You only need to get two lines into any of this author's articles to know who wrote it. I can't say that I understand all of his postings, but I love the challenge of trying, and I do at least end up more knowledgeable. Please keep up the good work!

There already is a better explanation of gravity and it includes dark matter and dark energy, and it has been around for decades. Try Infinite Wave Theory. It also makes black holes simple. Gravity is a wave, and HUGE wave with a wave length in the neighborhood of 50 trillion light years. Just like light, the gravity wave has properties of wave and particle. The wave property accounts for the dark energy and the particle property accounts for the dark matter. It's so simple it'll make you laugh;) Dark holes are just recycling engines. The universe is a closed system in regards to conservation of energy, and it is infinitely large, it always was and always will be, there was no big bang. You can't examine a billboard with a microscope and determine what it says. back up and look at the big, I mean REALLY BIG picture.

The article alludes to [not] waiting for a theory about "what happens at the center of a black hole." Good idea, since there can never be a theory about that. An essential attribute of a valid scientific theory is that it be falsifiable. That means it predicts some observation or experimental result, which -in principle- could be carried out. But, by definition of a black hole, no information can be carried from the "interior" to the outside. Thus observation for the proposed theory is impossible. I put the word "interior" in quote because the very existence of such a place is a mere convince in speaking; it can't even be referred to scientifically.

@ b@man. Better theories are all ready in place than infinite wave theory. You need observational evidence to strengthen a theory, the fact that it is simple is no benchmark for it to be true.

It sure took a lot of background information to get to one paragraph with no details at the end of the article. Why do their calculations result in a bridge to another universe? From the title, I expected to find out.

Amazing !....keep posting

@Marcus Carr i totally agree with you. i was expecting something detailed, so i could begin to understand the basis of it all. IMO this article didn't do much justice to my curiosity.

The center of black hole has zero gravity, just lot of mass and energy, so it density is not infinite . If black hole will be feed with matter, it will be stable, otherwise black hole will capture lot of energy, it radius will grow and it density will decrease, until it radius will outgrew Shwartz radius, so it will bang again. It can be tested in such way: create miniature black hole from a particle, then feed this balck holed particle with antiparticle to kill gravitation — black hole should release all it energy in instant burst of energy.

"black hole should release all it energy in instant burst of energy. Volodymyr Lisivka" totally agree, and it was probably a black hole dumping its matter from an adjoining Universe that gave us our Big Bang matter, as matter can neither be created nor destroyed.

So the solution to a singularity is the elimination of the basic singularity, that being the universe. Pass the problem on by saying other universes balance the problem?