[js1138]

1. Almost all new theories face stiff resistance from the old school.

2. Well, this would rule out all breakthrough physical theories. For example, quantum mechanics certainly required new laws and significant changes to existing laws.

3. If you want a hard and fast rule to determine whether a new theory is junk science or not, see if that theory requires or predicts instantaneous-action-at-a-distance (IAAAD). If it does, then the theory is completely junk science.

4. I agree with the part about companies buying up patents to suppress inventions like "water-powered" cars, etc.

Point one pretty much contradicts point two. QM was accepted in a matter of years, despite it's weirdness. I guess you have Einstein on your side in point three, but then he is the one who gave us EIR to test the hypothesis, and QM passed the test. You would be correct to say that "action-at-a-distance" does not allow information to travel faster than light. That would be junk science. As for point four, classic quackery.

[Doctor Stochastic]

QM was accepted quickly because it explained so many results: atomic spectra, radioactive decay, light diffraction, black-body radiation, photoelectric effect, and the periodic table, to name a few.

[mikegi]

Point one pretty much contradicts point two. QM was accepted in a matter of years, despite it's weirdness.

That's totally revisionist history. QM definitely wasn't accepted quickly.

As for point four, classic quackery.

I was agreeing with the original post. Claims of car companies buying up inventions to suppress them is a sign of quackery.