This is an interesting phenomenon.<p>On the first glance, this is a modestly interesting bimetric theory of gravity, one of the many. These theories are usually considered valid science, not without issues, but at least offering some new insights. See <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bimetric_gravity" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bimetric_gravity</a>.<p>On the other hand, this particular theory comes from this person: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Pierre_Petit" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Pierre_Petit</a>. Even if it would have been a blinding light of scientific truth (and it isn’t), he would have a hard time convincing other scientists in its validity, because of his... other convictions.
Yeah, nah. I'm not going to read something titled "Proof Donald Trump is Actually the Best President" if the link goes to "DonaldTrump.com"<p>First-party punditry of scientific claims is a red flag the size of Alaska. If it has the slightest whiff of merit there ought to be a neutral third-party expert willing to bang out an article about it.
A little OT, but there was a XKCD-comic about a 'space-layer' made of a 'polygone-structure' - and I for for the abstract first thought, 'Randall better had written about a (for the 2D-shema) five-sided-(pentagon)-layer', cos if you think -just for a moment - about measuring and data-gathering-structures for mapping space maybe... - after you measured the size, temp, coordinates, and maybe 'relations' (for an example: possibility for water -in a survival-scenario... it was about astronomy) - I realized, the pentagon-figure 'shrinks' in a triangle, but 'You better have one more data-point open -for maybe future purposes'<p>Now I feel a bit <i>fuzzie</i> cos just 5 Minutes ago there was a posting here on HN someone saying something like: 'Somebody made an UI and for years it became the main theme... ' (-;