I don't understand

[mhtnreview]

why no one who can do the math on AFM's first presentation hasn't simply worked it out and given a thumbs up or thumbs down in one of these (or any of the multifarous others on the web) forums. I mean, AFM gives so many examples of fairly unrelated problems that his theory neatly resolves that simply finding out if the math is consistent across say, two of the examples would give real credence (or not) to the whole shebang.

Now number A, why doesn't AFM simply do this and publish his findings?

And number b, why doesn't any good 2nd year physics student work through two of AFMs examples and post an informed opinion? All I've found are naysayers claiming it's BS and providing no clear reason why, and other goofuses saying "I've always thought time was like, different everywhere, ever since I took mushrooms with my friend Pete, who once took a physics class and he said the universe was shaped like a cream donut. AFM is so like Pete, I sure miss Pete!"

Am I missing something? Has every actual physicist just passed on, seeing the glaring error on page one, and I'm such a goofus wannabe that I'm getting duped by a run of the mill mountebank?

Because from a simple uh, narrative assesment of the tenor of AFM's PDF stacks, his wide range of easy recipes for testing his theory, and the scope of problems that GTR intersects with, it, while not really being up to the model of legitimate physics as usual (peer reviewed papers in real publications by previously published and well known authors), it also isn't all _that_ much like all the other TOE crackpots out there, who tend to hysterically assert how their idea is radical and original while providing no testability and scant mathmatical testimony and a passing at best knowledge of what are viable questions in the physics community...

so come on, someone, what gives? I'll pay anyone who can do the math to write about what's right or wrong with that first stack. On Paypal. $5! First come, first served!

[mkirkpatrick]

why no one who can do the math on AFM's first presentation hasn't simply worked it out and given a thumbs up or thumbs down in one of these (or any of the multifarous others on the web) forums. I mean, AFM gives so many examples of fairly unrelated problems that his theory neatly resolves that simply finding out if the math is consistent across say, two of the examples would give real credence (or not) to the whole shebang.

Now number A, why doesn't AFM simply do this and publish his findings?

And number b, why doesn't any good 2nd year physics student work through two of AFMs examples and post an informed opinion? All I've found are naysayers claiming it's BS and providing no clear reason why, and other goofuses saying "I've always thought time was like, different everywhere, ever since I took mushrooms with my friend Pete, who once took a physics class and he said the universe was shaped like a cream donut. AFM is so like Pete, I sure miss Pete!"

Am I missing something? Has every actual physicist just passed on, seeing the glaring error on page one, and I'm such a goofus wannabe that I'm getting duped by a run of the mill mountebank?

Because from a simple uh, narrative assesment of the tenor of AFM's PDF stacks, his wide range of easy recipes for testing his theory, and the scope of problems that GTR intersects with, it, while not really being up to the model of legitimate physics as usual (peer reviewed papers in real publications by previously published and well known authors), it also isn't all _that_ much like all the other TOE crackpots out there, who tend to hysterically assert how their idea is radical and original while providing no testability and scant mathmatical testimony and a passing at best knowledge of what are viable questions in the physics community...

so come on, someone, what gives? I'll pay anyone who can do the math to write about what's right or wrong with that first stack. On Paypal. $5! First come, first served!

Welcome to the toe Buddy,look forward to your input>
regards michael.