[chrisweekly]

Great comment -- but while I agree w/ your point about metaphors, I respectfully mildly disagree about this one in particular. For context, I associate it with the popular analogy of timespace as an elastic "sheet" of sorts, with marble-like objects resting on (and sinking into) its surface, with their mass dictating how "deep" their gravity "well" is. With that metaphor in mind, black holes really do approximate holes in the sheet.

[thathappened]

But even how we illustrate a sheet of spacetime we show it dip when it should stay flat and pinch, closing the gap between atoms as they get more dense.

All of these inaccurate descriptions assume we have the concept already in mind to recursively look up. Describing more accurately let's the reader get a clearer picture and thats where real concepts get conceived.

I like heavy/dark star/planet for a vague description. I also think the fact that humans rely on visuals now and we can't get more than a single angle of one of these we can show anyone a 3D view of how it's not just nothing.

[nsxwolf]

I don't like the elastic sheet analogy because it doesn't work without gravity, the very thing it's attempting to explain.

[chias]

I like it because it isn't quite as self-referential as it at first seems: the notion of gravity that it requires is not the notion of gravity it is explaining: it uses the colloquial and accessible idea of gravity (i.e. "things fall downwards") to describe a more precise idea of gravity (i.e. "things fall towards each other in accordance with mass").

[atilaneves]

This has always bothered me as well, and I'm surprised that this is the first time I've seen anyone else mention it!