These are some of the inconsistencies with physics that should be resolved on this forum. Question #1. Relationship Between Mass and Gravity) Gravitational fields exist in elementary particles but cannot be detected in laboratory experiments because they are too weak. However can indirect evidence of mass and the gravitational interaction of elementary particles come from gravitational lensing and the attraction of these particles to large masses like stars, galaxies and black holes? From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hole "A black hole, according to the general theory of relativity, is a region of space from which nothing, including light, can escape." "according to the theory of relativity mass is just highly condensed energy (E = mc^2)." From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass-energy_equivalence "In physics, mass–energy equivalence is the concept that the mass of a body is a measure of its energy content. In this concept the total internal energy E of a body at rest is equal to the product of its rest mass m and a suitable conversion factor to transform from units of mass to units of energy." These statements point that all forms of energy including radiation which is comprised of freely moving particles like photons and neutrons have mass because energy and mass are the same. So does that mean that anything that has mass must have a gravitational field by default and that the mass is directly proportional to its gravitational field? Question #2. The Impenetrability Paradox of Point Charges) Elementary particles are regarded as point charges with zero volume but this contradicts the non-violable law of matter called impenetrability and could mean that two particles can occupy the same space at the same time. From: http://avstop.com/AC/apgeneral/matter.html "h. Impenetrability - simply stated means that no two objects can occupy the same place at the same time. Thus, two portions of matter cannot at the same time occupy the same space." Does this prove that even elementary particles must have some volume, negligible or not? Question #3. The Relationship Between the Omnidirectional Exertion of Forces, The Fundamental Interactions, and Their Ability to Give Rise to The Shape and Properties of Elementary Particles) Can an elementary particle's shape come from the force fields that give property to these particles which are omnidirectional because from observations, forces like gravity and electromganetism attract from all directions. From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_field_(physics) "A global Gravitational field consists of a spherical array of vectors pointing towards the center of gravity. It is a classical force field, in spherical coordinates," Take a look at this image and notice the omnidirectional spheroid shape of the black hole. Does this not mean that force fields are omnidirectional? http://www.spacescan.org/images/bhppppp_69.jpg [Broken] Does this prove that force fields are omnidirectional and spherical? And does this also mean that the particles that are the source of these fields will also assume a similar shape because that is what they are made of at the fundamental level? After all if not for these fundamental interactions, how can particles exist and have properties like mass, charge, and nuclear binding?