well, math isn’t evidence. Math is how we organize evidence and create a tractable model for how things work. For black holes, my understanding is that it’s our past experience that guides us. Past experience says that physics doesn’t stop applying in places we can’t see. Then we don’t consider matter that has fallen outside of the visible universe because of cosmological expansion to have left the universe. Likewise, we expect physics to work more or less the same inside a black hole as outside. “Less” is mostly about what happens at the exact center, which has conditions that our understanding of physics can’t describe.Isn't Physics...pure physics...mostly a math driven thing? Thus, there are things that they can't even observe but which they can see the math predict which are theories.
In such a way, couldn't the math be part of the evidence regarding the interior of a black hole or special relativity?
I was agreeing with Umbran’s second statement. (While setting it aside. I think it is irrelevant to my original point.) We can’t measure what happens inside a black hole. Strictly speaking, as an unmeasurable thing, it is not proper material for science.