Einstein Crossing the Room

this increases his resistance to movement, in other words, he acquires mass, just like a particle moving through the Higgs field

Okay maybe I took the image to seriously?:) I am no doubt focusing on the foundational attributes of our reality when it comes to how far one can sees, so of course I hope that such thoughts generated about the forms raise the issue of what was first or what was derived from first principles.

I mean of course it is necessary  to gain a position in logic approach to which advancement of truths may be encountered.  Dealing with not only with the responsibility to self,  but to what is espoused publicly. So while I am after the scientific attitude of relevance and experimental attitude to support such reasoning, I do want factual statements in light of the theory that is proposed,  and  advances of such thoughts as to what is reality forming?

The idea of time and its duration was a functional thing when proposed as a thought experiment with regard to A Hot stove and a pretty girl(On the Effects of External Sensory Input on Time Dilation." A. Einstein, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, N.J.) one may have drawn a conclusion as Einstein did, that the,"  state of mind of the observer plays a crucial role in the perception of time."

Can I be faulted then in my continued quest to find meaning at such levels?

 Since there exist in this four dimensional structure [space-time] no longer any sections which represent "now" objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated. It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three dimensional existence. Einstein

The schematic reasoning of point, line, and plane,  is somehow a gesture to a functional framework of geometrical identification and proportions as to expressions in reality. An escape from the realization of using straight lines and such to move too, a Non Euclidean geometry for perspectives about the nature and implication of curvature in space/time.

 Brian Greene:

it turns out that within string theory ... there is actually an identification, we believe, between the very tiny and the very huge. So it turns out that if you, for instance, take a dimension - imagine its in a circle, imagine its really huge - and then you make it smaller and smaller and smaller, the equations tell us that if you make it smaller than a certain length (its about 10-33 centimeters, the so called 'Planck Length') ... its exactly identical, from the point of view of physical properties, as making the circle larger. So you're trying to squeeze it smaller, but actually in reality your efforts are being turned around by the theory and you're actually making the dimension larger. So in some sense, if you try to squeeze it all the way down to zero size, it would be the same as making it infinitely big. ...

But alas one might say I have been turned inside\out,  as an idea about the topological nature of a point in time,  in a mind about a spot and about a place called nothing.

See:

No matter how you view it, the Higgs field is not the universal giver of mass to things in the universe: not to ordinary atomic matter, not to dark matter, not to black holes. To most known fundamental particles, yes — and it is crucial in ensuring that atoms exist at all. But there would be just as much interesting gravitational physics going on in the universe if there were no Higgs field. There just wouldn’t be any atoms, or any people to study them. Why the Higgs and Gravity are Unrelated

The only things you need in order to know that gravity will exhibit (not “be-explained-in-terms-of”, for this explains nothing) spin-two gravitons is

1) the world is quantum mechanical

2) gravitational waves in Einstein’s theory are those of a spin-two classical field

As long as these two things are true, it’s guaranteed; for in a quantum mechanical world, all waves are made from quanta (which is what particles are — ripples of minimal height), quanta all must have integer or half-integer spin, and the properties of the waves follow from the spin of their quanta. So you can infer the quantum numbers of quanta from the properties of the corresponding waves, without knowing anything else. You can infer from Maxwell’s equations for electric and magnetic fields that if there is quantum mechanics in the world, electromagnetic waves will be made from spin-one quanta (namely photons.)

To make a full theory of quantum gravity, however, you need a vastly more complete understanding of how all the fields of nature interact with each other. This is where all the mathematical challenges arise. It is the same for understanding what photons do when they interact with matter; you need much more than Maxwell’s equations for that! Quantum electrodynamics (QED) was quite challenging to develop, long after people knew about photons. And quantum gravity will be that much more difficult — but spin-two gravitons will be a part of it, unless quantum mechanics has to be completely revised even for ordinary gravitational waves.