Thinking that my discussion of dimensions and units is clumsy is a fair position to enter the discussion with, but again, the assumption that you are right and anybody challenging you or the mainstream is wrong only sets the tone for needless stress. If you are truly certain you are right, you can wait with patience to make your clear and decisive argument. Checkmate doesn't come at the beginning of the game, you have to demonstrate your skill, first.Well, you may think it's "stupid", but frankly I find your discussion of dimensions/units to be quite clumsy and lacking in understanding of the issues involved.
You are missing the point. Planck's constant is NOT a conversion constant except to someone who wants to convert mass to length, which is absurd. Planck's constant is an empirically induced constant related to the real world. It should be the goal of the physicist to identify the actual mechanism that produced Planck's constant, not invent word salad physics where mass is converted to length. Just because physicists went astray one hundred years ago due to a lack of understanding does not mean the present generation has to repeat their mistakes.The above shows your misunderstanding of rationalized units if you think that the conversion of units of measurements is some actual, physical converstion of one thing into something else. Time remains time even if we measure it in meters or inverse kilograms.
You just revealed your prejudiced and bigoted view. You are admitting that you have drawn your negative conclusion before properly analyzing the paper. Tell me, will you be wearing white sheets at this meeting? Are you planning to put a burning cross on my web site?Don't worry, I'm having some of my friends over for coffee and there will be a series of dialogues analyzing your "white paper". We haven't seen such a putrid mass of gross misunderstanding and word salad in a long, long time.
I suggest a different approach. Why not test the predictions of the theory and see if they work? If they do, try to find out why the Standard Model could not produce the same results. I think that would be more true to the scientific method.