I'll attempt to reply to some of your claims, ignoring your usual snipes at me....

@ James R:

The only way GR equations 'predict' singularities if if the Radius=Zero condition provides a physically possible and meaningful 'solution'. It does not. Hence why Quantum Physicists and even GR relativists BOTH tend to NOW agree that these 'singularities' have always been only mathematical theory artifacts, not actual physical theory possibilities. The "infinities' generated by the GR maths when radius=zero leads to infinities; and these cannot be 'remormalized' away like other kinds of infinities generated by naive application of some Quantum Theory equations/calculations in certain contexts to do with forces strength as certain scales. So there are some impossible things in physical context: such as the mathematical GR-singularities 'solutions', however 'legitimate' they may be in pure maths context.

The singularity simply is not thought to exist because of the infinite qualities of spacetime curvature and density: Even then, please note: not thought to exist and I agree.....

wormholes are a solution of GR not muddled with infinities and as such still ramains uncertain in the view of mainstream cosmology in general.

As I have said many times, No professional will ever say that wormholes categorically do not exist.

I have never said otherwise. In fact I stress all the time that unless real testable contexts are applicable, then it is pure maths speculations, as are the concepts upon which the above OP idea depends but which are also increasingly acknowledged to be no more than science fiction/fantasy speculations unlikely to be real physically (such as unreal entanglement of black holes to produce wormhole which requires non-existent 'exotic energy' and 'naked-singularities). There is no serious physicist that today agrees with the 'purely fun' speculation that "true two-way time travel is possible" or "naked singularities exist and can form a wormhole using 'exotic energy' etc. Only 'publish or perish offerings by those who have hit an 'ideas brick wall' when it comes to truly serious and testable science continue to 'offer' such patently absurd mathematical 'artifacts' as serious physical possibilities when the evolving science in both GR and Quantum theory THEMSELVES is ruling them out in real physical contexts.

All that has been done before by myself and James: No one is claiming wormholes exist.....the reality is that we cannot say they categorically do not exist.

And with the greatest respect (really), James, you are mistaken about the genesis of the theory of relativity. It began with Intuitive Insight by Einstein; and afterards later his insights and their logical consequences were couched in maths terms; the maths necessarily appropriately modified by him: eg, introducing new terms and modeling constructs (cosmological term; space-time fabric, etc) by which to convey those NEW insights which then led to GR maths/solutions (some of which are beyond the realm of actual physical possibility, as already pointed out).

Maths is the language of physics. Gravitational waves, BH's, spacetime curvature, etc have all been observationally verified.

Could you please offer a reputable citation or link to support your stance please.

The GR maths "extended" by some into UN-physical contexts and assumptions are already seen to be untestable and unphysical; even according to the constraints imposed by the very theories which had to be "extended" into pure maths unreality where further 'fun' speculations could be done without worrying about those real physical constraints. Science fiction/fantasies like time travel and naked singularities have no basis in GR or Quantum physics, only in pure maths 'extensions' into the unreal.

The thing that you dismiss, maths, underpins the theory of GR.

Time travel is another concept along with wormholes that theoretically we just do not know, although obviously time travel in one form is certainly real enough and happens frequently and is observed frequently.

Again I see a total anti GR raising its head here, which explains a hell of a lot.

That does not entitle anyone to use the 'philosophical' all-purpose cop-out (used by religionists and science fantasy writers and publish or perish' types in the 'profession' who have nothing real to offer science discussion) of: No amount of personal belief that "it's possible" makes something a SCIENTIFICALLY TENABLE 'real possibility'.

You yourself actually appear to have some sort of agenda, as evidenced by this post and your appaarent rejection and derision of mathematics and GR.

And any cop out is yours, particularly your "publish or perish"remark presumably directed at Professor Susskind. The funny thing though is that I have submitted many papers [as opposed to your nothing] that reflects the general acceptance of the ongoing research into wormholes despite the non existence of evidence for them.

It's called science.

Of course, I already indicated that by suggesting that since it is an obviously untestable speculation depending on unreal 'artifacts' from maths only not physical theory itself, it should perhaps be posted under "ON THE FRINGE" section unless and until any hint of its testability and even remote possibility in fact, is offered by its authors and proponents of their 'possibility' in fact. I left it up to the reader whether it should go to sub-section "Alternative Theory" OR to sub-section 'Pseudoscience" until that scientific testability and likelihood of existing is anywhere near a supportable scientific speculation as distinct from science fiction/fantasy speculation based on patently unreal 'maths artifacts' which even the mainstream have called such except for those not wishing to offend the sensibilities of their 'peers' who offered this obvious publish or perish' speculative philosophical/metaphysical and mathematical-only exercise.

It seems you want to dismiss all mainstream science and science speculation to the fringes, while denying such observational entities such as gravitational waves, DM, cosmological redshift and the usual in those legitimate science threads..

Wormholes are predicted by GR and no amount of whatever it is you are trying to do will change that.

Whether they exist or not is an open question.