Hi Paul -
I have to say you have very diligent in reading my paper - You have made some very important points and I will address the best I can in a post.
You state, "your paper is much like many others that I have seen that fall short of being actually workable because it attributes characteristics to some things that they don't actually possess in reality."
When you really learn my theory - (this is just a very brief essay with very limited math) there is a reason why other papers fall short of reality and why this one does not. You are using your current knowledge and applying it to the entities of spacetime... This is a big no-no... We will never be able to directly see, experiment on, or show the entities of spacetime in ANY physical manner - My theory reveals why that is so --- and to do so (exposing the entities of spacetime) would break the laws of physics. So in a sense you are right - the entities are not workable "particles" in reality, they are entities that cannot be physically exposed because to do so would break the laws of physics. That is why I call them entities and not particles - All of physics deals with particles and to use the physics of particles and apply them to these entities leads to misconceptions of the entities.
You went on to talk about "motion" of the entity of spacetime -- I cannot answer this in a post and I will only refer you to the first chapter of my book that discussed this in detail.
https://www.amazon.com/GOD-Entity-Gordons-Theory-Everything/dp/1457538709/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1514069173&sr=8-1&keywords=the+god+entity See the look inside feature and read the first chapter for free.
I agree with some of your statements - there is no place for the spinning point to go... You are being held back by the same thing that holds every physicist back from finding the theory of everything - "The Ruby Slipper Conundrum" - and that is another big explanation and problem.
I would suggest you read these papers to give you an idea of how the hierarchy of energy plays a key role in addressing all your issues regarding dimensions and "particles" existing "in" spacetime as opposed to entities that exist "as" spacetime.
This statement you made is something I agree with --"It is an easy calculation, so I will give it. 1,000,000 objects X 0 size of each object = 0 size of dimensional line."
But this statement tells me that you may not have understood how the spinning point entities of spacetime (with their operator fields based on relative spin) collectively create spacetime and the creation of the parameter of distance which was in my essay.
Next item... You state, "This may come as a surprise to you because it appears from your paper that you believe that all of the energy photons came into existence at one time and are all still in existence and by extension I would assume that you also believe that no new energy photons have been created since then. In reality energy photons come into existence and go out of existence all the time around us and we can easily observe this. If you have a car and get in it and start it up, you are starting up an energy photon production device."
But I am not saying that it is these same photons - I'm saying that what we currently know of as energy in our universe was created at that time. When you say "no new energy photons have been created since then" Photon energy (E1 energy) is captured by particles of E2 energy and the energy released in photons again - but the net energy remains the same - the point I made is that the energy we know about (E1 and E2 energy) can never become the energy of spacetime (E0 energy) and the energy of spacetime can no longer create new primordial photons (arising from only spacetime itself) - This is why we have the law of conservation of energy.
It will be a long time for me to get this theory across because people bring their misconceptions from what they know about "particles" and apply them to entities. It is also almost impossible for a person to think outside of the three dimensional box and to understand why there is a three dimensional spacetime in the first place.
In your last statement you said, "When you consider the generation of a balanced static mass effect in matter particles, a two dimensional rotation will not work. You need a three dimensional enclosed motion to produce it. I hope this helps you."
This statement shows that you have not gotten through the Ruby Slipper Conundrum and are using terms and parameters like mass, motion and dimensions which pertain to particle "in" spacetime and not the entities "of" spacetime.
I very much appreciate your comments Paul and the time it took you to respond. It really helps in where I am lacking in getting the theory across - I know you may be thinking I'm just delusional but once you learn the entire theory - there is no way you go back to your current model which for the most part remains the same for E1 and E2 energy. My theory does not change physics, it finishes the model by adding in the missing ingredient required to get past our current theoretical impasse.
By the way - one of the main problems in basic physics is how do particles come to be associated with their energy fields. In a nutshell energy fields are created by the interaction of E1/E2 energy with the E0 energy of spacetime. This is another paper you may be interested in: