It’s great that a couple of you have said that. But we know your expertise in physics as much as we know these guys’ expertise in physics.
Forgive me if I go with the guys in the article :-)
“However, Einstein’s theory of general relativity predicts the existence of time loops or time travel — where an event can be both in the past and future of itself"
Relativity doesn't predict such things. It allows some behavior of time that we would find strange, but it doesn't require "time loops".
"A unified theory that could reconcile both traditional dynamics and Einstein’s theory of relativity is the holy grail of physics."
From context he's talking about "classical dynamics" or "traditional dynamics". There is no conflict between that and relativity.
“But the current science says both theories cannot both be true,” Tobar said."
The current science does not say that. As I said, there is no conflict between classical dynamics and relativity. He's confused.
The "conflict" that does exist is between relativity and quantum theory, although "conflict" is the wrong word. It's not that both can't be true. Both are true, as far as we can tell. The problem is that they are distinctly different theories. Each explains its domain, but they don't have anything in common. It's not a conflict, but it suggests that there's a deeper theory to cover everything.
This is all basic physics taught in entry level courses. If he's confused about this then I highly doubt he has anything really useful to say.