rationalskepticism.org

Guill wrote:I have been studying Tetryonics for about 6 months. Early on, I was as skeptical as some of the people that have posted here. My first goal was to find inconsistencies and so far I have found only one. It deals with how gravity is created/the result of the null/empty space inside the Tetryons.
I don't know if this theory is "good/valid," but I see it as a model that tries to answer some of the questions science has no answer for. To me, it is no different than prior models (billiard ball, central nucleus with orbiting electrons, quarks, etc.). Time will tell if it is useful or not.
I agree that Mr. Abraham should have been a bit more humble and just presented his model, and let the model "speak for itself" instead of presenting it as the "greatest" discovery in human history.

Mr. Abraham does make testable claims, so it should be easy for somebody to prove him wrong.
I remember reading Einstein also had credibility problems, until astronomers were able to verify some of his claims (bending of light, Mercury's perihelion). So look for this guy's claims, and prove them wrong.