Yes, I have read the submission kindly made here. Alas, it is an even worse example than usual of Phys.org press release spam. (Here it appears to be blogspam, from another source, not professionally edited, and not directly linked.)

Ladies and gentlemen, the idea that a medieval bishop could have come up with a theory that will be useful guidance for physicists now working on multiverse theory is an extraordinary claim, and it requires extraordinary evidence (not provided in this submission) to be taken seriously. Meanwhile, this link from Phys.org, like most links from Phys.org I have ever seen either here on Hacker News or among my Facebook friends, reminds me of why several participants here on Hacker News over the years have suggested declining to make submissions directly from Phys.org, but rather always to look for a more professionally edited source.

Comments about PhysOrg:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3077869

"Yes Physorg definitely has some of the worst articles on the internet."

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3149824

"I viscerally distrust anything from physorg.com. Anyone have a better option?"

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3198249

"Straight from the European Space Agency, cutting out the physorg blogspam:

http://www.spacetelescope.org/news/heic1116/ (press release),

http://www.spacetelescope.org/videos/heic1116a/ (video),

http://www.spacetelescope.org/static/archives/releases/scien... (paper).

"PhysOrg: just say no."

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3611888

"The physorg article summary is wrong, I think."

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4108857

"Phys.org is vacuous and often flat wrong."

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4890900

"And note that the gravity lamp was announced on physorg.com, famous for how wrong it is about science topics."

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5106145

"I try and debunk/explain [shady] biological science news wherever possible here. In fact, it's typically my only contribution, but one I feel is highly important.

"Your perpetual (and totally correct) crusade against PhysOrg reminds me there are others doing the same, and for that I thank you."

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5276327

"Physorg? Ugh.

"Didn't even bother click, came here to read comments instead.

"Can HN please ban Physorg like everyone else?"

Comments about both PhysOrg and ScienceDaily:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3689185

"Why hasn't sciencedaily.com or physorg been banned from HN yet?"

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3867348

"A useful rule of thumb is that whenever you see anything on sciencedaily.com or physorg.com, unless it's absolute nonsense there's another more direct (and often more informative) source you should link to instead."

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3875529

"Original source:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hinode/news/pole-asymmetry...

"What ScienceDaily has added to this: (1) They've removed one of the figures. (2) They've removed links to the Hinode and SOHO websites. (3) They've added lots of largely irrelevant links of their own, all of course to their own site(s).

"Please, everyone: stop linking to ScienceDaily and PhysOrg."

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3867361

"Those sources don't have RSS feeds, and ScienceDaily and PhysOrg have a bad habit of not linking to such things."

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4083766

"Added value in PhysOrg article: zero.

"Please, everyone, stop submitting links from PhysOrg and ScienceDaily. I have never ever ever seen anything on those sites that isn't either (1) bullshit or (2) a recycled press release with zero (or often negative) added value. (Sometimes it's both at once.) It only takes ten seconds' googling to find the original source."