I think you're referring to a Kerr-Newman (charged and rotating) black hole with a ring, not a torus, singularity. That's how Titor described the spacetime surrounding his black holes. A torus "singularity" in a Kerr-Newman black hole isn't possible. A ring singularity is a mathematically 1D surface. It has to "thickness", volume or interior. A torus is a 2D surface embedded in a 3Dl space. The ring and the torus are diametrically opposed. Had he said, as a matter of fact, that the singularity was toroidal that would instantly invalidate his entire thesis.
Further, he said his gadget injected electrons across the event horizon into the singularity to both charge and spin up the black hole. He called it a Kerr black hole, which was incorrect. It was a Kerr Newman black hole; both spinning (angular momentum) and electrically charged. After injecting just a very small number of electrons across the event horizon his Kerr-Newman black hole would tear itself apart. The Coulomb force of those electrons packed into a space approaching infinitely small in volume simply can't exist. The charge -1 on an electron is tremendous compared to the mass of the electron. Put two in that proximity with no protons or other +1 charged particles in the area and it blows apart.
The math behind the concept of Kerr-Newman black holes is solid. But the physics is not. It's nice to know about for theoretical physics study but they just don't exist and you can't make one. This is where Titor's physics drastically fails. Based on Titor's own words that the mass of his entire gadget was ~500 lbs I estimated that the box and components would have a mass of 25 kg and each black hole would have a mass of 100 kg. We could quibble over the distribution but it wouldn't make any difference.
The math is straight forward. The "diameter" of his black holes would be about 10^-25 meters. The diameter of a proton is about 10^-15 meters. The black holes would be 10 billion times smaller than a proton but have an "extremely" unstable mass. In about 10^-18 seconds after forming the entire mass would evaporate radiating at a temperature of...wait for it...10^23 Kelvin and liberating about 10^32 Watts - a hundred thousand billion trillion watts. That's a hundred billion trillion degrees. "Slightly" hotter than a hydrogen bomb. It approached the Planck Limit - the temperature of the Big Bang. And he had two such items. Turn on his gadget and *Poof* Florida would seize to exist. Unlike nuclear devices that release their energy in about 1 second this baby will do it in 10^-18 seconds. Florida is in ruins - the Eastern Seaboard in ruins. And that just based on the physics we understand. Having an actual black hole runaway like that? Unlike nuclear bombs, there will be quantum effects that we can't currently predict but they will not be pleasant.
You are absolutely correct in stating that TT_0 never described the singularity as a torus. To my knowledge, he never used the word "torus" in any of his posts. However, in
A Time Traveler’s Tale, excerpts from his posts do contain references to a "doughnut" or "doughnut-shaped" structure when discussing his micro-singularity.
. . . . ......... ..................... ........... . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . ... . ..
The Physics of Time Travel: ACCELERATION = TIME DILATION
"As pointed out earlier, acceleration will produce time dilation. This can be observed by the “twins paradox”. As one twin stays on Earth, the other twin in his accelerating spaceship experiences a slower passing of time. When he returns to Earth, he is noticeably younger than his twin who aged normally in Earth time. This type of “time travel” should have been proven already on this world line with atomic clock experiments. With sufficient power, this type of time travel will only provide practical displacement in a future direction. This type of time travel is also isolated to a single world line. You will not meet yourself."
GRAVITY = ACCELERATION
As Einstein pointed out with his STR, the effects of gravity and
_ acceleration are the same. Therefore, you will experience the same time
travel effects in the twin paradox by being close to a large gravity source. In the atomic clock experiments mentioned above, the reason there was a difference in time was not because the clock in the plane was moving; it was because the clock in the well was closer to the center of the Earth. Constant speed is not acceleration.
LARGE GRAVITY = STATIC BLACK HOLE
The next step is to find a large gravity source to use in your time machine. Static black holes provide this type of power.
As one twin approaches the event horizon, or edge of the black hole, the other twin will watch him as he appears to slow down. He will notice his twin’s watch run slower until it stops at the event horizon. The twin moving toward the horizon will notice none of this and see his watch running just fine. Although possible, a trip into a static black hole will not take you to another world line and it’s one-way. The force of gravity will crush you.
ROTATING BLACK HOLE = DOUGHNUT - SHAPED SINGULARITY
Fortunately, most black holes are not static. They spin. Spinning black holes are often referred to as Kerr black holes. A Kerr black hole has two interesting properties. One, they have two event horizons and two, the singularity is not a point, it looks more like a doughnut. These odd properties also have a pronounced effect on the black hole’s gravity. There are vectors where you can approach the singularity without being crushed by gravity.
DOUGHNUT - SHAPED SINGULARITY = PASSAGE INTO ALTERNATE WORLD LINE
Another more interesting result of passing through a doughnut singularity is that you travel through time by passing into another universe or world line. Please see Penrose diagrams for Kerr black holes or you can examine the calculations of (famous physicist).
. . . . . . . . . .. .. . . ............................ ....................... ................
Darby, your point was that even if John referred to the singularity as a doughnut or a torus, it would only further expose inaccuracies in his claims, reinforcing the idea that his story was a hoax. He lacked the knowledge to substantiate his assertions, which may very well be true. You've illuminated aspects of this discussion that I hadn't previously considered.
The equation Kerr uses accounts for a ring of infinite density, not a doughnut-shaped singularity, which does not align with General Relativity (GTR). This is yet another mistake John made—referencing Special Relativity (STR) when he was actually discussing GTR.
However, what if John was merely using Kerr black holes as a conceptual analogy, a relatable framework to help explain what was actually being described—a naked singularity? To be fair, he specifically referred to them as "micro-singularities," not "micro-black holes." He was deliberate in his terminology.
Kerr, Tipler, Newman, Kramer, Jerry, or even Cal Worthington would not have formulated an equation that accounts for a naked singularity the size of a fraction of an electron. The solutions proposed by Kerr, Tipler, and Newman are deeply dependent on the entire spacetime geometry, not just the singularity itself. If one were to isolate the singularity as an independent entity, their equations would break down or become meaningless.
Ultimately, my argument could be dismissed as a "flux capacitor" defense—an appeal to speculation rather than analytical proof. The mathematical evidence contradicts John's claims, and I acknowledge that. Yet, I also recognize the effort John put into being the world's smartest dumbass. Theoretical constructs, by their nature, are impossible to prove or disprove without direct observation. As far as I am aware, CERN has not tested the development of a naked singularity. Nor has anyone developed an equation that describes the existence of a naked singularity captured, and rotating in any meaningful way. Most equations dealing with singularities, such as those in General Relativity, rely on the presence of an event horizon to maintain physical consistency. If a singularity were "captured" and rotating, it would challenge fundamental assumptions about spacetime structure and stability.
A friend of mine, whom I'll call "Bob," put it succinctly:
"They are not 'objects' with equations, but failure points of our best maps."
- Jay
Exactly... 
That's the spirit. 
