First I do is see how many times cited. It’s 5. So it’s low impact. But that doesn’t necessarily mean anything much except popularity measure sometimes, depending on other factors.
So then, I look to see how many papers that wrote and on what topics. Here’s the goldmine: He’s studied some very interesting phenomenon and it’s not all just mathematical but also experimental. For me, this adds weight to credibility and he’s taken himself out of pseudo-science in general without saying specifically whether or not *this* article is science or pseudo-science yet.
It’s just one of my quick sorting mechanisms.
Check out this other papers he’s been involved in: Good stuff here.
Oh poo. ArXiv pulled in results not from him. This is more accurate: He dropped down a notch but still worth looking into.
Here’s the PDF – what an interesting notion this other article is: He’s suggesting the Universe *does* have a resting frame, bringing us back to Newton and away from relativity.
It certainly makes the Universe easier to understand with a piece of graph paper to draw on, for sure.
HEY! I can see why you like his style:
Physics is sometimes closer to philosophy when it comes to understanding the universe. Donald Chang from Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, China, attempts to elucidate whether the universe has a resting frame.