Black Holes?

It appears that Stephen Hawking has upset the scientific community... once again. This time because of his commentary about black holes.

I don't understand it (I simply do not have the skill set) and have always thought theoretical things tend to be untrue; that we learn that whatever is theorized turns out to have some truth and a lot of theory. And that the truth that is finally revealed is that science was fooled by the original theory.

Black holes, for example. I understand why they are called that; the gravitational pull is so great that even light cannot escape. Except that only apples to the light that gets close enough to the gravitational pull. That is, the atoms and molecules that are excited (thereby creating light) are on the edge of this. I think we should call them "Bright Holes" instead. Because I think that light, the light that begins just before the gravitational pulls sucks it in, should be perceptible.

When I think of something described as a "black hole", I picture a bright swirling mixture of  gases and dust. But the gravitational pull which excites the molecules and atoms should not be limited to just the material on the same plane but in all directions and, presumably, would excite (and, therefore, light up) the material in front, as well as alongside, this massive gravity well. In other words, a ball of light.

But I am no astrophysicist. It shows, doesn't it?