’m not going to teach you science. Period.

And the Earth's FLAT..

@Charlene From my battle station on an anti-aircaft gun of a US Navy destroyer, the earth didn’t look flat. From my watch station on the bridge of that destroyer the earth looked less flat.
What persuades you to say it is?
( Deal? You delete yours and I’ll delete mine. )

@yvilletom
You have failed to provide evidence for your claims.

@yvilletom No, not true. They have collected the required data, and through mathematical discovery plus a pinch of physics, chemistry and a growing volume of technology, black holes are actually a reality.

@Thinking

Their gravity-only model needed more gravitation, they hypothesized a source of gravitation which they called a black hole, and interpreted radiotelescope data as that black hole.

@yvilletom Citations please?

@Thinking You do the same, please.

@yvilletom You first; you led the conversation and stated your position in opposition to the commonly help opinion.

@yvilletom Again, citations please?

@Thinking You named data, math discovery, physics, chemistry, and technology. The lie doesn’t require all of that.

You read some science fiction and accepted it as true. Cite the article and the publication in which you read it.

Astrophysics is pretty mind-boggling and amazing. I remember hearing something like in your comment. Thanks very much for sharing that.

@AnonySchmoose The closest we would have now would be unnova where a red giant is just the right size and instead of exploding just wink out by collapsing too fast to explode.
Betelgeuse could very well be of the unnova type.

@Willow_Wisp
I guess you've studied this and remember.
I've watched many videos and remember too, though not as well as you.

I agree, there has to have been a point where surrounding matter is too dense for expansion into a red giant or where any nuclear force could prevent collapse. Any stellar activity would have been short lived, this does have some interesting implications for dark energy expansion.