OK, ElMondo, as you are a perfectionist, then let me say it in accurate words:
there were 3 men who believed relativity theory to be correct. The rest of the world, ie, millions of people and hundred of thousand of scientists did not believe
OMG, I can't believe you did that.
There were
more than 3 men; I was only naming those who either came immediately to my mind or whom I found in quick references to websites discussing relativity. And the fact that only a few physicists out of the world's population who were looking into it doesn't automatically mean that the rest of the population outside of that group
disbelieved in relativity.
You're setting up the standard false dichotomy (as I said, you're a walking demonstration of logical fallacies), one between a supposed small group of researchers who "believe" in a phenomenon and go on to study it, and the rest of the world at large who supposedly stand in their way. The history of scientific research is not like that at all. Most times, the reason phenomena gets studied is
because some people note an occurance/event, make a description of it, then others pick up on that description and carries research forward, and still others build on that.
Read these two links:
... and you will notice that a
plethora of scientists and mathematicians are all named, all of whom contribute either by noting some element of one of the details of relativity, or who collaborate with Einstein on certain details, or who assist with confirmation. Not only is it more than 3 men, it also shows that there was no resistence to the notion outside of standard scientific "lets-see-the-evidence" skepticism. Which evaporates as soon as more results and work is done.
If you want to come up with an example of a scientist who proposes a hypothesis and meets organized opposition, you should've invoked
Wegener and
Continental Drift. And even
then, it wasn't a case of a heroic scientist struggling against the oppresion of the old guard geologists, it was a case of standard scientific skepticism saying "prove it to me". When arguments accumulated - notably but not limited to Jack Oliver, who contributed seismic evidence to advance the theory, and Arthur Holmes, who described thermal convection deep below the surface - and evidence was discovered that supported the notion, the mainstream scientific community completely accepted the notion
because the hypothesis had supporting evidence and could make testable predictions. And as the results of tests of those predictions rolled in, the hypothesis gradually became more and more accepted as the proper theory. But the reason that it became accepted was specifically
because the supporting evidence rolled in.
Contrast that to the claims
you're championing. You're citing arguments that not only have more than one explanation, but have more than one explanation
that is more likely than what you're championing. I point you at the past posts where you hang onto the triple-alpha tracks as significant, while totally ignoring background noise. And I'll let Ben M. and others straighten you out on that.
But the overall point I'm making is this: You
cannot go around creating myths and pretending that they help your cause. You betray a severe ignorance of scientific history when you assemble arguments the way you do. Relativity was worked on my many people, individual aspects of it were noted long before Einstein put it together, and the work that was done establishing it as the correct theory was never presented in a way that reeked of quackery. The history of how relativity was developed couldn't be any farther from the way that cold fusion is being presented. And you birth a false myth when you try to pretend it is.
