I am challenging the interpretation of those tests. Common interpretation is that light has no rest mass, and that, therefor, gravity should not affect it by itself, and yet, it clearly affects the path light takes. So they conjure up the idea that space is warped by gravity, and try to make time this tangible thing instead of an abstract concept.
We know light has momentum, and we agree that mass and energy are directly linked, except when it comes to light. They say that light has no rest mass, but I say that we simply don't have equipment sensitive enough to weigh it yet. I also argue that time is not tangible, as that would create too many paradoxes. The only way to make that work is to conjure up a new dimension, which we also have no other evidence of. I argue that a black hole is just a super dense ball of matter/energy, and that since light has momentum, and therefor mass, that enough gravity would be able to alter it's trajectory. We don't see things come out of a black hole on a regular basis because that stuff doesn't have enough momentum to escape the enormous gravity. At least until the black hole itself reaches critical mass. It has enough gravity to crunch together atoms, but each stem down in size has more energy. Eventually it's going to try and crush something too small and cause an explosive reaction. Try to squeese atoms together too tightly, and you get an explosion. But if there's already too much gravity to escape, the material stays there and collects more gravity. Allowing gravity to accumulate further, even the quarks and stuff the sub-atomic particles are made of will start overcrowding, which, following the observed pattern, would also explode their bonds eventually. And then the stuff that is made of, and so on and so forth. Gravity increases linearly, but the increase in bond energy increases exponentially every level you go down. Eventually, it will overtake the gravity, resulting in a rather large explosion we call the big bang.
I argue that my explanation has the benefit of simplicity. It doesn't need to conjure up a bunch of new stuff to make it's base assumptions work. Isn't the simplest explanation usually the best one, after all?