IO
“Interior Observer”: the viewpoint of an observer who may live inside a larger gravitational system.
Independent cosmology research
We compare three possible large-scale pictures of the universe. Two are finite, black-hole-universe models; one is an infinite or otherwise unbounded model. We ask what each scientific result supports, challenges, or simply leaves open.
What the evidence says today
The empirical evidence is mixed, with a fragile, very slight tilt away from one specific rotating bound model. If that single comparison is removed, the tilt disappears; it does not show that the Infinite model is correct. Separate mathematical bookkeeping makes the bound model family look somewhat simpler, but that is not observational evidence and the two judgments are not added together.
No result currently selects a winning model.
Start here
“Interior Observer”: the viewpoint of an observer who may live inside a larger gravitational system.
A universe with a finite global enclosure or gravitationally bounded structure in the model being tested.
A universe whose global spatial extent or development is not enclosed in that way.
One model tested on equal footing, with its assumptions stated rather than silently shared.
Whether a result can apply in a model. This alone is not evidence that the model is true.
A modest direction suggested by evidence. It is not a final verdict or a model selector.
Join enthusiasts and skeptics comparing the Schwarzschild, Kerr, and Infinite models. Discord is for provisional discussion; reviewed research is kept in the lab’s detailed internal records, and this website presents the current public summary.
Three models · equal scientific standing
The first two are different models on the same “bound” side. They are never counted as two independent votes merely because there are two of them.
A nonrotating black-hole-universe model. Older Oppenheimer–Snyder and Schwarzschild calculations remain available under their original assumptions.
A rotating black-hole-universe model. Some local mathematics is established, while the global geometry and observer connection remain open.
A genuine comparison model, not a fallback. A result can apply here and in either bound model at the same time.
Important: the Foundational Generating Principle project organizes the work. It is not a fourth model and contributes no extra vote.
Choose your depth
Read the evidence in ordinary language, including what each item assumes and what remains unresolved.
Open the Evidence Monitor →Expand “Technical details” in the monitor when you need exact labels, source identifiers, or an explanation of which findings share the same evidence.
Open the monitor data →The 35 papers, releases, calculator, lithium work, Scorecard, and earlier Schwarzschild and Kerr results are preserved as published.
Explore the IO Framework archive →This site summarizes current reviewed findings; the lab’s full working records are not directly public. When a result has no separate public proof page, the site says so rather than implying otherwise.
How reviewed results are described →Explore the public work
All 35 papers and their existing titles and release links.
Browse papers →Published calculations and theorem-linked outputs.
Open calculator →See how gravity and quantum physics are checked together, plus the preserved 70 historical crossings.
Open the GR–QM check →A preserved historical summary, clearly separate from the current evidence assessment.
Open the archived Scorecard →The existing lithium research surface and its original claim boundaries.
Open lithium archive →Ask a plain-language question about a model, result, paper, or open problem.
Open Ask IO →