All you need to be checked is the math of your model. As I've said before, you are just offering a math model of a particular structure that your model introduces 'reality as a set of numbers'. If you would just label this 'reality as a set of numbers' as R1, then we don't need to be bothered by Einsteinian SR or GR theory, or how time is measured, etc. Your model doesn't care what is actually true in the world we see, it is only concerned what is true for R1 as *you* have defined it.
By stepping outside the 'R1' framework (by calling it 'reality') you have invited all of this needless criticism (needless because you don't have to take on all of physics to establish your model as sound). Once you have established 'R1' as mathematically sound, then you can make your case that reality=R1 (or scientific theory can at best approximate the structure of R1, etc).
Unfortunately, I see a model that can potentially stand on its too feet aborted as a fetus. First you have to have your mathematics verified, and then you can apply the model to the real world and challenge (if you wish) verified theories of science. If you don't see that mathematical validation as worth your money, then how is your model worth your time? How confident are you that your math is totally correct unless you have people to check it.
As I continue to see it, the main obstacle is how you perceive mathematical models as somehow already connected with reality. Just focus on the model itself and people like Bruce, Thomas, Alex, et al. will look at the *model* without getting hot and bothered by how you insist the interpretation of your model should be *applied* to reality (which you do from Chapter 1 and onward).
Warm regards, Harv