[Mr. Mojo]

Professional jealousy, nothing more. The careers of a lot of these scientists are completely wrapped up in one scientific dogma or another, and any discovery that challenges their specific one is understandably met with jealously, rage, etc. The "gravity is instantaneous" crowd is the suffering party in this instance. Forgive me if I shed no tears for them.

[Moonman62]

The careers of a lot of these scientists are completely wrapped up in one scientific dogma or another, and any discovery that challenges their specific one is understandably met with jealously, rage, etc.

I agree, but I'd call it scientific assumptions rather than dogma. All the scientists involved in this issue seem to be of the non-kook variety, and they know that eventually their assumptions will either be confirmed or overturned by increasingly improved observations of nature.

[Physicist]

The "gravity is instantaneous" crowd is the suffering party in this instance.

You could hardly put Peter van Nieuwenhuisen ("Mr. Supergravity" we called him, when I was at Stony Brook) in that category.

I'm a little perplexed at the controversy, as this experimental methodology has been "on the table" for some time. You'd think these objections would have been raised from serious quarters sooner.

[unspun]

Well said. Things aren't so different now, from the times of Gallileo, etc.; it's just that different folks are "on top" from one time to another.

[DensaMensa]

}Professional jealousy, nothing more. The careers of a lot of these scientists are completely wrapped up in one scientific dogma or another, and any discovery that challenges their specific one is understandably met with jealously, rage, etc.

Well put. And a change in fact or underlying assumption no more changes their "theology" and passion for it than is the case with historians, religionists or others who have staked their career on a position. It is a myth that scientists and mathematicians are more "dispassionate" and "objective" than mere mortals.