Adapted for the Internet from:

Why God Doesn't Exist
What is the hole into?

    When we illustrate a physical object, it has by default an encompassing medium. There is no way to avoid the
    medium or entity that serves as a background to shape and form. Otherwise, we would be unable to visualize
    the object. A hole is not an object in itself. It is rather a word we use to designate a region of an object. A pail is
    an object. The hollow region of the pail is given by the shape of the metal, wood, or plastic. A doughnut is an
    object. The hole is what we carved out of it. And so on. What is the black hole carved into (Fig. 1)?

    ________________________________________________________________________________________


     Home                    Book WGDE                    Glossary                    Extinction   

    Last modified 01/15/16


        Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008

I have no idea how this guy got here!
He mumbled something about trying to
escape into another universe through a
wormhole. Apparently, he got sucked
through our Holy Sewer and ended up
circling with the shit in Zeus's's toilet.

Fig. 3   Holes
The idiots of Mathematical Physics first converted space into a physical
object. Now they are drilling holes into it.
You poor fool!
How could we
have believed
in such
nonsense!

    So again, under the 2-D scenario, what is the hole into? Space?

    If this is the answer of General Relativity, it shows how crucial it is to demonstrate to the mathematical morons
    that space is not a physical object. Before relativists can claim that space is an object, the scientific method
    requires them to illustrate space.

    But assuming the mathematicians get past this hurdle, the next one is impossible. A star such as the Sun
    occupies a volume (i.e., in relativistic language: it occupies 3-D space). When a massive star compresses, it
    turns into a neutron star, which also ‘occupies 3-D space’. Relativists say that a more massive star shrinks
    even further and converts into a black hole. If the star was a solid (which translated into the idiotic language
    of Mathematics means that it 'occupied 3-D space'), how did this object suddenly lose length, width, and
    height and become a singularity (i.e., an abstract concept)?

    Even more amusing is the picture relativists paint that a black hole is the entrance to another universe. Here
    we exit the realm of science and enter the surrealistic Wonderland of 'Looking-Glass' fame. The mathematicians
    no longer imagine this hole as a 3-D sphere (i.e., the event horizon spreading radially from its singularity). Now
    they visualize it as a 2-D manhole through which Bugs Bunny disappears (Fig. 3). The black hole is suddenly a
    cross-section (of space?) with no width, the end of a long cylinder known as a wormhole:

    " a wormhole is a thin tube of space-time which can connect two nearly flat regions
      far apart." (p. 158) [3]

    [Thin tube of space-time, huh? I thought that space-time was just an unphysical,
    mathematical concept -- a manifold -- useful for explaining theories!]

    " It introduced to the world, to science fiction, and also re-introduced to serious
      scientists the notion of a wormhole as something that is was really worthy of
      thinking about. [4]

    [Oh, how breathtakingly worthy!  What a bunch of gullible, stupid morons the mathematicians
    of our world are!]

    Is this what a black hole is: a 2-D 'entrance' to another universe? What is the stuff that contours this flat
    entrance (Fig. 3)? What interfaces with the mouth of a black hole? I mean, when Bugs pops his head above
    the manhole, what is it that contours his head and gives it shape? What does the black hole have to do with
    Science or Physics? These are question the lamebrains of relativity have to answer. The rest is just petty
    Math.

Fig. 2
Relativists rely on the 3-D, spherical model of the
black hole to explain to you how a star shrinks and
becomes a black hole. When they want to explain
why a black hole attracts our Sun in its direction or
how a wormhole forms, the idiots revert back to the
2-D, gravity-well variant. Of course, if a black hole is
simultaneously 2-D and 3-D, you can already
imagine that this malleable hypothesis is certain to
come in quite handy to the
prosecution.
"a region whose surface
eventually shrinks to
zero size. And, since the
surface of the region
shrinks to zero, so too
must its volume. All the
matter in the star will be
compressed into a
region of zero volume"
(p. 49)
[2]
I don't know, Steve.
It still looks 2-D if not
3-D to me.

Fig. 3   The surrealistic wormhole of relativity
A star is a solid. It is 3-D (length, width, and height). Relativists claim that it shrinks and
converts to a neutron star, which is also 3-D. However, relativists also claim that if a star
has a lot of 'mass' ( a concept), it shrinks first to zero size (meaning it becomes a 0-D
object). But this non-entity also becomes the 2-D entrance to a wormhole, a gofer hole
that connects two universes. The idiots of relativity draw these two universes as flat
planes, each with a mouth that is a circle. The question is, 'What contours these
universes above and below? What is the stuff that is on each side of these pancakes?
What stuff is the wormhole 'through'? Therefore, the incongruous situation arises where
a star is 3-D, but converts to a 0-D black hole which is a 2-D entrance to a flat universe
that has nothing on either side of it. Relativists insist that these surrealistic visions are
scientific because they are inferred from equations!  

    Some people have come up with ingenious replies:

    " a black hole isn't really a hole at all" [1]

    With this seemingly innocent disclaimer the relativist takes the wind out of your sails and deprives you of an
    argument. The alleged hole is a hole no more, so you end up chasing a strawman. The proponent who
    subscribes to this version wishes you to believe that a black hole is a collapsed star and not really anything
    like a hole in your ice cream cone. I call this variant the '3-D model' of the black hole. The mathematician asks
    you to visualize a shrinking basketball, and then, of course, you never end up with a hole. You end up with a
    tennis ball. Okay. So far, no problem. However, when the idiot wants to explain why stars are attracted to a
    black hole, he illustrates what I call the '2-D model': a hole dug in the ground (Fig. 2). Here I will proceed with
    the 2-D model.