Isnt it possible that black holes have physical mass, and that this ball of mass followes the same rules as other balls of mass?
As others have mentioned, black holes absolutely
do have mass. They pretty much have nothing
but mass. Mass is one of only about four measurable quantities a black hole
can have, the others being charge, angular momentum, and the radius of the event horizon. And that fourth quantity is directly dependent on the mass, so that's really only three fundamental properties a black hole can have, with mass being the only one a black hole
must have.
I prefer such a idea to all this worm-hole, singularity, "smaller then an atom" thing that Hawkings and a bunch of other people are messing up their brains with.
I'm not sure how you're defining "mass" if you think it's inconsistent with those ideas. I think you're referring to something that has physical extent, but that's not what mass means. Functionally, mass is an object's resistance to inertia, or the parameter that determines how much gravitational attraction it exerts upon other bodies. It's got nothing to do with how big an object is.
Star collapses, mass is compressed to something very dense and heavy (The atoms split up in the process) and this dense and heavy thing is unable to create something heavier through fusion, because it has come to the end of the game in a way, producing a form of mass way heavier than anything we have on our periodic table.
Uhh, it couldn't "create something heavier" in any way. Matter isn't created out of nothing. When a massive star collapses, most of its outer atmosphere is blown away in a supernova, and the remains of the core collapse to increasingly greater density, but the amount of material does not increase. I think you're using "heavy" where you should be using "dense." As an object of a certain mass decreases in volume, its density increases, like when you squish a sponge in your hand. The material gets compressed tighter. If there's enough gravity to overcome the repulsion of the atoms' electrons, it collapses to electron-degenerate matter, the stuff that white dwarfs (and probably Jupiter's core) are made of. The nuclei are jammed close together and the electrons form a sort of fluid shared by all of them. If the gravitational pull is even stronger, it collapses to the point that the electrons are forced into the protons, turning them into neutrons -- so you get neutron-degenerate matter, known in fiction as neutronium, the stuff that neutron stars are made of. Maybe you compress it enough that it becomes degenerate by one more stage, an undifferentiated mass of quarks (the elementary particles that protons and neutrons are made of), aka quark matter.
But if the gravity is strong enough even to overcome the repulsion between the quarks that allows them to exist as separate particles, then there's nothing to prevent it from being crushed down to an arbitrarily small size, small enough that the remaining mass becomes encased within an event horizon, since the gravity at the surface becomes so great that even light can't escape. Beyond that point, under classical or relativistic physics, there's nothing to stop collapse to infinitely small size, the point mass known as a singularity. Quantum physics suggests that singularities may not exist, that there's too much uncertainty at the microscopic level for anything to be compressed completely to zero size. However, it's still inside the event horizon, so it would look and act the same either way.
Therefor it becomes very cold, and very flat. No mountains or hills or anything - completely and absolutely round, flat one might say - if one stands on the surface. It also becomes very dark because it swallows sunlight - and this might heat up the surface a bit never the less? Or is it impossible for mass without things like nucleus and electrons to become heated? It might be that the particles that its made up from are packed to densely to allow any kind of movement so it stays cold.
Anyway, this cold, hard and flat place sucks in more mass, but when the mass slams into the surface it starts a heavy fusion-process that releases a lot of energy, until it have become more of the super-heavy stuff.
Yeah, you're more or less describing a neutron star here, except neutron stars start out extremely hot -- since they are, after all, collapsed stars, and stars are hot to begin with, and when you increase the density of something, you increase its temperature.
Couldnt such a mass-based black hole theory also work? Why do we have to make them so small and wierd? And why do people believe that the gravitational pull can exist without the heavy mass in the midle, so that you can drive through it and push your self out on the other side worm-hole style?
The mass
is in the middle. All the mass is still there, just squished into a single point of infinite density (or as close to that as quantum uncertainty allows).
Now, normally, there's no wormhole. If the black hole is non-rotating and non-charged, the singularity is a point, and you just keep falling in toward it until you hit it. If it's rotating, however, the singularity becomes a ring, what's known as a Kerr singularity. Inside the ring, spacetime becomes so warped that you could conceivably pass through it and find yourself in some other part of time or space -- if the black hole is really large, like one at the center of a galaxy, so that the ring is big enough to pass through without being crushed by the immense gravity.
However, a wormhole
per se isn't meant to be the exact same thing as a black hole, just something with similar properties. It was Einstein, along with Rosen and Podowlski, who first noted that the spacetime topology of a black hole -- which could be treated as an infinitely deep "well" in an infinite flat "surface" of spacetime -- was topologically equivalent to a "tube" connecting two infinite "surfaces" (i.e. you could stretch out the walls of the "well" into a flat sheet). So they concluded that if the laws of physics allowed a black hole to exist, they could also allow the existence of a "bridge" connecting two regions of space or time, aka an Einstein-Rosen bridge -- or, as John Wheeler dubbed it in the '60s, a wormhole. (Wheeler's also the guy who coined the name "black hole" in the '60s, though the concept had been around much earlier.)
The funny thing is off course this high-speed-slow-time that Einstein found out. Things gets accelerated on their way down, and then they end up using more of our time on their way down. Does this make black holes eat more slowly than they otherwise would have done?
There's no absolutely "right" measure of how fast time is flowing. Two observers who are moving differently relative to each other will measure the passage of time differently, but neither one can be said to be "right" or "wrong." They're both right within their own frames of reference. An outside observer will see something slowing down as it falls into a black hole, finally becoming frozen perpetually at the event horizon. But if you're the one actually falling in, you'll just see yourself falling through the horizon and toward the singularity. And you'll both be right.
http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/PLANCK/Tour/Tour.html
Anyway, I dont understand this singularity thing. Wouldnt it be natural to assume that black holes occupy space in the universe the same way stars and planets do?
Remember what I said about squishing a sponge? The more you squish it, the less space it occupies, even though the same amount of stuff is in it. If you could squish it to arbitrary density, it would occupy less and less space until it became a black hole with the mass of that sponge.
or maybe more like: 
