Strange

In the case of quarks, I don't think it can be that simple. The black hole would need to provide enough energy to generate two or more (pairs of) quarks as free quarks cannot exist. Rather like the way that the amount of energy needed to remove a quark from a proton would cause more quarks to be formed to couple up with the one you are trying to extract. Conservation of energy, spin, charge, color-charge and all the other quantum properties.

Hasn't happened in the last few thousand years and I see no reason why that will change. But real Hell's Angels are something else again.

You have provided no logical argument. You have simply said it is true because it must be true (because you believe it).

According to this article: https://phys.org/news/2017-09-entanglement-inevitable-feature-reality.html

More good articles on the topic here: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=3497 and here: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4419 And many, many, many more on the same site.

These supernumbers: http://planetmath.org/supernumber ?

That would violate several conservation laws. Quarks, and particles created from them, interact via electromagnetic forces. Dark matter doesn't. So no. An up and a down quark would not combine and disappear. And they cannot form a stable particle together. (And they can't exist independently.) But ... An up / anti-up pair would release about 5MeV. A down/anti-down pair would release twice that. As a pair of photons, in both cases. No one knows. It hasn't been identified yet.

Looks like you should try a few of those and see which you are comfortable using and that give you the results you need.

Philosophy is, to a large extent, the art of asking intelligent questions. Most areas or applications of philosophy that I am aware of have nothing to do with enlightenment or inner peace. For example, how do the philosophy of science or the study of logic contribute to those goals?

"During a supernova, the star releases very large amounts of energy as well as neutrons, which allows elements heavier than iron, such as uranium and gold, to be produced. In the supernova explosion, all of these elements are expelled out into space." https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/1727-how-elements-are-formed

On Linux systems you can use the program objdump to view the disassembled code. I'm not sure what the equivalent would be for Windows, if there is one. The best bet might be to run the code using a debugger (e.g. the one provided in Visual Studio). You can then view the disassembled code and also step through it and see the effect on registers, etc.

Perhaps you are not aware that your original post is still visible so anyone can see for themselves whether this is true or not. The final few paragraphs of your post are: So you clearly say that you are willing to explain how all of physics can be derived from your equation. But you haven't actually done it. Despite making 94 posts across two threads. Now is the time to either explain how you derive physics from your indexing system or admit that it was all an elaborate joke.

What is the difference? The phrase "expanding universe" is short-hand / analogy for "distances between things increasing by a changing scaling factor".

Indeed. The best, and in fact sometimes the only, position for an adverb is between the preposition and the verb. Some argue that there is no such thing as a split infinitive: the infinitive of the verb "to go" is "go", while "to" is just a preposition.

This idiotic "rule" about not ending sentences with propositions started out when the writer Dryden noted that "English sentences should not end in prepositions because Latin sentences cannot end in prepositions."(1) Which is a totally moronic idea. Why should any language, especially a Germanic one, be expected to follow the rules of a long dead language? But for some reason it caught on with some schoolteachers. And in the case of English which has a huge number of phrasal verbs ("get up", "do in", "pick up", etc) as well as idioms like "where it's at" it is almost impossible to avoid ending a sentence with a preposition without bizarre distortions. (As in the example credited to Churchill: "this is a rule up with which I will not put.") I don't use "where it's at" not because it sounds wrong but because it sounds incredibly dated! (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dryden#Reputation_and_influence And ... http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=3407

Just a detail: only hydrogen and helium (and a little bit of lithium) were formed this way. All the heavier elements were formed later in stars.

Wrong way round. The black hole contributes the energy corresponding to the mass of the particle and the mass of the antiparticle to convert the virtual/transient pair to real particles. Half of that mass is then returned to the black hole and half escapes. So the black hole loses mass. This is not so much the decay of matter as pair production from gamma ray photons: https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/11jan_antimatter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production I believe particle-antiparticle pairs created in this way are entangled. But that won't last long as they will soon interact with other particles.

I am just focusing on the fact that his belief he can communicate in English is a false belief.

That data wasn't available to earlier estimates of the age of the universe (which is why the discovery of acceleration was such a surprise). I think the change has been mainly driven by the increasingly accurate measurement and different sources of data. This page has a table showing some of the estimates of the Hubble parameter (which allows the age to be derived): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble's_law#Observed_values

No. That is not what I said. I said your characterisation of the Big Bang was wrong. I already did in response to your post which started this thread of discussion: So, to be specific, your description is wrong because it says that matter spread out through the universe (from some sort of creation/explosion). Whereas the "standard model" is that the universe was always full of matter.

The problem is not that it is brief, but that it is wrong.

(1) I think it is polite to help people improve their written English. (2) & (3) I am not ashamed of my intelligence nor my eye for detail. Failed.

Agreed. But, just to be clear, most people proposing their personal theories that the Big Bang was caused by the explosion of a black hole (wrongly) assume that the larger a black hole is, the more likely it is to explode. They also (wrongly) assume that the density of the early universe must have meant it would form a black hole.

Please don't SHOUT.