Further explanations of any of the above concepts should be relatively easy to locate, since all the text on this website is accessible to computer search routines. But don't expect immediate intelligibility! Any radically new approach to science requires the creation of a new jargon. Let's reflect upon this:
Whenever we authors attempt to explain unfamiliar concepts, we frequently must choose between confronting the neophyte with newly-concocted terms (jargon), or placing upon him the burden of learning new technical meanings for familiar English words (semantic obfuscation). Currently physics is brimming with both types, with its jargon, for example, exhibited in such words as, "quarks, electrons, baryons, deuterium, ions, entropy, diffraction, etc.", or in such terms as, "Mr. Somebody's Principle of ···", or "So-and-So's Relationship", while its semantic obfuscation is in words, such as "force, mass, spin, tunneling, strangeness, efficiency, equivalence, etc.", whose meanings in physics differ substantially from those of common usage. Conveying meaningful concepts for any of these terms may take pages of text, and assimilating all these concepts into a comprehensive understanding usually takes years of effort.
IPP, of course, has these problems, and even adds a new twist to these burdens for the neophyte: IPP's explanations often produce mental images of phenomena that are radically different from those currently held by physicists. Thus, although IPP may use the same simple English words that physicists do to suggest various phenomena, these words may imply a new set of concepts to the IPP convert, and may therefore puzzle the IPP neophyte. Take, for example, the word 'collision':
What is a 'collision' to a particle physicist? I suspect he views this phenomenon as two insensibly small, incredibly dense bits whacking into each other in the ambience of the best vacuum he can produce, i.e. in a sort of 'empty' space, although one that is usually laced with strong electrostatic & magnetic fields. He infers that a collision has happened because he has apparatus that produces either photographic or computer reconstructed images that show tracks emanating from the point where the two beams meet head-on.
Now, how does an IPP convert interpret this 'collision'? He views this, not as an impact, but merely as a confluence of the two centers of two incessantly-expanding dynamic distortion patterns, and not in 'empty' space, but just in a relatively uncluttered region of the space lattice. He believes that the mass-energy of the impinging particles is not concentrated, but, rather, is distributed in equal radial increments to infinity (beyond its "saturated" center). Thus, the confluence has such a small central concentration of mass-energy that the two particles merge together with nary a bump! All the observed fractionation into other particles is attributed to the local rearranging of the space lattice induced by the ECE rotating action of the "saturated" centers of the merging ellipsoidal hovering LD oscillators associated with the two merging & annihilating leptons or hadrons interacting with each other.
Many other concepts in IPP's lexicon differ substantially from those of the Standard Model. To get a measure of these differences, I suggest that you browse through IPP's Concept Index, available to you by clicking on this item on the navigation bar under BOOK. Following this, I strongly suggest that you click on the items under TUTORIAL. Reading these tutorials is essential to understanding the 3-D structural drawings of dozens of mesons, baryons, and nuclei, which you can access, in turn, by clicking on the items under VISUAL IMAGES. These selections show 3-D defect-pair structures for most of the well established hadron resonances listed in LBL's "Review of Particle Properties", and show the "cube" 3-D structures of numerous single-plane & multi-plane nuclei. In viewing these drawings, you will see that my theory permits simple & accurate calculation of the mass-energies of these resonance structures, as well as calculating the mass-deficits of simple nuclei, and each animated drawing includes the details of these calculations, along with the 2000 LBL experimental values, so you can see how closely they compare. This evidence of quantitative corroboration should make it easier for you to consider the admittedly challenging notions of Infinite Particle Physics, as they are explored in this website.