You and your "reputable physicist" make a great pair, I must say. Not even Stenger would agree with his previous "assessment" (I use the term loosely).
Let's just remind ourselves of what it was: "I'm not sure what 'flipped' means. Perhaps, 'flipped-out' would be a better description." Disgraceful. > [awaiting reply, but I don't think he will. If he has *any* integrity, he'll write back and "revise and extend" his remarks. I doubt he will. After he sees those citations, he'll be too embarrassed by his comment. And he'll be *very* glad he didn't let you use his name. > Like myself, he's a serious researcher and has no > time for bullshit, disingenuous hypocricies, > misrepresentations, and flatly wrong theories.] Neither of you is "serious" in any serious sense of the term. If he were serious, he'd have given you a serious assessment and been willing to put his name to it. Hagelin's flipped SU(5) is neither bullshit nor hypocritical nor disingenuous nor misrepresentational nor flatly wrong (at least, it's not flatly wrong *yet*). Sadly, those adjectives *do* apply to you and your friend the physicist (including "flatly wrong" at the time you posted his email). Whatever the status of flipped SU(5) may be among GUTs currently, and however egregiously the TMO may have misused it to bolster MMY's and Hagelin's credibility re TM: When it was published, it was a very serious theory that attracted a lot of serious positive attention. Hagelin need never be embarrassed by the theory itself; it was a major contribution at the time. GUTs don't grow on trees, and they don't get published in leading physics journals--half a dozen times at least--if they're "flipped out."
