Thank you graciously for your applause and very useful viewpoint Mr Smith.
The Article was shortened from a 60 page comprehensive paper (exc QGrav) but the subject scope itself was a problem, viz;
Proposing what may be seen as a fundamental paradigm shift requires all relevant parts to be addressed or we get; "yes but it can't be right as it doesn't explain...x.y.z."
Then I have to follow the 'scientific paper' rules for it to be taken seriously, and include; The Problem being addressed (many think there isn't one!), Explanation/Argument, Methodology, Full Evidence, History, Consequences, Conclusions, Predictions. I knew if I left out any aspect it'd be jumped on! (and, to be fair, my target audience is professional theoretical physicists as well as the science educated public).
I understand what you're saying, and am considering taking a tiny aspect for a short 'letter' which could lead to the unfolding of the whole new picture, which really is of fundamental importance to progress, and has uncovered what's termed the 'Holy Grail', the unification of STR and QFT.
But I suppose what I'm also doing is testing my theory on how bad a state the world of physics has got itself into since I started the experiment. I fully expect to be completely ignored and branded a 'crackpot', to prove my hypothesis, but we'll see! (I expect the minimised math will expose the conceptual limitations of many).
Do you think you understood all the basic premises? Just ask if you didn't.
Peter Jackson