These scientists published serious data, and analysis.
In constrast, your comments are not serious, but typical of the pathologic skeptic.
Dio,...baby...I enjoy few things more than some rigorous scientific review and study. The comments made in the forward were much more arrogant than anything I mentioned and they were being paid to make professional statements.
For example, commenting that the researchers didn't know when to differentiate when they should integrate,..."etc." is synonomous to saying they don't know when to add when they subtract. If somebody is guilty of ad hominem attack, I'd say the author fits the bill fairly well.
As for my pathology, the pathology of science usually is sceptical for error, and yes, I admit, I haven't presented a postdoc paper here in a five minute review, but I expect a research study forward to nicely concentrate it's findings in concise language displaying the fuits of its labor. The fruits I observe are from somebody tooled up to review experimental design, some backgound in applied mathematics and Solid State, but not much in science. A complete system isn't formulated. Nor are the criticisms in the forward well isolated and premises discerned to allow others to satisfy completeness. IMHO, It's premature and hasty,...As I grant is mine, but I only took 5-30 minutes to review, while they obviously have been charged and expected to present a synopsis for the profession. Especially when the topic is supposedly a revolution in science.