Fun or serious? The spaghetti model - the newest sauce

Yesterday I read the newest text on the spaghetti model on www.motionmountain.net/research.html
There are few changes in some particle tangles, and a new way to explain elementary particle physics. Schiller now shows that the Feynman diagrams arise from spaghetti deformations. This is new, and I like it. In this way, Schiller can argue that the spaghetti model reproduces the standard model, without performing any calculation at all; he only needs to draw a number of spaghetti diagrams. More details are found in the paper.

Is this serious science? The paper lists experimental predictions and claims that there are no disagreements with experiments, but agreement with the standard model and with general relativity. Schiller proposes a way to approximate the fine structure constant. The approximation is bad, but it is a start. For a physics paper I cannot ask for much more.

How can a paper with little math claim to achieve unification, while hundreds of people have not managed to do so using much more complex math? Who is more crazy in this story: Schiller or his fellow researchers?

We should make more jokes about the spaghetti model. Nobody in his right mind will ever believe that particles have tethers (the official word for "spaghetti"). We should not listen to the argument that the model agrees with data. Only losers use such logic.

We should make more fun about such lone researchers. Schiller must be quite stubborn to do what he does, without support from anybody. He must be crazy to develop a theory that agrees with observation. In unification research, nobody has ever cared about experiments. Look at all those people working on loops, strings and the like; they are our shining examples in this matter.

How can a theory correct that uses other people's math? A theory that is based on research by others? This crackpot does not even use higher dimensions. He does not mention supersymmetry. The dreamers have told since decades that we need complicated math, not a paper that any normal physicist can understand.

Let us listen to Dijkgraaf, to Witten, or to other dreamers: they tell us to believe in the multiverse, not to explain down-to-earth issues like why there are three particle generations. They tell us to fantasize, not to check with data. Those are real men: they do not care about reality in their theories - they just care about reality when looking for funding.

We need more people with double standards like string and loop theorists; we do not need lone workers who make actual predictions for future experiments! Only wimps make predictions that can be checked.