You are most certainly correct that I have too little familiarity with the field. Rereading my comment I see that I accuse the author of being a crackpot, whic

You are most certainly correct that I have too little familiarity with the field. Rereading my comment I see that I accuse the author of being a crackpot, which was not my intention. I merely wanted to point out that opaqueness is more often an indicator of being uninteresting rather than genius. Given the limited amount of time we have, I'd rather err on the side of missing out on a breakthrough. What is more likely, is that this paper is neither of the extremes, but my comment did not allow for that position. And even more likely, as you point out, is that I experience opaqueness because I lack knowledge to understand most of it. I still don't like the long and complex sentences though :) Thanks for keeping the discussion in check.