From "Master of Reality" by Mark Fiorentino, I took this piece of text. Do you think it's true?

No, I doubt it. He makes all sorts of unfounded and glib assumptions – “it is a common belief” and “despite this misconception” – and it sounds like he is expecting the reader to accept his assertions on faith and without proof.

I am no physicist, but something as basic as a ‘super relatively model’ ought to have more to it than a paragraph full of loosely connected assumptions.

I have the impression that this has as much stability as a house built of cards.

mumbo jumbo interspersed with an occasional fact.

It’s interesting, and cool in it’s real context. But I think you should say more about what this thing actually is: A literary device Fiorentino imagines as a vehicle for much of his science fiction/fantasy writing. On that level it’s very creative and effective.

But as true science it’s too vague to hold up as a working theory. It lacks the detail and mathematical logic of either string theory or super-symmetry models, and would probably break down trying to explain the dimension of time.

P.S. – Gotta keep in mind, Fiorentino self-published his book over a year ago and is now self-promoting on every platform he can find to cover costs.

Which is totally okay. Lots of writers do that when they need to bypass agents, conventional publishers & editors. But for serious science it’s never acceptable. You have to have peer review by credible authorities, and clear mathematical proofs – You won’t find either here.

But strictly as entertainment, I guess you could do worse.

It isn’t scientific and sentences such as “pressure differences within the structures cause the motion of particles” are neither true nor false but simply meaningless.

This sounds like a setup for a science fiction series. There are too many “science” sounding phrases jumbled together.
This is a very good site that explains particles and their motions. Particles and Forces And it is written clearly.

It’s Science Fiction. That’s it.