Write a comment

Does the introduction explain the objective of the research presented in the preprint?

Yes

Yes, the introduction is a good description of the objective.

Are the methods well-suited for this research?

Somewhat appropriate

Equations are missing units. Their physical meaning is not clear.

Are the conclusions supported by the data?

Neither supported nor unsupported

NASA measured in 2014 that the universe has Euclidean space. This means that geometrization of gravity belongs to the history of physics. Kerr and Penrose singularities were never directly observed. The is no support for the astronomical data for this article's conclusions. I believe the development of black hole physics is in Newtonian physics, GR has failed.

Are the data presentations, including visualizations, well-suited to represent the data?

Somewhat appropriate and clear

How clearly do the authors discuss, explain, and interpret their findings and potential next steps for the research?

Neither clearly nor unclearly

From the article: This speculative extension demonstrates that the tiered multiverse model, combined with the black hole gateway, provides a rigorous foundation for a form of cross-temporal travel. It redefines “time travel” not as a journey along one’s own past, but as navigation between the independent histories of parallel universes. "Independent histories of parallel universes" should be explained in detail. The idea is good but not well presented.

Is the preprint likely to advance academic knowledge?

Moderately likely

I do not believe that AI can be of a big help in physics development. For example, AI has the past knowledge of black holes, and we see today that gravitational singularities are a theoretical failure. AI is taking this failure as a scientific fact. AI cannot be an instrument for checking the scientific validity of a given model. For now, only humans can do this.

Would it benefit from language editing?

No

Would you recommend this preprint to others?

Yes, but it needs to be improved

The author should read this article: 11. Raúl Carballo-Rubio et al. Towards a non-singular paradigm of black hole physics, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics (2025) https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1475-7516/2025/05/003, where gravitational singularities are under question. I think that the future of black hole physics will be without singularities. AI does not know about this yet.

Is it ready for attention from an editor, publisher or broader audience?

Yes, after minor changes

Competing interests

The author declares that they have no competing interests.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

The author declares that they did not use generative AI to come up with new ideas for their review.