Some of your examples seem to demonstrate a lack of knowledge regarding the philosophy of science and the scientific method. In many cases, including Galileo, once his discoveries were able to be repeated and observed, the tide began to turn even in established scientific circles.

This is a vastly different from the theories posted here, which, at the moment, have no observational data or verifiable experiments that scientists can conduct. Once Jesuit scholars started to see Jupiter's moons and the phases of Venus, they slowly began to turn towards a heliocentric model. In the case of the holofractal theory, there is no such aim to get approval from any part of the scientific community, which makes it very suspicious.

I would suggest reading Essays on Galileo and the History and Philosophy of Science, it may provide you with some of the knowledge you are looking for regarding the philosophies of science that you can use in your future examples.

To break it down: * Galileo makes discovery that contradicts scientific norms * Galileo outlines how scientists/astronomers can repeat these observations and they do so * the fact that the experiments and observations matched the theory meant that eventually the scientific community accepts certain theories proposed by Galileo

In the case of holofractal: * there is no observational or scientific data verified by a non-partisan, peer-reviewed scientific body * Nassim charges people money to come to seminars which provide zero scientific observations but rather just asks people to "make connections" * the theory has been widely shunned by 99% of the scientific community (this is in direct opposition to what happened with Galileo) * Nassim's minions turn to the internet, where free speech abounds in order to try and gain new followers * the very place where the theory is discussed is then changed to restrict the freedoms of visitors

Hopefully this makes it more clear. Nevertheless, I highly recommend you read the book I mentioned above as it should contextualize the opposition to both Galileo's and Nassim's theories in a manner that will make it clear to you that they are not really comparable simply because they happen to contradict current scientific paradigms.