You know, it is amazing when someone comes along spewing bluster and venom. It neither clarifies nor informs. You are arguing that this idea presented as new is in fact, nothing new.
Which begs, why the heck have other folks looked at it and said, mmm.. may be interesting. You cite basic and accepted theory and say, this guy's stuff is nothing at all and thus assume that anyone looking and saying it is interesting is ignorant or stupid or uninformed.
That is your hill and your battle. There isn't enough information in the article to even begin to support or refute your contentions about this mans suggestion.
Given that, your last statement just speaks poorly about your own character, because your point is basically beyond your reach and requires all others to assume that this article is patently wrong at your insistence alone.
Past this, you seem to intend on attempting a conversation that has no relevance to the folks that inhabit this place. I am attempting to bring the relevance of this to me, into my space and as I do, I am disturbed by a specific term, but know that inevitably the answer will be obvious so I just indulge in a bit of speculation.
Your argument is not convincing, and bluster, name calling and put downs don't make it any moreso.