I started agreeing with the article but then it becomes an ad-hominem attack, and I can only assume the author didn't really understand the paper since I don't

I started agreeing with the article but then it becomes an ad-hominem attack, and I can only assume the author didn't really understand the paper since I don't see an actual critique of it. I also found the statements on "super-advanced" math to be suspicious as well: > super-advanced math is a language game I don't think so, and this shows lack of understanding. You have to proof things in math, and I expect someone's critique on Eric's paper showing why there is a mistake and where, instead of trying to decrease his credibility. That said, I'm also skeptical this is such a huge breakthrough and was a huge blind spot in physics for decades, but I guess it remains to be seen.