Physics models are not based on "axioms".

This is one of the more coherent statements in your article. The rest of this is incoherent woo - there aren't even coherent statements that can be refuted.

What is one to do with a statement like "Energy, mainfesting the dynamic present, goes past to future, while the information generated goes future to past. Energy drives the wave, causing the fluctuations rise and fall"?

A skeptical person would ask - is your statement useful? Can you use this statement to predict something about the real world, which we can then both test? Does it describe the real world in some useful way?

The answer of course is No, No, and No.

Finally, the charmingly childish attack on math amounts to this: "I don't understand math, so it must be wrong!"

No claps. Your arrogance - "Even though I don't understand science at all, I know all of it is wrong" - is breathtaking, literally Trumpian in its magnitude.