And what about the scientists running the LIGO interferometer experiment? Are THEY quacks? From "LIGO Sheds Light On Cosmic Event"..."LIGO's contribution to the study of GRB070201 marks a milestone for the project, says Caltech's Jay Marx, LIGO's executive director: "Having achieved its design goals two years ago, LIGO is now producing significant scientific results. The nondetection of a signal from GRB070201 is an important step toward a very productive synergy between gravitational-wave and other astronomical communities that will contribute to our understanding of the most energetic events in the cosmos.""Within an environment where mainstream scientists will eagerly call a NULL result "significant" and a "major milestone" presumably in the quest to get additional funding, what are we to make of the same people calling the aether interferometer experimenters quacks?Re: "Not only that but CERN and all the other particle physics groups were conducting experiments on the relativistic dynamics of particles up until the 80s until they decided it wasn't worth trying to find anything wrong with it anymore."From "The Invisible Universe" by Gerrit Verschuur ... "Many research scientists, especially the theoretically inclined, 'know' so much that their chance of making a lucky or creative discovery may be severely curtailed. If we know too much, our vision is sometimes narrowed to the point where new opportunities are not seen. Jansky knew a little astronomy, but not enough for it to get in his way and cause him to reject the possibility that radio waves originating from the cosmos might be real ... the new field of radio astronomy was originally caught between two disciplines. Radio engineers didn't care where the radio waves came from, and the satronomers, '... could not dream up any rational way by which the radio waves could be generated, and since they didn't know of a process, the whole affair was (considered by them) at best a mistake aned at worst a hoax.'"If more people would just read the stories of science that have led us to this current point, they'd have a much more honest view of the fallibility of establishment science.Re: "The point is that some established physics has such a weight of evidence behind it that it cannot be realistically challenged, and only modified in subtle ways."But, this is glossing over the social ramifiications of admitting that the past 100 years has been a mistake.Re: "Since we know general relativity works in certain circumstances (a fairly broad set of circumstances), then not only should a new theory reproduce the same results in that regime, but it should do it in a logical, consistent and simple way"It really all depends on how rigorous and creative scientists have been in ruling out possibilities. Today, there is so much emphasis placed upon consensus in science (like in cosmology) that it's not clear that all of the possible explanations are being ruled out.