Im not sure what you’re disagreeing with. It seems like selective quoting to sidestep my point about quality of predictions and pivot to ridiculing the original theory which I actually was originally critical of.
I don’t feel any need to shame the author. There’s clearly a good faith effort to contribute and I think the most constructive feedback is to suggest how it could be stronger.
Perhaps if you are an established physicist with a history of significant contributions then your vague predictions might hold some interest, but the author studied English and philosophy and has a career to match, and it is clear from reading that they have no actual experience developing physics theory.
If you didn't finish reading the article, I really recommend you go back and give it another go. If you don't get caught up in trying to explain the mechanisms (which may be limited given our current limited understanding, ESPECIALLY of quantum gravity), I think you'll have to see that there's something there.
I mean for fuck's sake, y'all sound like religious zealots arguing against evolution.
Are you suggesting I'm a bot or an alt from the author or something? Because that feels like an illogical leap to make based on someone posting enthusiastically about a subject. I do wonder if you'd suspect these accounts equally if the viewpoint expressed aligned with yours.
Uh... no having a model with quantifiable predictions is the minimum. This is just nothing. Like possibly up to the standard of a physicist speculating after a third drink with colleagues after a conference, and that's being generous.
This is like a dude with an idea for a new social network trying to do an IPO with only a pitch deck and zero work.