Klingman's theory can be seen to be false from a number of perspectives. He advances the idea of a C-field which gives
∇xC = 8πG/c^4 p
where the coupling constant 8πG/c^4 is absorbed into p. This would mean the pressure is a rotational field, much as the magnetic field is from ∇xA = -B. This is clearly not generally true, for ordinary matter in spacetime does not necessarily constitute a rotational mass-energy distribution. This does happen for frame dragging or the Lense-Thirring effect, but that is a special case and not a general rule.
What Klingman further advanced is that for a particle with a deBroglie wavelength λ, identified with the wave vector k, that
λ•∇xC = nħ
This can be seen to be wrong from just dimensional grounds. In naturalized units with c = ħ = 1 (no length or reciprocal length units) the Einstein tensor G_{ab} is composed of the Ricci curvature and scalar curvature with naturalized units of 1/length^2. The left hand side of this equation has naturalized units of 1/length, but the right hand side is unitless or ~ length^0. This is utterly fatal to the remaining part of his essay.
This error then gets folded into Joy Christian's geometric algebraic conjecture about the falsehood of Bell's theorem. This frankly heaps more damage onto something that is already a nonstarter. At the risk of Joy Christian showing up here with his "you don't know quantum locality the way I do" shibboleths, his work is almost universally judged to be wrong by those in the foundations of QM. We have had arguments over this, and frankly the matter is settled.
Yet in spite of this Klingman's essay floated fairly near the top of the community rating, and finished at #32 with 4.3 score, more than doubling my ranking and beating my score by .3. and similarly surpassing a number of papers far more solid in their analysis and conclusions. I am not sure what happened here, but I think anyone with sufficient understanding of physics can readily see these problems; at least certainly the problem with naturalized units. It takes a matter of minutes to see this. When I first read his essay I quickly saw this and dropped it right there --- the rest of it had to be nonsense.
This is in some ways a "clean" example of this sort of problem which richly peppered the whole contest. Many papers suffer from just this sort of problem, where it takes a brief period of time to see how they are wrong. Often they are wrong on very elementary grounds. An equal number of papers read in some ways like a dream of some physics theory, with word salads of nonsense that were meant to somehow sound profound. If I were to make such point by point critiques of all these papers it would become virtually a full time job. I can't do that, and clearly contestants who knew better did not deign to make such critiques for concern over low scores.
Cheers LC