I know exactly what I mean.

Do you?

First off, mass has nothing to do with volume.

Nobody is quite sure what causes mass. But it absolutely is not volume. The two are not connected in any way other than taking shortcuts to estimate the mass of 3+ dimensional objects by assuming a fixed volume of a given substance has a fixed mass.

You are trying to apply the rules of baking a cake to physics at the cosmological scale. It just doesn't work that way.

And yes. Two dimensional objects don't have what we consider thickness. That's what makes them 2 dimensional.

Neither do black holes. Feel free to try to calculate the thickness of a black hole. Or the thickness of anything in it.

Go for it. Try to calculate the 3+ dimensional "space" between any two known or proposed particles in the presence of the gravitational forces observed in black holes.

Please show where all the Z vectors and time dependent values end up.

By the way...what force are you proposing that can maintain a Z distance between these particles?

In opposition to the known gravitational forces present in black holes?

The electromagnetic repulsion from electrons that normally maintains Z?

Past the event horizon?

Electrons?

Repelling with sufficient force to overcome the gravitational forces present?

And this is exactly what the latest information from gravitational wave study and hawking radiation says as well. That a black hole is what it means to observe and attempt to measure an infinitely (or near infinitely) massive 2 dimensional object from 4+ dimensional space.

It also probably means that everything "in" a black hole is pure data that somehow maintains mass or mass like gravitational effects on 4+ dimensional space. But again, we don't know what causes mass. Or gravity for that matter.

It's really weird compared to average observations of reality at human scale. But so is the fact that all protein expression is completely dependent on shape.

And who knows, maybe 50 years from now we will have a completely different and clearer understanding of black holes. But the current, best, approximation of reality is this. However weird it is.

Hell, when I was a kid the best Nobel laureates in physics and cosmology said black holes were fairy tales.

So nothing much would surprise me.

But this "finding" seems more like an exploration of what is mathematically possible, than an attempt to observe and describe reality in a better way.