I have several things to say.

First of all -- this is my comment and I see nothing wrong with it. This site is obviously not a place to promote ones theories. Let me emphasise the word promote -- not "talk". If your theory or method is accepted by scientific community and you think that it is relevant to the question -- do as you please. If you are twisting even the basic level questions eventually coming to the discussion of your own "great discovery" -- this is not the place. And the person in consideration was told about it several times. I didn't call anyone "crackpot" or some thing like this. I didn't tell that the "theory" was wrong. I just stated the facts.

Second is about what to downvote. The answer is supposed to be downvoted if it is not helpful. It can be perfectly correct but not helpful. Such answers are to be downvoted. Again -- no abuse, nothing personal.

Third is about the commenting the downvote: I have an observation that "people who promote their theories" do this everywhere for one and only reason -- they want their "theories" to be "discussed". Being rejected by standard "discussion areas" in science they go to inappropriate places to fulfil their desire for communication.

This behaviour is very similar to trolling -- any kind of feedback you give to them receives even bigger reaction. And "not feeding the troll" strategy: silent downvoting -- is best way do deal with this kind of people.

Finally, about this “consensus science” stuff. Not only this site is community-driven -- whole science is community-driven. If you think that you have made a great discovery, which is not accepted by scientific community, then it is you responsibility to be as correct and clear and careful as possible.

Have you ever seen any great physicists with real great discoveries, comparing themselves to Galileo Galilei? Even if it wasn't accepted first due to the community rigidity? I didn't.

I have several things to say.

First of all -- this is my comment and I see nothing wrong with it. This site is obviously not a place to promote ones theories. Let me emphasise the word promote -- not "talk". If your theory or method is accepted by scientific community and you think that it is relevant to the question -- do as you please. If you are twisting even the basic level questions eventually coming to the discussion of your own "great discovery" -- this is not the place. And the person in consideration was told about it several times. I didn't call anyone "crackpot" or some thing like this. I didn't tell that the "theory" was wrong. I just stated the facts.

Second is about what to downvote. The answer is supposed to be downvoted if it is not helpful. It can be perfectly correct but not helpful. Such answers are to be downvoted. Again -- no abuse, nothing personal.

Third is about the commenting the downvote: I have an observation that "people who promote their theories" do this everywhere for one and only reason -- they want their "theories" to be "discussed". Being rejected by standard "discussion areas" in science they go to inappropriate places to fulfil their desire for communication.

This behaviour is very similar to trolling -- any kind of feedback you give to them receives even bigger reaction. And "not feeding the troll" strategy: silent downvoting -- is best way do deal with this kind of people.

Finally, about this “consensus science” stuff. Not only this site is community-driven -- whole science is community-driven. If you think that you have made a great discovery, which is not accepted by scientific community, then it is your responsibility to be as correct and clear and careful as possible.

Have you ever seen any great physicists with real great discoveries, comparing themselves to Galileo Galilei? Even if the discovery wasn't accepted first due to the community rigidity? I haven't.

I have several things to say.

First of all -- this is my comment and I see nothing wrong with it. This site is obviously not a place to promote ones theories. And the person in consideration was told about it several times. I didn't call anyone "crackpot" or some thing like this. I didn't tell that the "theory" was wrong. I just stated the facts.

Second is about what to downvote. The answer is supposed to be downvoted if it is not helpful. It can be perfectly correct but not helpful. Such answers are to be downvoted. Again -- no abuse, nothing personal.

Third is about the commenting the downvote: I have an observation that "people who promote their theories" do this everywhere for one and only reason -- they want their "theories" to be "discussed". Being rejected by standard "discussion areas" in science they go to inappropriate places to fulfil their desire for communication.

This behaviour is very similar to trolling -- any kind of feedback you give to them receives even bigger reaction. And "not feeding the troll" strategy: silent downvoting -- is best way do deal with this kind of people.

Finally, about this “consensus science” stuff. Not only this site is community-driven -- whole science is community-driven. If you think that you have made a great discovery, which is not accepted by scientific community, then it is you responsibility to be as correct and clear and careful as possible.

Have you ever seen any great physicists with real great discoveries, comparing themselves to Galileo Galilei? I didn't.

I have several things to say.

First of all -- this is my comment and I see nothing wrong with it. This site is obviously not a place to promote ones theories. Let me emphasise the word promote -- not "talk". If your theory or method is accepted by scientific community and you think that it is relevant to the question -- do as you please. If you are twisting even the basic level questions eventually coming to the discussion of your own "great discovery" -- this is not the place. And the person in consideration was told about it several times. I didn't call anyone "crackpot" or some thing like this. I didn't tell that the "theory" was wrong. I just stated the facts.

Second is about what to downvote. The answer is supposed to be downvoted if it is not helpful. It can be perfectly correct but not helpful. Such answers are to be downvoted. Again -- no abuse, nothing personal.

Third is about the commenting the downvote: I have an observation that "people who promote their theories" do this everywhere for one and only reason -- they want their "theories" to be "discussed". Being rejected by standard "discussion areas" in science they go to inappropriate places to fulfil their desire for communication.

This behaviour is very similar to trolling -- any kind of feedback you give to them receives even bigger reaction. And "not feeding the troll" strategy: silent downvoting -- is best way do deal with this kind of people.

Finally, about this “consensus science” stuff. Not only this site is community-driven -- whole science is community-driven. If you think that you have made a great discovery, which is not accepted by scientific community, then it is you responsibility to be as correct and clear and careful as possible.

Have you ever seen any great physicists with real great discoveries, comparing themselves to Galileo Galilei? Even if it wasn't accepted first due to the community rigidity? I didn't.