Neutrinos are fermions with spin 1/2 [10] and thus one may anticipate spin of 1/2 or 3/2 for composite states formed by three neutrinos. Indeed most baryons have spin 1/2 and some, as shown in Table 4.4, have spin 3/2 [10]. Several baryons are charged, e.g. the proton or the Ξ+. The differences in mass, m, from their neutral brethren (i.e. the n or the Ξo) is small and of the order of αm, where α(= e2/εch¯ = 1/137.0359) is the fine structure constant. Thus the rotating neutrino model discussed here can describe with reasonable accuracy (e.g. Fig. 4.8 and Table 6.2) the masses of both neutral and charged baryons. However, since neutrinos are electrically neutral, the question arises about how charged baryons can be formed within the rotating neutrino model. One possibility is that in the distant past charged neutrinos existed. Their stronger interaction among themselves and with other particles led to their extinction via formation of hadrons, mesons, and neutral neutrinos. A more likely explanation is that neutral hadrons were first formed (e.g. neutrons) and then protons and electrons were formed via the β-decay [10], i.e. n → p+ + e− + ν¯e, which has a half-life of 885.7 s.

I guess he assumes here that with three neutrinos you can have the right spin and make neutrons, but for the charge aspect, in order to keep the half integer spin, you either need charged neutrinos or charged particles from neutron decay.. while tossing all strong and weak force away... if that's possible !! I believe the real problem with this theory is the relativistic newton gravitation law which he derived with handwaving arguments, while all the theorists have expressed explicitly that these two cannot be combined..he tossed the gamma factors in there, picked the neutrino mass of his choise and everything coincided with some accuracy, which isnt even helpful or hints at anything if it doesnt predict anything falsifiable, or better accuracy than the current model