What category was Einstein's theory in before it was generally accepted, if not pseudoscience? Looks to me like he never made it out of those ranks.
There is a difference between an as yet untested scientific model and pseudoscience. A model which makes predictions, whose derivation is methodical and whose predictions are consistent with experiments for phenomena we have already examined is sound science, it is in the category of 'hypothesis' rather than 'theory'. Signs of pseudoscience are a lack of sound methodical derivation from initial postulates and/or the lack of quantitative predictions in the domain it is claiming to be relevant to. General relativity was published in 1915 and in that publication it was demonstrated how GR could explain otherwise unexplained phenomena, like the precession of Mercury, and several predictions about as yet unexamined phenomena, namely light deflection and gravitational redshifting. As time went on technology allowed us to make tests of those predictions and they were validated. That is entirely consistent with the scientific method. You wish to claim relativity is pseudoscience but since it meets all necessary conditions to be scientific you are either just being plain dishonest or you're working with a different meaning to the term 'scientific'.
On the other hand your claims are pseudoscience. You assert things about reality with no evidence, you can provide no quantitative model of real world phenomena and you're willing to misrepresent the mainstream model you're attempting to supplant.
my take on the matter is that if it isn't 100% correct it's wrong. Call it what you want. Newton was wrong. Einstein was wrong.
Yes Newton was wrong, demonstrably so. Does that mean he engaged in pseudoscience when he developed his gravitational models? No, it doesn't. He did experiments/observations, he constructed models, worked out their predictions, compared them with experiments and did this until he hit upon a model which was completely consistent with all of the observations he had made. The fact that down the line experiments were done which were contradicting of his model doesn't change that. Likewise for Einstein, except in his case we've yet to do the experiments which show him to be wrong.
I am 100% correct. There is only one percentage in which the accuracy of absolute motion has ever been, and that's 100%.
A statement for which you have no evidence. You have no experimental data showing Einstein wrong and you have no predictive model which can describe the data we do have. You are engaging in pseudoscience.
History is fluent with scientists banished, killed, mocked when they unlocked a new scientific discovery. I suppose; there could be no enlightened age when valid new science is immediately recognized. It is sad that new science will again spring forth from pseudoscience and that it was forced to prove its worth among'st sneers.
There is a difference between someone doing scientific work which is not immediately accepted and someone doing pseudoscience. Consider someone like Farsight. He provides no working models, have no experience with the phenomena he talks about and repeatedly ignores corrections to his claims about the mainstream or reality. But even if his arm waving waffle is accurate and reality works as he claims he'll never have his ideas move into the mainstream community if he continues with this approach.
Why? Because the mainstream requires evidence, quantitative non-arbitrary models and honesty. Let's suppose for a moment the world works as Farsight claims. Eventually experimental data will come to light which contradicts current mainstream models. More and more people will start looking into these things, collecting lots of data and putting forth quantitative hypotheses to model the world in a new way to account for the new data. Eventually someone will hit on a quantitative model which does this and it will replace the now disproven mainstream model. As people work on it they will develop a qualitative understanding of the quantitative stuff and eventually construct descriptions which align with what Farsight is saying now. Does this mean Farsight's claims aren't pseudoscience? No, Farsight's claims remain pseudoscience due to the aforementioned lack of necessary things. So did this pseudoscience become science? No, what replaced the mainstream model was a quantitative model based on experimental data and which is consistent with all relevant observed phenomena. The only thing which replaces evidence based predictive models is evidence based predictive models. This is why, even if it transpires the wordy arm waving of some hack are accurate, the hack is doing pseudoscience if they cannot meet the necessary standards. If Farsight is right about how the universe works and that some day his view of things will be taught in universities it won't be him getting a Nobel Prize (or 4, which is what he thinks he deserves), it'll be the person(s) who first found experimental data which falsified the mainstream model of the day. It'll be the person(s) who construct a new quantitative model consistent with the new data, as well as the old, which will replace the falsified mainstream model of the day.
The only thing which replaces science is more science.
