Three-Dimensional Time: A Mathematical Framework for Fundamental Physics

Extract from a comment by myself a few days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44357022

> I think it makes no sense, but as HN discourage swallow dismissal ...

> The easiness to test prediction is the the ratio of the masses of the three generations of particles. The paper claim they are m_n = m_0 exp(-α n^γ) Then then claim something like: "1 : 4.5 : 21.0"

> - top/charm/up quarks: the ratios are 1 : 588 : 80186

> - bottom/strange/down quarks: missing(?!)

> - electron/muon/tau: 1 : 206 : 3477

> - neutrinos: From the article:

>> For neutrinos, this work predicts masses of 0.058 ± 0.004 eV for ν 3; 0:0086 ± 0:0003 eV for ν2, and 0:0023 ± 0:0002 eV for ν1, with mass ratios showing remarkable precision: m2/m1 = 4.5 ± 0.3 and m3/m1 = 21.0 ± 1.5.

> But from the experiments we have only upper bounds of the masses. We know they have mass, but we don't know even an approximation of the value. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino#Flavor,_mass,_and_the... the experimental values are "<0.08x10-6", "<0.17" and "<18.2" so I don't understand how the paper claims "remarkable precision"

After a few days, I consider the missing bottom/strange/down quarks a huge red flag, because any referee would ask it.

Also, by Sabine Hossenfelder "Time has 3 dimensions and that explains particle masses, physicist claims" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWzK6nITCK0 that explains the errors in many of the other equations.

I found a solution for physics' One Size Fits All problem that works by removing all spatial and temporal dimensions bar none. Unfortunately the space in this book's margin is too narrow to write down the full theory complete with experimental data that shows how to use the theory to generate unlimited free energy and build an FTL drive but I will outline all of these in a future publication.

The reports of Mathematical physics' death are greatly exaggerated.