Your argument is bereft of logic and is based on your personal feelings about 2 individuals, not really a convincing argument
If someone claims to have a theory of everything, they're probably full of shit. If they claim to have it, but says they can't show you for some reason, they're 100% full of shit.
As an analogy, I have an aural thermometer and an infrared thermometer. From what I've read (and discussed with my doctor) the aural thermometer is the more accurate one. If my aural thermometer and my infrared disagree on someone's temperature, I believe the aural thermometer. Is this because I am bereft of logic and using only my personal feelings about the two thermometers, or because I reasonably trust one device more than another?
In areas that I don't have lots of familiarity with, like the kinds of math and physics discussed in the article, I think I can use the feedback of experts as sensing tools. Just like I can't directly infer someone's temperature by looking at them or feeling them, I can't directly infer the truth about competing claims related to Geometric Unity. What I can do though is rely on the sensing tools or experts with established credibility and see what they say.
Not being an expert in thermometers, but having a vested interest in normal human body temperature, at first I thought aural was a homophone for oral, another common type of thermometer, and a strange speech recognition error.
Having googled the term "aural thermometer", I see it is a popular product, and the descriptions show that it measures the temperature inside one's ear by infrared, as in an aural thermometer is, logically, also an infrared thermometer.
If this simplest of everyday health monitors can have that much confusion in clear writing, I wonder how it is possible to believe that laypeople listening to a podcast on groundbreaking theory could expect to usefully interpret any part of it.