The pseudo-scientist regards other researchers as idiotic, and always operates outside the peer review system (hence the title of the original Antioch Review article, "The Hermit Scientist").
The pseudo-scientist believes there is a campaign against their ideas, a campaign compared with the persecution of Galileo or Pasteur.
Instead of side-stepping the mainstream the pseudo-scientist attacks it head-on: The most revered scientist is Einstein so Gardner writes that Einstein is the most likely establishment figure to be attacked. He writes: "A perpetual motion machine cannot be built. He builds one".
Since the description above involves the person who does pseudoscience rather than pseudoscience per se, I will comment each item using the pronoun "I".
I have an average, even though excellent, quality of life; well educated, I never lost my job; well paid, well fed, happily married I have been modestly successful; as such I always considered myself as an average person neither inferior nor superior. In my retirement, when I discovered the gravimotion mechanism I did not felt superior at all for that matter; I did feel an immense satisfaction though the same that one feels when having accomplished a well-done job! I must be an average human being, fortunate to be living in a developed, modern country.
I greatly respect researchers and physicists, even those who I disagree with. I always refer to myself as a layperson, implicitly admitting I might look like an idiot to scientists (the opposite of the pseudo-scientist).
As far as the peer-review system is concerned, to be frank I do operate outside the peer-review system, but I do it involuntarily!
I've contacted over one hundred physicists across the world and got no valuable feedback.
And scientific journals systematically close their doors to people like me with no credentials!
The peer-review system is obviously not interested in the gravimotion idea!
Should not the side from which incurs the responsibility of such a situation be implicated?
As far as I know there is no campaign against gravimotion simply because scientists ignore it! To tell the truth I wish there would be some kind of campaign that would propel the concept of gravimotion up front!
On the other hand I do feel what Galileo had to go through. The Church rejected Galileo’s idea; the establishment of physics rejects gravimotion. I highly respect physics, just as Galileo respected the church. Not being recognized by what I consider being an ideal human endeavor (the science of physics) puts me in an awkward position. But how would that matter to me? America's early 21st century is not Italy's late 1500's!
Gravimotion frankly side-steps mainstream physics. Gravimotion is based on "motion" an entity that doesn't even exists in physics! But gravimotion once established had to be compared to mainstream physics. And I had to recognize that my idea dissented greatly from physics. Nevertheless the results obtained in physics cannot be denied! And why wouldn't we accept two differing interpretations of Nature? First physics that describes Nature with great accuracy; then Gravimotion or any other alternative that would explain Nature with coherence.
My site MCtwo.info brings forward specifics of theoretical physics that do not fit common sense.
Without attacking Einstein I do disregard his concept of relativity in its "restricted sense" and as a matter of consequence gravimotion dissents from Einstein’s "Relativity, the Special and the General Theory".
I do recognize though that Einstein shook the idea I had of time.
And I do recognize that Einstein "is" the inventor of the merging of the two entities "space" and "time" into one single entity of "space-time". A merging that physicists did not "digest" yet, as time is still honored in physics. If Minkowski invented the "mathematical" concept, Einstein gave it a "physical" role.
I do not know whether that 5th criterion is supposed to be positive or negative. Yes the word gravimotion is a neologism in the sense that it is a new invention. Yet gravimotion is not a neologism in the sense that the idea of gravimotion would be based on old ideas! Gravimotion is based on the phenomenon of motion a phenomenon, which doesn’t even exist in physics! FYI the concept of "motion" is not a basic quantity of physics; only particles and particles force are (basic quantities) in physics. Motion has not even been assigned a measuring unit in physics!
All in all Gravimotion is simply an interpretation of Nature that makes sense.
Gravimotion mirrors the fact that Nature is consistent.
And if you think about it, the essence of consistency is to make sense.