I could argue that all the inventions I mentioned violated one existing theory or another at the time of their creation, though the level of scientific reasonin

I could argue that all the inventions I mentioned violated one existing theory or another at the time of their creation, though the level of scientific reasoning behind each is different. Remember that at one time, many believed that heat was an element released from logs by fire, which is a theory clearly violated by the incandescent light bulb, and other earlier examples of incandescence (such as that of other heated metals). Regardless, how is it relevant whether a large group of people made a mistake (by coming up with an incorrect theory) before an invention that had no basis in existing theory was made? I do not agree with the premise of the post I responded to, as a new drive does not necessarily contravene existing theories (since we do not understand its principle of operation). I agree that contravening an existing theory is a bit of an odd course for an inventor to take, and may make it difficult to get angel funding, but that's about the only difference I can see.