[Bored chemist]

It's better than leaving mass undefined.

Not only is it obvious that mass is defined, there are even TV shows and reports about redefining the unit of mass.

[talanum1 (OP)]

Not only is it obvious that mass is defined

It isn't explained, except by my model of particles.

[puppypower]

I have highlighted a few examples of utter nonsense for you.
Feel free to replace them with something meaningful.

time potential;

time potential.

extra space is not needed to express the extra potential

One could move in time without any entanglement with space ; omniscience, and/or move in space without any entanglement with time; omnipresent.

If we start with a particle that occupies a volume=V, and give the particle spin, the volume of space requirement does not change. The particle will still occupy volume =V. What does change is the frequency, which is defined as 1/time. The spinning particle has potential in time, via its frequency, without any change in the space volume requirement.

Particle velocity is different. In this case, the frequency does not change, but the space volume requirement becomes a function of time, via velocity; d/t. If the particle is both spinning and has velocity such as an electron in an orbital, there is velocity; space-time, plus frequency; extra time potential. This adds up to acceleration; d/t/t, connected to the centrifugal force.

Space-time is not the only show in town. Separate potentials in space and in time can also exist without them being fully entangled with each other, on top of the matrix of space-time. It is easier to keep track by calling these extras time and distance potential.

[Bored chemist]

via velocity; d/t

d/dt is not a velocity, it's an operator.

You seem to have interpreted my suggestion that you add more sense as meaning you should add more nonsense.

If we start with a particle that occupies a volume=V, and give the particle spin, the volume of space requirement does not change.

Nobody ever said it did.
Did you think you were making some sort of point?

[Origin]

If we start with a particle that occupies a volume=V, and give the particle spin, the volume of space requirement does not change. The particle will still occupy volume =V. What does change is the frequency, which is defined as 1/time.

The term 'spin' in subatomic particles is not referring to particles actually rotating, so you are off to a bad start here!

Separate potentials in space and in time can also exist without them being fully entangled with each other, on top of the matrix of space-time.

Stringing together sciency sounding words with out conveying any meaning is not what is normally thought of as science.

[talanum1 (OP)]

You keep insisting that particles don't spin, but they have a property analogous to spin. This appeals to magic.

[talanum1 (OP)]

The usual definition of mass is circular.

My definition says: mass is encoded by space points on a circle in a particle. Half of the circle is made of left-out points of space.

[Bored chemist]

The usual definition of mass is circular.

My definition says: mass is encoded by space points on a circle in a particle. Half of the circle is made of left-out points of space.

I prefer  the allegedly circular one to the meaningless one.

[Origin]

You keep insisting that particles don't spin, but they have a property analogous to spin.

The particles have angular momentum that is not associated to an actual rotation of the particles.

This appeals to magic.

It seems that way to you because you don't understand physics.  It's like showing a lighter to a stone age man, they would think it is magic fire.

[puppypower]

One property of mass is mass occupies space. If we collect mass together, via gravity, and this mass occupies space, there is less local space. This is reflected as the contraction of mass and the contraction of local space.

Mass has a connection to time, since quanta of time exists within the quantum gaps of quantum space to form space-time. When mass occupies space it couples to time. 

Mass cannot travel at the speed of light and therefore this limitation allows finite time to appear via mass. Without mass and only particles moving at the speed of light, space-time is not valid for any particle reference. Mass, by occupying quanta of space, allows time to couple to space and mass to form space-time and finite durations of time and space. I call this mass potential. Mass potential is a like placeholder for time via how it occupies space.

The complexity of the laws of physics can be reduced to these three variables; mass, distance and time potential, since they imply all the rest. One way to see this is with special relativity. Velocity will cause changes in mass, distance and time via relativity. Since the laws of physics are the same in all references, changes in just there three variables, cause by relativistic velocity, will cause all the rest of the variables of physics to adjust so the laws can remain the same.  These three variables can control of all the rest. Various combinations of these three variables will define each of the classic laws.

For example, all forces create accelerations which are defined as d//t/t. These accelerations are all one part distance potential and two parts time potential. Each force has different values of distance and time potential, but all will follow the same simple schema. Current theory is too cumbersome and leads to misunderstanding.

[Origin]

One property of mass is mass occupies space.

Mass is a property.  So you are trying discuss properties of a property??

Also an electron has mass but no apparent size, so your statement is at odds with physics.

So your first sentence is wrong and the entire rest of the post is just more incorrect guesses... at least you are consistent.