DA Morgan
I said a long time back that my math skills were not great. That this level of math was time consuming for me.
Which is probably the reason you stuck with this rather irrelevant question. If I made a mistake in my haste to reply, you would have your "proof" that I was a quack. If I do not, you can still claim it.
Besides, this forum is not capable of displaying that level of math, my word processor is unable to do so either. Nor can I upload hand written calculations as a picture in my posts. Besides my handwriting is so bad, I doubt you could read it if I did. My crippled old hands do not work right anymore.
So you stuck with the one thing you know could not be answered on this forum. A very clever and sneaky attack, very good, I applaud your methods. You are quite good at weeding out crackpots. I just wish you did not put me in that group, I am doing my best to stay within accepted theories and science.
But my theory fits the definition of a theory, it just does not fit yours.
Sorry about the mis-print you mentioned with "top" and "up" quark. Typo, my old hands are not what they used to be, nor my eyes when proofreading it seems.
I see that you were unable to answer my question on where I departed from accepted theories and the standard model.
Sorry for wasting your time by asking.
That was one of the reasons for posting. To see if I was still on solid ground before proceeding farther and compounding errors.
Despite your misgivings I felt I was mostly in harmony with the standard model and accepted theory. As you can find no place where I have departed from the path, I must assume that I am in harmony with the standard model and accepted theory and can proceed with more detailed work. At least this matter of quark mass is finished and I can move on to more important matters. I will have to address it at sometime, but as I said before, that time is not now.
