Mr Schiller, with all my respects, I have known physicists relevant and others no, for me the universtity is not sufficient, we must learn all our life the sciences, philosophies, maths to be creative , general and innovant and a few number are able to do this. I was in maths sciences strong in secondary like I told, 9h of maths and 9 h of sciences by week more 4 of labs, after I was at university in geology, I have stopped due to a coma due a big epileptic crisis and I cannot stop to study the details of maths, sciences, physicis since the age of 18, I have even ranked the maths, sciences, physics, chenistry, biology, animals, vegetals, minerals and you don t imagine the books read in all centers of interest to have answers. In fact I am sorry but a few number are able to understand the generality of philosophy and sciences and I repeat to be creative and innovant. Your works are not bad, I don t tell it is bad, it is just the affrirmations that I critic and the lack of generalities. You affirm things not proved. You must understand that we know nothing still and that the Satandard model is just emergent and that this GR is not probably the only one piece of puzzle. I have remarked also that inside the sciences community in theoretical physics, the vanity is enormous and many want to be new einstein or others but that does not fall from the sky, the generality I repeat is essential. I have asked you several simple general questions, what is the origin of the universe, and why and what are thye foundamental objects. You don t answer and you evitate the discussions, don t tell that my english is not understandable , it is. So now please answer to my questions, I will see clearer , we know also that our community is the most vanitious community probably on earth, we are all persuaded but a sure thing is that never we can affirm assumptions, and unfortunally you affirm assumptions like they were facts. Furthermore I love Dirac, he is one of my favorites with Von Neuman, Planck, einstein, ... but the planck scale also is an assumptions, in fact you simply consider the GR like the only one truth and after photons and points at this planck scale to explain our SM, but it is an assumption.