Well, skimming over the page, it doesn't seem to actually predict anything. It makes claims of gravitational dipoles and anti-gravity, but it gets its language confused over and over again (Electron Strong Charge, the word photon used interchangeably with gravitron, etc). The authors also claim that their model predicts the binding energies of the 1s orbitals of all of the elements, but when questioned via email the authors have simply stated that I should "buy the book" (right).

Those calculations that come up with those energies don't seem to show any real rigor, either. As far as I can tell, they've simply redefined a number of variables and used them to come up with new constants. But that's a claim without any rigor backing it on my behalf, since the page honestly just causes my brain to cramp. It feels so wrong I can barely look at it. I don't have the proper background to say why, though, and my text books that could help me along are some 5000 km away at the moment.

I was sure this had been tackled here before, but maybe I'm mistaken. It just seems so familiar. I thought someone could point me to a past discussion and debunking.

__________________
"The plan does not involve mayonaise."
"... I knew there was a catch."

You can't take the sky from me.