I'm old now and damn near senile.[] Or so it seems to me when answers don't come as fast as they used to!

This is somewhat funny [

]. I am not sure your age, but I had lunch with Steven Rado a couple of months ago, he is 90 years old. And although I do have to slow down a little in our physics conversations, he is still sharp, and I don't see dimness in his eyes. He has a wife that is also 90 years old and she proofs all of his work. He still drives, and studies physics, I can see him getting to 100 years easily. So the moral is, maybe, studying physics is the key to LONGEVITY!!

Regarding creating a paper. The Square of the Shells rule is your theory, and had you not pointed out your very close approximations, I am not sure that I would not have even tried to solve proton and neutron structure like that. However, the way that I do physics, I don't just jump on the band wagon of someones crazy ideas. Like I stated in an earlier post I became aware of your Square of the Shells rule in 1992 and used to call you on the telephone for you to explain this mechanism. There was no internet in those days! Then much much later on in my studies, I started seeing that the square of the mass played a fundamental role in Gravity. This was a very suprising result. I then began to remember your Square of the Shells rule in which you are squaring the mass to get to the proton and neutron structure. As I worked out the mathematics, I determined that you, by pure luck stumbled onto something fundmental to how mass self gravitates and attracts other mass. This squaring of the mass is independent of whether you are discussing Aether/Electromagnetic Gravitation or Inertial Mass Gravitation, that is what makes the square of the shells rule fundamental.

You have finally been able to work out the spatial sizes for these particles, I waited years for you to come to an understanding that the from an electromagnetic gravitation perspective, the Electron is much bigger in size than the Proton and Neutron. And that the Proton is bigger in spatial size than the Neutron except for the outer shell of the neutron which actually makes the neutron bigger than the proton; once again from an electromagnetic perspective. This is great! But now you need to work out the spatial sizes for the inertial mass gravitation. There the spatial sizes are reversed; and in my opinion this is where the strong force manifest.

Back to the paper, I am very busy working in other areas, and this subject is way to controversial for me to devote lots of time and energy. I have worked out the mathematics for the mass and energy structure as described in the tables in the pervious posts. And to me the mathmatics is very beautiful, which is what the SUSY, Guage, and Standard Model physicist are requiring. I don't want to post the mathematics here for various reasons. And the mathematics that you currently possess with your program is sufficient to get results that you need.

I will be able to write the paper, and would only be seeking your two thumbs up of approval. I will not be able to get to the paper until sometime early next year. But if you are not seeking mainstream this will not work, and I will continue to develop slowly and independently. What do I mean by mainstream? You don't mention Quarks in your shells rule. Early on I resisted the quarks concepts. But it appears that the quarks are here to stay; because those that are in charge of mainstream physics will call you a "Crack Pot" without accepting the quarks. I am not, and do not want to be labeled a "Crack Pot." So from my perspective give unto "Caesar" what belongs to "Caesar."