(March 10, 2012 at 12:40 pm)black36 Wrote:(March 10, 2012 at 12:33 pm)Werewolff Wrote: I would have thought that if I could understand it, I would be able to explain it. I haven't read the paper and it's way too much to read, but Phil has read it, I would have thought he could summarise it in a way that would help us to get it. I don't know why he can't do that.
Exactly!
Phil, you brought it up. The balls in your court. Don't just pack up and go home. That's cowardice.
He did indeed bring it up. We still don't know if it's just some hypothesis or if there's evidence, because he hasn't said. In fact, we don't even understand what it's all about in the first place thanks to his totally unsatisfactory "summary". It explains nothing. No one here would understand anything based on what he has said.
Phil, in your own words, what's it all about? Can you actually explain it or are we to be in awe of you forever?
