In this particular case, the comments calling the article crackpot are far more crackpot than the actual article. Extracts from the comment: The very idea of a

In this particular case, the comments calling the article crackpot are far more crackpot than the actual article. Extracts from the comment: The very idea of a black hole is based on the concept of continuity, an idea that is not only illogical (it leads to an infinite regress), but is not even scientific in the Popperian sense of falsification. Even Einstein, Mr. Continuity himself, had doubts about continuity. Worst of all is the idea that somehow time has a direction of flow, i.e., an arrow. The idea that we are moving in time in one direction or another is a conceptual disaster. Why? Because time cannot change by definition... The problem with the physics community is that theirs is an incestuous science that has been spawning hideous monstrosities for some time now. Their bunker mentality (the public is stupid and is the enemy) prevents them from considering other points of view, especially views that contradict their worldview. And so forth. This sets off most of the alarms on the crackpot detection test (references to Einstein, assertions that all physicists are stupid, nonsensical use of terminology et cetera). But it does it in such a way that I think I see a self-aware troll at work, rather than a garden-variety crackpot. As for the paper, I'll give it a "meh" for now. It doesn't seem to be crackpot, but it's not necessarily true either; it's just speculative, and doesn't seem to make any testable predictions.