I don't expect you to understand, took me month before it clicked and started to make sense. In fact, at some point I had to take a week off because I was so into the theory, I could not think about my dayjob ;)
Currently the main book is the only way to understand the theory more deeply, but one of our projects is, to do a video series explaining the model in a simple way. As a scientists, you will need the book until somebody writes a comprehensive one as well.
http://www.amazon.com/Basic-Structures-Matter-Supergravitati...
The papers helped me to get into the theory, but real deep understanding is not possible from them.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1107.0031v1.pdf
What you see in the atlas are the proton and their geometric structure as they grow. These are not electrons ! There are some electrons drawn in on the H atom to show some of the different energy states.
You seem to be acquainted in physics, so, whats your explanation for our well tuned universe. The number of basic constants in the standard model is so high and simulations have shown, that small changes cause an unstable universe. In the BSM-SG model, all those constants and relations are derived. In fact, after some month you understand this: the fundamental growth principle and the geometric configuration nearly always lead to stable atomic structures and galaxies as we know them.
(There are some open questions and there is the possibility that when a matter - antimatter galaxies collide, some unstable galaxy could result. Maybe ill-formed galaxies are an result of such mergers).
Anyway, if somebody gives me a theory that is self stabilizing, derives all constants with very high rescission, fits so well to observed data and uses only 3 dimensional euclidean space. 1 fundamental force and 2 fundamental particles. Sorry, this is just the better theory.
Many people are not firm with logic and only know mathematical logic. Every logic is based on different fundamental assumptions, this is something you have to believe in for a logic to have a truth value for you. Classical logic is simply stricter then mathematical logic and has therefor a higher truth value.
In classical logic this you can't do: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q43sqytcdLE
Lets see:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0612201.pdf http://arxiv.org/pdf/1004.0716v3.pdf
If you go through the list of papers on the Michelson-Morley experiment, you will see that it is not that clear. In fact, they did a lot of things wrong then. Averaged values that should have not been, missing information about the movement of the solar system around the galaxy core (~360 km/s), gas mode instead of vacuum,...
There are many critical papers published over the years:
http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+michelson+morley/0/1/0/...
This is a very nice list of better experiments, looking into those is very interesting:
http://www.helical-structures.org/new_evidences/modern-ether...
Einstein only later understood, that general Relativity without aether is unthinkable (Sidelights on Relativity): """ Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it. """
He did not need aether for SR, but GR without aether, simply does not make sense. Also radial waves as predicted by Lord Kelvin and discovered by Tesla are not really understandable without. You can explain many virtual particles by creating a zoo like the standard model did, but radial waves you can't.
Dark Matter is the aether, without it's mass, spiral galaxies and many other cosmological phenomena are not explainable - or at least not classical.
The problem with most aether theories is, that they assume it as some sort of superfluid, or some special substance, which both do not make so much sense, as the complexity of the vacuum is simply to great. It must at least implement all virtual particles (β+/β-/photons/...), electric and magnet fields (Hertz & Tesla waves, as both exist),...
The BSM-SG model has a completely different aether model, instead of some special substance, it is made of the same building materials as protons/electrons, just in a much smaller and different geometric structure.
It has only one fundamental force and 2 very simple fundamental particles (balls). It becomes clear, that already quite large crystals, that look like prisms, under this one law of attraction, build a grid that looks like a 3d honey web.
In this grid, you can find all the physical properties we can measure. Electric and Magnet Fields, Speed of Light, Photons, Vacuum Fluctuations, Gravity, Coulomb Barrier, Quantum Entanglement, Virtual Particles (without rest-mass)....
Of course, many of those are iterations between the extremely complex geometrical structure of electrons/protons/neutrons and the Cosmic Lattice as its called in BSM-SG.
Best physics book I read and most sensible unified theory I have encountered so far:
http://www.amazon.com/Basic-Structures-Matter-Supergravitati...
Needs an open mind tho and some months of heavy thinking for really getting into this theory, but once you grasp the basic interactions, geometric structures etc the universe starts to make so much sense. So far, every phenomena I encountered was explainable after some minutes-days of thinking and I always came to the same conclusion as Stoyan Sarg.
The universe is classic logical :)
The question of: "what is true" is NOT so easy as most people think. It is in fact a damn hard question and depends on the basic axioms you accept. First you need a logic, and there are many logics out there, classical logic and mathematical logic as one of the most accepted ones. Classical logic as humanly understandable is for example much more accepted in philosophy then the mathematical one, because it is much more stricter.
This question was also part of physics in the till 1920s but basically got forgotten there and the blind accepted of mathematical logic due QM became standard. Blind, because this is not a questions young physicists get confronted with.
Every good physicist was also a philosopher, simply, you can't separate those. You can't build a physical model without basic assumptions. You have to at least assume there is "stuff" of some sort, you have to assume there are dimensions of some sort.
Roughly a year ago, I stumbled about the BSM-SG model from Dr. Stoyan Sarg. http://www.amazon.com/Basic-Structures-Matter-Supergravitati...
I got intrigued, it only needs 2 fundamental particles, 3 Euclidean dimensions and one law of attraction. As a philosopher I heart was instantly: WOW, I have to give it a try. Never could accept more the 3 dimensions due thought experiments into lower ones.
I really spend month thinking about this theory, pah, once I had to take holidays from work because I could not think about anything else ;) And then I clicked and everything started to make sense, really everything. Each quantum effect, general relativity, atoms, spectral lines, like everything. In fact, once you understand the crystallization process of a galaxy, how such complex structures like protons, neutrons and electrons come to be.
It is funny to have an answer to this super old philosophical question: why, why this complex world. Because it is bound to be. Enough fundamental particles, and those bulks are bound to be, they crystallize in a quite complex but simple process into protoneutrons (protons/neutrons) & electrons that are bound to build a stable galaxy. The laws inside a galaxy are always stable and behave the same with matter made from the same galaxy.
(There is a corner case but i highly irregular one).
Anyway, I started to promote this model because nobody else seems to. Started a non profit for it etc. I knew that promoting alternative physical models gets strong opposition compared to all other sciences, but knowing what bad assumptions are in the Standard Model I just laugh silently about their ignorance.
http://www.pnas.org/content/112/24/7426.full.pdf
This hole understanding made me personally much more critical. I tend to distrust everything that requires mathematical logic - when I have a physical model that requires only classical one, why should anything else in nature be true when not. I look much more openly at fringe sciences, the explanaitions make usually no sense for me now, I understand the process is quite fast tho.
Btw, pulsars are not so hard to understand: Chapter 12.B.6.4 but you need to understand chapter 1,2,3,6 at least, otherwise it will not make any sense.