Back in the 1980s Quantum Gravity looked like a holy grail, post-2000 it has become a highly competitive field with many theories and the problem is not that we need a conceptual breakthrough but rather we can't tell these theories apart experimentally.

I feel like a dolt for ever believing the classical theory of a black hole interior, I'm pretty sure a real black hole looks pretty different. I guess I could go in and take a look but the problem is I could not get out to tell y'all what I saw!

I believe there is no interior of a black hole - because black holes never form. From the perspective of an object falling into a black hole, it hits an impenetrable wall of Hawking radiation and is forced out. From the perspective of a distant observer witnessing this, the object appears to "fall" pass the Schwarzschild radius because it's so red-shifted we simply can't see it. Then trillions of years later it's bounced out. Extreme time dilation causes extreme observations. As a bonus, we avoid this whole singularity business.

Sorry, a single author paper means you could not find even one co-author to agree with you. That's why they tend to get ignored.

I'm inclined to ignore anything that is posted on X. It was just as bad when it was left-wing nuts as it now when it is right-wing nuts.

Call me old school, but he couldn't be bothered to put the past tense of publish either, published.

Does anybody really think this is a plausible theory?

as much as I do when some single author posts they have proved P=NP

Also, this has not been published in a peer review journal. Not everything that is published in a peer review journal is true, but it's a minimal filter.

One might say the peer review is a trust signal, and is one of the many signals used to evaluate scientific reaults