Sorry to break this to you but this is crackpot science, and there is no way such a manuscript can pass through any respectable physicist.

Obviously you're not a physicist; let me simply say that this is not how a scientific paper looks like.

It is just some philosophical text attempting to interpret some basic concepts in physics, introducing new fields no one ever seen (seriously?), and myriad of strange conjectures coming from nowhere and it goes borderline mysticism about vacuum.
There is no new basic equation from which you can derive new, experimentally testable conclusions.

It's not even wrong.

Here're a few gems from his "theory":

> The energy is inseparable attribute of the matter.

> The Bohr atomic model is a correct mathematical model when assuming that the space is void.

> The intrinsic matter could never disappear.

> The vacuum is not a void space, but contains a unique grid structure. This grid structure named a Cosmic Lattice (CL) is built by two types of alternatively arranged nodes, each one containing 4 sub-elementary particles with shape of six sided prisms.

> The Newton’s gravitation (universal gravitational law) is a propagation of the IG field in CL space

What?!? I'm sorry but I can't believe I wasted ~10 minutes reading this crap. Yes, sorry about the language, but this is bullshit pseudoscience and any sane respectable physicist will reject this and blacklist this guy.

Here's how new theories in physics work: you put very little and very very basic assumptions into your theory (which is essentially an equation, that is compatible with experiments and hence is compatible with the old theory within a certain limited domain) and new stuff you derive from your basic equation comes out it in the form of experimentally testable predictions. You have to get a lot more stuff than you put into building your theory.

Special relativity is a very nice example, you just assume Galilean invariance and constantancy of speed of light and out comes time-dilation, length contraction, energy-mass relation. If you add equivalence principle you get general relativity which gives you spacetime and new theory of gravity, blackholes, etc etc. And old Newtonian physics is happily reproduced when speeds and energy densities are small. And most importantly, predictions of new theory agrees with observations and experiments in the domain where the old theory failed.

Some intermediate mathematical stuff between your basic equation and experimentally testable measurable predictions might be difficult to interpret (wavefunction and entanglement with Schordinger equation, "holes" with Dirac equation, virtual particles, etc.) but you don't dwell on this stuff like a philosopher because neither your current theory nor experiments doesn't give you a deeper understanding to it anyway. So instead of going mystic, you sweep the non-testable stuff under the rug, hope that future physicist will have a better theory eventually and just "Shut up and calculate".

What you don't do is, you don't pull a myriad of new philosophical stuff out of nowhere where your assumptions are all that comes out and call it physics.

Even if you're not a physicist, you can see what kind of a "scientist" he is by checking his publication history (0 papers in any respectable physics journal).