Dave says:

John has several contributing editors and I’m one. I was the one who posted the article. At the top of every article is the name of who the poster is, except for John who is “site admin.”

A long time ago, I realized that there’s a good reason for looking at “crackpots” and “kooks” – as you seem to be labeling the website authors – whose theories don’t fit the norm. Leaving aside the tin foil hat people, the serious, but out of the mainstream ones generally arrived at their conclusions through serious thought and analysis. They may turn out to have made mistakes in reasoning and/or calculations, or they may just be butting heads against the current tides of well funded belief. But that doesn’t mean they have nothing to contribute.

Even if their overall results don’t pan out, there may be some small item within their research or conclusions that may be worth exploring or a key to something. And occasionally – looking back at scientific history shows many examples – everything might be right.

Are the web site author’s right or wrong on their theories? I’m not qualified to judge. But it does provide an interesting, different look at the universe that can be start of a lively discussion which is worthy, assuming it doesn’t devolve into name calling. The fact that more learned folk are arguing through Wikipedia about the site’s merits indicates someone thinks there is something worth looking at.

And who knows? They might be right.