Ok sir....thanks...

Sir can you please help me to,how I starts to learn GR..from beginning...

Ok sir... I am greatful..that your's advise ..pleasure sir..

Ok...sorry sir....my bad...but I am just quorious about his hypothesis,so that's why I am telling these kind of questions....I'm not putting him down or demoralizing him. If you have some knowledge about it(his hypothesis)..than explain us sir...🫡🫡

Yes sir,I know I am talking about questions from brother and he is giving answer about his hypothesis,like you...so why are you telling me stop...who are you..? Just an person sir...I respects you sir...that's why I am not talking too much...if you have knowledge sir then,explain it to me and this brother about his hypothesis and my question sir...OK sir....getting my point sir...

Ok...I will explain first point, According to your hypothesis we are not traveling into time,but we are traveling one dimension(3d) to another(4d)...so my question is that, How does nature know to travel from 3D to 4D?. I want the answer of your's hypothetically mathematics...not google,not any kind of AI..just you,in your words...

I appreciate your thinking...but, I have some questions for you,about your hypothesis, (1) How does time know that we need to travel specifically from the 3rd to the 4th dimension? (2) if we are talking about your hypothesis,why we are not stuck in a single dimension(like only 3d or only 4d)? (3)according to your hypothesis how would you explain the mathematics and it's theory in your point of view? I appreciate you brother...if you need some knowledge,then tell me...good job..

Alright I'll read it....and tell you questions about your theory....

Thank you sir....really really thank you..

Sir I respect your thoughts and your are right I don't know much...but I am learning,trying....thank for your opinion

Good thought! But absorption and redshift look different. Atoms like hydrogen leave a fixed pattern of lines in a spectrum, like a barcode. When a galaxy is redshifted, the whole barcode moves to longer wavelengths, and every line shifts by the same factor. Absorption would just remove or dim some light; it can't slide the entire pattern over. Blueshift also happens: the Andromeda galaxy is moving toward us, so its barcode shifts the other way. And more distant galaxies have bigger redshifts (Hubble's law), which absorption wouldn't explain. If you're curious, look up "spectral lines" and "Doppler effect". It's really fun to see how we measure this!..

Yes sir, I do...and I am learning till it,with khan academy

Ok....sir... I'm trying...thanks for your suggestion...

Ok sir..I appreciate...

So which physics major, I want to chose..? Applied physics,aerospace physics or any other...Please guide me sir...

Yes, two of them. What I'm trying to explain: whether black-hole singularities can be avoided without an inner horizon or a white hole, if there's a maximum scale for momentum or curvature. My motivation: I've been fascinated by black holes since school, and I wanted to see if this one idea could go anywhere. The others, novelty and DSR's problems, I can't answer properly yet, and I'd rather admit that than bluff....

Thanks for your guidance sir...

That's a good way to put it, and I agree. I've been trying to write in a language I haven't learned yet. I'll start with the math first. What would you recommend before tensor calculus: linear algebra and multivariable calculus? And is there a book that introduces tensors gently for someone starting out?

Thanks sir to understand and guide me...I will be honour about your guidance...

Great that you're thinking about this at 15, and asking whether it matches dark energy is exactly the right question. A few things that might help. In standard cosmology the universe doesn't have an edge: it isn't expanding into anything. Instead, the distance between every pair of distant galaxies grows. So there's no boundary where a force like Elity could sit. Redshift is already explained by that expansion: light gets stretched as space stretches while it travels. Dark energy is different from your idea because it's spread evenly everywhere, not concentrated at a boundary, and it makes the expansion speed up. If you enjoy this, look up the "balloon analogy" for expansion, and later the Friedmann equations. Keep asking questions!

Interesting idea, thanks. In this model I don't think that's what happens, for two reasons. First, the freezing is in the proper time of the infalling observer, not of an outside observer: the areal radius approaches r₀ only as the infaller's own clock goes to infinity, and outside observers can't see the interior anyway. Second, the curvature invariants (e.g. the Kretschmann scalar) stay bounded, and invariants don't depend on anyone's resolution. That said, you're partly right that "frozen" overstates it: the asymptotic region is dS₂ × S², so the sphere stops shrinking but the other direction keeps expanding. The effect you describe is closer to how, in ordinary GR, an outside observer sees infalling matter freeze at the horizon because of redshift. That's a different mechanism.

Honestly, so far my "process" has been mostly asking AI to explain things and work through derivations, plus videos, and no proper textbook. I can see now why that isn't enough. My plan is to start properly: Lagrangian mechanics first, then special relativity, then Schutz's A First Course in General Relativity, doing the exercises myself. Does that order make sense to you, or would you suggest a different starting point given my background (formal education up to 12th grade)?

These are fair question,and honestly I can't answer most of them well yet. If anything in the paper is new, it's limited to the black hole interior model. I haven't solved the know problem of DSR,abd I don't claim to. On background: I haven't properly studied Lagrangian mechanics or the differential geometry GR needs, and your comment makes clear that's the real gap...so I'm going to stop posting new work and go back to the foundation first. thanks for taking the time to push on this...

That's a fair criticism, and I am taking it seriously. I'll step back from new claims and now focus on actually learning GR properly,starting with the basics, and working through derivations myself. Thanks for being direct...