## June 1st, 2018

*The old concepts around Hawkins black hole physics were trying to work out the singularity time/space situation as if the particles/forces were a 3D phenomena , but these particles/ forces are quantum, and they are not subject to 3D space laws. Space concerned is inner space, Infinity, not even a singularity is the correct explanation of the space.So matter under these extreme conditions is condenesd into infinity, once the atom gives way to the force.The fields that are not existing in a 3D space.3D space is not altering infinite space/time (inner), but infinity(inner) can alter 3D space laws and time.*

Gravity is only relavant to the space/time until the atoms is break down to their field componants.Then the other forces are at play instead in inner space, which is not 3D outer space.It is not possible for the weaker forces in the atom to break apart the neutrons and protons strong forces, and it cant be gravity either, because the atom is now in its field componants in inner space or Infinity,( this includes the neutron and proton which are fields, not particles.)

So the whole exercise that has been deliverred into trying to find a mathematical solution is not as it has been represented.

To me it seems that something else is going on with this mix of forces and particles (fields) in Hawkins Black Hole experiment. It might not be correct to say that matter breaks down to a singularity under extreme masses.The ideas of singularities might also be incorrect as an idea in space/time.It doesnt make sense when you look at space in 4

Gravity is only relavant to the space/time until the atoms is break down to their field componants.Then the other forces are at play instead in inner space, which is not 3D outer space.It is not possible for the weaker forces in the atom to break apart the neutrons and protons strong forces, and it cant be gravity either, because the atom is now in its field componants in inner space or Infinity,( this includes the neutron and proton which are fields, not particles.)

So the whole exercise that has been deliverred into trying to find a mathematical solution is not as it has been represented.

To me it seems that something else is going on with this mix of forces and particles (fields) in Hawkins Black Hole experiment. It might not be correct to say that matter breaks down to a singularity under extreme masses.The ideas of singularities might also be incorrect as an idea in space/time.It doesnt make sense when you look at space in 4

*dimensions,unless it is the concept of one dimension.If that is the case somewhere in this equation needs to include two dimensional number, (a straight line singularity !).But they dont mean that when they mention a singularity, they mean a scaling down of 3 dimensional space to the smallest possible imaginary size.This is still a 3D idea, not a one dimensional concept.They have diliverred an imaginary idea of what happens to matter when it is scaled down to its physical limits.I have put a differrent idea on this, as field activity in a different dimension.*

If the extreme forces are creating a situation where matter is being condensed to a differrant space/time as I am saying to infinity or inner space,then its componants will be obeying 4 dimensional (quantum) laws , and could now be located at any time or any place according to probabillity laws,( Heisenbergs uncertainty principal),It make sense to say that the matter is not confined at that singularity neccessarilly, but could be relocated elsewhere.It could mean anywhere in the infinity of space time.( Dissipation at slow rate as is sugested doesnt seem to answer this adequately.)Since so much energy is being used to create this "black hole" destruction,it seems logical that eleswhere the

If the extreme forces are creating a situation where matter is being condensed to a differrant space/time as I am saying to infinity or inner space,then its componants will be obeying 4 dimensional (quantum) laws , and could now be located at any time or any place according to probabillity laws,( Heisenbergs uncertainty principal),It make sense to say that the matter is not confined at that singularity neccessarilly, but could be relocated elsewhere.It could mean anywhere in the infinity of space time.( Dissipation at slow rate as is sugested doesnt seem to answer this adequately.)Since so much energy is being used to create this "black hole" destruction,it seems logical that eleswhere the

*opposite physical oportunity is being paid for where a " recreation" is occurring,the energy being paid back ,equal and opposite reaction.It does look like a natural mechanism for distruction and creation of matter.Perhaps recycling waste material. ?*

It worth a fresh look at this old physics.It could be that we have had some misinformation thrown into the works.I have also heard that the LHC has delivered some misinformation.I would not be sure about this.

Two current ideas to expain gravity that I have heard about are diferrential resulting from electron positron aniahaltion (antimatter/matter collision), and entanlglement.Again it wouldnt be a gravity particle it would be a field or resonant differential of some sort.But even with gravity expalined , it might not deliver from what I have said above.

I am not up to date too much in the world of theoretical physics, but I have seen one of Peter Tongs YouTube lectures recently deliverring the formula for the standard model , with just the inclusion of gravity remaining to complete the big formula.

I believe in the neccessity for a standard model

It worth a fresh look at this old physics.It could be that we have had some misinformation thrown into the works.I have also heard that the LHC has delivered some misinformation.I would not be sure about this.

Two current ideas to expain gravity that I have heard about are diferrential resulting from electron positron aniahaltion (antimatter/matter collision), and entanlglement.Again it wouldnt be a gravity particle it would be a field or resonant differential of some sort.But even with gravity expalined , it might not deliver from what I have said above.

I am not up to date too much in the world of theoretical physics, but I have seen one of Peter Tongs YouTube lectures recently deliverring the formula for the standard model , with just the inclusion of gravity remaining to complete the big formula.

I believe in the neccessity for a standard model