Actually, your link to 'evidence' I don't think really supports your case. I see a guy empathetically admitting his technical faults, and who also seems to be

Actually, your link to 'evidence' I don't think really supports your case. I see a guy empathetically admitting his technical faults, and who also seems to be bullied out of academia. Einstein was notoriously technically weak and this is not entirely uncommon in many fields. I disagree with your assessment that he believes the 'details are irrelevant' (admittedly, I listened for a few minutes at your link and he didn't say that), rather it would seem logically that at least as a 'first step' the details are not - intuition usually comes before the details. Unless you have actual evidence that he really believes his ideas should be accepted purely on the basis of their conceptual novelty irrespective of their technical merit, I don't think it's fair to put words in his mouth. (Maybe your link was to the wrong spot?). I don't know what to make of it - it seems on one hand like a giant 'attention scheme' PR campaign, on another like a man down his own rabbit hole, but I sense on some level there's some good faith however lacking in self-awareness there may be on his own behalf. None of the commenters here as of the time I've written this seem to be willing to take it on at face value, granted, very few people could, but still, we seem to be posting ad-hominem instead of references to serious discussions of the work. If it's quackery then hopefully it should be obviously outed as that. If there's 'something' there, even some legit neat ideas, that should be recognized as well. Edit: I should add, I'm entirely sympathetic to anyone willing to take a serious stab at hard problems. There's no way this guy is actually devious, at worst he lacks self awareness, but there's at least Art in that. As long as people are not taking up research money with 'quackery' then it's great that people are storming the gates of the unknown.