You're mistaken: This is neither true nor an axiom. Nor this. For example: is a distance of 5 miles (or metres, or millimetres) no longer cont as a distance because it's been measured? Why do the points have to be "reflective"? It's an axiom that the universe is infinite? If matter OCCUPIES space doesn't that contradict your earlier "definition" of space? You appear to be redefining "matter" and "substance" without actually providing the definitions. If you'd written "physical dimensions" you'd have been more nearly correct. You don't have a theory: what you have is a mish-mash of rubbish, unsupported drivel and made up nonsense that YOU think is correct and justified (when in fact it's neither).