First of all, you brought up NDT, to claim that he is the reason I believe what I believe is a horrible misrepresentation. Second, to explain all the reasoning that goes into this
conclusion is a waste of time, when textbooks already explain most of it. If you had a real problem with the theory, we could discuss that, but apparently you do not.
You did try though, so I suppose that is your problem, your best arguments (or did you lead with your worst arguments?) did not work, so now you stick to your stance of "it's wrong".
So all you are saying is something like "there should be at least one experiment which will not adhere to the prediction of the GE model, but I don't know which one".
Now, the GE model has amazing predictive power, and you want to throw it out, without real evidence that it is wrong, without an alternative. Maybe you don't understand the value of
such predictive power? Somehow I doubt that you will actually be supportive of me explaining this in detail, but predictive theories, even somewhat wrong ones,are be quite useful tools