Reflecting an interest that I've had for some time, that has been rekindled due to its inherent entanglement with my fundamental area of research - the nature of time, I am releasing the first of a three part series on black holes that will raise new questions and hopefully answer them. I had intended to just do one or two but, after reviewing the available data, I determined that there was enough to do three separate pieces and also offer the opportunity to collaborate to a certain degree, with experts in the field who would be more familiar with the math of black hole physics. I have discovered key correlations in the preliminary data, concerning specific features of black holes, with established concepts and interpretations of nontrivial space-times and causal temporal dynamics. To be sure that the conceptual interpretation of this new data meets a standard beyond mere speculation, a mathematical analysis is required. I could attempt it myself I'm not expert enough. I'm a conceptual theorist. My strength is in seeing how to construct a big picture out of little pieces and in breaking big pictures down to their basic components, even when most people don't recognize that there is a picture there at all. In this case I k now all the right questions to ask that would lead to a solution, I just lack the mathematical expertise to do the calculations to determine the right answers.

The first piece in this new series is titled,

*Predictable Barriers Precluding Any Consideration of Transversable Black Holes Through Outer Space,*and deals with the persistent speculation about the concepts of falling or flying, into a black hole, and what happens if you do. It was even one of the questions asked of Mark Polansky of the

*Endeavour*Space Shuttle crew via Youtube last year during a promotion that NASA had with Youtube. It was this question (and the answer) posed by a little boy from England named Cameron, that prompted me to revisit this entire issue to attempt to put such scenarios into a fixed and decided context, as the data on black holes over the last 20 years has changed the conversation without the awareness of the general public and in fact, many scientists.

It was my theoretical journey into black holes, in the search for the data to compile a complete and accurate picture of the physics involved in the Cameron's hypothetical scenario, that I discovered a wealth of research that had been done on black holes, in obscurity. Some of it was of little consequence in as far as my task at hand, while others were very helpful. In fact, it is compiling these references, for my first piece, that is keeping me from posting it right now. As soon as that is done,

*P*

*redictable Barriers Precluding Any Consideration of Transversable Black Holes Through Outer Space*will go online here.

The exciting part of my foray into obscure black hole research was that I found more evidence of a significant feature of black holes that could be tied into temporal mechanics. It is a possible discovery that will effect the work of a number of famous physicists in a positive and unexpected way, as the work was of highly mathematical and theoretical nature that I disagreed with for some very good reasons. I still do, but my discovery, if it is supported by the mathematical rigor of an experienced mathematician or physicist familiar with the calculations for determining the dynamics, behavior and geometry of rotating stellar and supermassive black holes, will validate the work in question by putting it within a specific context with which I can agree; as it will be fully described and set within clearly defined limits that will put constraints on their speculations, which were too general before and weren't supported by mathematical or quantum mechanical calculations that were obvious to me.

This new discovery, if verified as accurate, could be one of the most exciting new discoveries in the field of black hole research, as well as adding new and significant conversations to the discussion of temporal mechanics. That will be featured in the third and last piece in the series. The second piece will deal with a temporal aspect of black holes, both stellar and, in particular, supermassive, that I had surprised Max Tegmark of the Foundational Questions Institute with when he was a professor at the University of Pennsylvania back in 2000 (he's now at MIT). Both Max and I believe in the Everett/Wheeler hypothesis and I introduced myself to him as another "Everett man" when he was sitting in his office with the door open, as I happened to walk by. He laughed and we discussed the geometry of the universe a bit before he had to leave for a class. As I was walking down the hall with him I said, "Hey, did you know that black holes don't fit within the single reference frame for all observers?" to which he paused for a second with a puzzled look on his face and asked me to explain. I stopped by a door with a glass window in it and drew out an explanation by motioning with my finger and hand. His face lit up and he said, "Oh God, you're right. I never thought of that before." That will be the subject of the second piece of the series. I hope to also debut the work of a student working on a related project, for National Lab Day, at the same time.

So this will be an interesting period leading into early April here, and just the beginning of future work that will be posted. In May, a definitive review of the basic premise of using wormholes for time travel through relativistic manipulation, will be in the offing, leading up to why Stephen Hawking was not only wrong about universe causing time to reverse if it were to begin a big crunch (something that he admitted to later), but why he never should have thought of that

*in the first place*. But, just like what I had intended to be just a paper or two on black holes, has now become a three part series, you never know what kinds of new things I'll discover to write about. Just all the papers coming out arguing for the nonexistence of time, alone, will be enough to keep me busy with rebuttals, which reminds me, I have a video in the works where I prove

*time is real*. That's right -

*prove it.*Or should I say I prove that it is a dimension inextricably connected to space and

*how*, which is just the same as proving it's real. That will be debuting Memorial Day on a location to be announced.

Probably here and somewhere else...

## Comments