I disagree. On the face of it, EWT (from Jeff Yee) is simple and explains much more than the standard model explains.
I will probably butcher a summary of the theory, but this is my understanding:
EWT has 1 fundamental particle called the wave center that exists along with the aether. Particles are a result of standing waves reflected by wave centers in the aether. Forces are traveling waves reflected by wave centers in the aether. Forces are a result of wave centers minimizing the amplitude of these waves. The equations that model these particles and forces are provided in the theory.
So it has a very simple model like you would expect a model of our universe to have given the simple equations that provide the basis for our quantum mechanical theory like: E=nhf, wavelengh = h / p, E = mc^2, etc.
Sub atomic particles are explained as a collection of wave centers forming stable structures based on minimizing wave amplitude between the wave centers. 1 wave center is a neutrino, 10 wave centers in the form of a tetrahedron is an electron, and all of the other particles in the standard model are made in a similar fashion. EWT provides the equations that allow the masses of these sub-atomic particles to be calculated by plugging in the wave center number. This is not something the standard model provides any explanation for.
EWT explains all of the forces (strong, electromagnetic, gravitational) as manifestations of the wave equation used in its model. I believe it also provides explanations and the math for many of the fundamental constants used in the standard model that the standard model has no explanation for.
EWT provides a much simpler explanation of how the nucleus works, why we get the nuclear decay products we get, why a free neutron decays, etc.
There are things I don't see explained in this theory like the non-locality of the EPR experiment and an explanation of the double slit experiment. I tend to think EWT does not explain the photon in this model properly or at least in a way that makes sense to me. However these criticisms do not take away from the particle explanations and its general approach.
I tend to think EWT is more on track to a theory of everything than most mainstream physics today, because it has not given up on a simple mechanistic (classical like) explanation for a theory of everything, where as much of mainstream physics has. I don't think anyone can provide a solid, air tight reason to give up on a mechanistic model and I would say the evidence strongly suggests that it is the model for the universe we live in.
I would like to see an honest peer review of this theory, but I think simulating is a great way to prove out its merits.