James,
Thanks for sharing! I have some general thoughts that popped into my head while reading and may have more as I digest your ideas.
> The basic idea is that our only source of empirical knowledge is via photons that carry information about changes of distance with respect to time.
I disagree with you on this point since that seems to assume that our empirical knowledge of the universe is confined to those sensory perceptions that involve photons, but (ignoring how the signals get from our sensory organs to our brains), we can learn quite a bit from sound as well as touch (maybe even touch).
> All physical sense is made known by changes of velocity.
I disagree with this as well. Changes in the color of light, for example, don't (indeed can't) involve a change in velocity since the velocity of light (in a vacuum and in air, which is close enough to a vacuum) doesn't change.
Now, in general I'm not sure I would say that your approach strikes me as being all that radical. What you've done is argue for a new system of units that allows for greater physical insight. This is most certainly interesting though not all that radical. The use of "natural" units (in which things like c, h, and G are set equal to 1) is common and produces a number of fascinating insights. Others have come up with pretty unusual unit systems that have shown. There's a very interesting discussion from about 4 years ago over at the n-Category Café related to this. (Copy and paste this link: http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2006/09/dimensional_analysis.html).
So now that I've said that, it might be interesting to look at your system of units in greater detail since it does offer some interesting equivalences. I'll have to ponder it a bit more though.
Ian