[AdmSmith]

A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics:

A -5 point starting credit.
1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.
2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.
3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.
5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.
5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.
5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).
5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann".
10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.
read more here:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

[PatrickHenry]

Thanks for the ping. I read the thing, and it seems to me that the author is a loon. I'm only going to ping a few others, not my whole list. There's very little info on the web about the author. But I found this: HERE.

[Maelstrom]

Serious problem.

This simple method would create a relatively high score for non-revolutionary contributions.

[Junior]

An "I miss ol' Ted" placemarker...