Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
A timecharge-relativistic cosmology is proposed in which time is not a universal parameter but a local scalar field τ(x) ∈ [−1, +1] that defines the thermodynamic and causal arrow of time within any given universe. Black hole event horizons are temporal boundaries — surfaces where τ passes through zero and reverses sign, connecting parent and child universes across what standard general relativity describes as singularities. We show that singularities do not exist in this framework: every apparent singularity is a τ = 0 zero-crossing, a smooth field transition between timecharge states governed by a double-well potential. Timecharge is conserved globally across the fractal multiverse through an entropy-weighted conservation law Σ Tᵢ · Sᵢ = 0, where weights are Bekenstein-Hawking entropies. The model exhibits a wave-particle duality: τ is continuous internally (the wave face) and discrete ±1 externally across horizons (the particle face). Major consequences include: the equivalence of cosmological endpoints and black hole singularities as identical τ = 0 events; the reinterpretation of cosmic expansion and gravitational attraction as the same dynamics experienced from opposite timecharge orientations; a possible timecharge origin for dark energy predicting w ≠ −1; complete information preservation through timecharge encoding in child universe initial conditions; and structured non-Gaussian signatures in the CMB encoding parent black hole infall history. Four observational predictions are advanced: timecharge radiation as a breathing-mode gravitational wave signal detectable by LISA; black hole merger mass spectrum suppression testable with current LIGO data; dark energy equation of state deviation from w = −1 testable by Euclid and Vera Rubin Observatory; and CMB non-Gaussianity with preferred directional structure testable against existing Planck data. The highest ambition of this paper is: if we are to be wrong — and in degrees we almost certainly are — to be wrong in ways that teach us something new or improve our confidence in current thinking.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Stephen Bucklin (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: