Einstein's equations contain a term that involves dividing the mass of the black hole by the

distance "r" from the black hole. The question is what happens when r=0? Division by zero gives
a result of infinity. To physicists, it is impossible for infinity to appear in the real world, so they
consider r = 0 to be the point at which physics breaks down. At r = 0, the centre of a black hole,
gravity is infinite and time itself stops: all of the mass of the black hole is contained within an
infinitely small point where the concept of space no longer makes any sense. The point takes up
precisely no space at all. Since this point is outside space and time, it is dimensionless. The
physical universe collapses into an ineffable twilight state at this point. This apparently
impossible object of infinite density and infinite gravity is known as the singularity. No
predictions can be made about it, or about what might emerge from it. At the singularity,
physicists' understanding of nature fails completely. Therefore, they believe that there is a fatal
flaw in the formulation of Einstein's theory of general relativity, despite its immense success.

The one thing no physicist has ever contemplated is this: there is no flaw whatsoever. The reason
why physics seems to disintegrate at r = 0 is for the extremely simple reason that r = 0 is not in
the physical universe. It is in the mental universe, the universe of mind, as we have described in
the previous section.

Physicists, so blindly and irrationally wedded to materialism, have never taken their own
equations to their logical conclusion. What their equations actually point to at the limit of r = 0 is
a different aspect of existence - mental rather physical, dimensionless rather than dimensional,
outside of space and time. Rather than face up to that, physicists would prefer to futilely search
for a new theory. But they have nowhere else to go. They will always run up against exactly the
same problem: that the universe of dimensions, of space and time, coexists with another universe
of no dimensions, outside space and time. Reality can never be comprehended if either aspect is
ignored.

To talk of "two universes" is convenient but technically incorrect. The true nature of existence is
that it has two aspects coexisting in a single continuum. The r = 0 (dimensionless, mental)
universe and the r > 0 (dimensional, physical) universe are both part of a single universe r >= 0 (r
greater than or equal to zero).

If you want an equation for everything, you could choose r >= 0 because that encapsulates the
true dual nature of reality; physical and mental.

******

There are two numbers that have proved an insurmountable problem to science, two numbers
that provide the limits of existence: zero and infinity. Infinity is a number without limit, while
zero is an anti-number that doesn't count anything (for example we can point to three apples, but
not to zero apples). Zero and infinity are two of the most obscure topics in mathematics and,
because of their mysterious nature, both arrived on the scene much later than ordinary numbers
such as 1, 2, 3, 4 etc. It wasn't until Georg Cantor's work of the late nineteenth century that
infinity became a respectable subject of study. Moreover, zero is simply the inverse of infinity,
and vice versa: 1 divided by infinity = 0, and 1 divided by zero = infinity. Science will never be
complete until it is able to fully incorporate zero and infinity.

Science is the theory that only Descartes' "extended" substance exists i.e. things must have
dimensions before they can be "real". Illumination is the doctrine that "things" without
dimensions are as real as those with dimensions. To express it mathematically, r = 0 is as real as
r > 0. Science has no legitimate basis for excluding r = 0, and, indeed, r = 0 appears right at the
heart of science, right at the centre of the Genesis Singularity, the Big Bang itself. Science says
the Big Bang arose out of nothingness (an impossible and non-existent state) while Illumination
teaches that the physical universe of dimensions (r > 0) emerged not from "nowhere and
nothing" but from the mental, dimensionless universe (r = 0). Something did not come from
nothing but from a different aspect of something: matter from mind, dimensions from non-
dimensions. Equally, dimensional matter can be transformed into dimensionless mind, and this is
the process that take place at a black hole singularity where r = 0. Which paradigm is the more
logical and consistent? Which does not require something to spontaneously arise from nothing?

Scientists have never asked themselves the most basic question of all: why should dimensional
entities (r > 0) be privileged over non-dimensional entities (r = 0)? What is the sufficient reason
for existence to exclude dimensionless entities and be wholly based on dimensional entities?
There is no such reason. It is blind, irrational prejudice that causes scientists to ignore the r = 0
universe. They suffer from "group think".

Any scientist who dared to suggest that the r = 0 dimensionless aspect of existence was as real as
the r > 0 dimensional aspect would be ridiculed by his peers. This is the terrible danger of
institutionalized thinking. It breeds fear; it prevents the most radical ideas from being
contemplated, unless such ideas conform to the ruling paradigm.

Yet no scientist can provide any legitimate scientific or philosophical reason why dimensionless
existence is not every bit as real as dimensional existence and, indeed, the Big Bang singularity
itself is a dimensionless entity, as is the singularity at the centre of any black hole. Why don't
scientists face the facts provided by their own most cherished theories?

Dimensionless entities can, do and must exist.