> almost all theories of this ilk tend to be dismissed because they break the laws of physics. Actually no. Theories of this ilk which demonstrate their consi

> almost all theories of this ilk tend to be dismissed because they break the laws of physics. Actually no. Theories of this ilk which demonstrate their consistency with laws of physics to the level of observations already made and significantly beyond, tend to end up studied more, by more people. Especially ones that take an unusual angle, and end up deriving existing laws of physics almost as a surprising side effect. It suggests a useful insight. Even better if they take an unusual angle, predict some differences from assumed existing laws but only in unusual circumstances nobody has tried to observe so far, and are consistent with those laws in areas already observed. Or ones which explain existing laws better than current explanations. Notably the inconsistencies between general relativity and quantum mechanics mean that anything which can explain both at the same time and give correct answers to both is quite interesting. The ones that get dismissed quickly are those which aren't consistent with laws of physics that are already assumed, especially at the level of existing observations.