I will say that I'm just plain disappointed that I dont seem to be
getting any serious feedback from the math crowd. One of the crown
jewels of math is Cantors transfinite set theory. If you can make
arguments similar to Cantor's regarding space, I think it would be
pretty cool.

The problem with mathematicians is that they are reluctant to speculate
out loud. They do speculate, privately, as if immersed in prayer. Then,
in open discussion, they will deny that they ever speculated and try to
hide it as if it were porn.

It would be nice to hear someone say something like one of the
following:
a) Dude, you're full of crap, dead wrong and here's why - x,y,z.
b) Hmmm,.... interesting idea, but unprovable.
c) Sounds like it might make sense, lets do some math and test this
theory.

Whatever.

Everybody who ever studied physics knows that QM seems to suggests
nonexistence, and everbody who ever said so out loud was quickly told
that it cant be true because of differential geometry. I'm certainly
not the first person to believe these things, but because no progress
has been made in this area and it just sounds wierd it is considered a
dead end.

Nothing in mathematics seems to treat "unobservability". In math,
everything is observable, because everything is defined so cleanly.
It's a pristine imaginary world where the floors never get dirty.

Cantor never said anything about what would happen to R1 if the
rationals really did exist, but you "just cant see them" so they
"appear" noenxistent. There is no such operator. No such function I've
ever seen. And this is exactly what time seems to be doing.

Should I be ashamed of myself because I speculated ?

If I can, I'd like to make some major modifications to the Lorentz
Transform, or start from scratch with some similar construction, and
test it out by running some numbers. If the whoe idea is crazy, then so
what. If it wont work, who cares. You still gain in terms of having
attempted such a thing.