The relativity deniers. By: Wazeck, Milena, New Scientist, 02624079, 11/13/2010, Vol. 208, Issue 2786

Some quotes and notes

self-proclaimed scientists keep trying to foist their astonishingly simple solutions to much-discussed problems upon genuine academics. Yet what flourishes today on the fringes of the internet was much more prominent in the 1920s, in the activities of a movement that included physics professors and even Nobel laureates.

Who were Einstein's opponents? Why did they oppose one of the most important scientific theories of the 20th century? And was Einstein right in saying "political affiliation" was responsible for the fierce opposition to relativity theory?

Note:  Why did they oppose one of the most important scientific theories of the 20th century? That is a strange question! No one can question a theory because it is important?

I discovered that the group opposing relativity was much broader than many historians believed till now, and that their tactics had much in common with those used by creationists and climate-change deniers today.

Note: Call those question the narratives of climate-change alarmists climate-change deniers is a classic tactic of concept alteration. Climate always changes. The question is how the increase of carbon dioxide will affect the carrying capacity of the ecosystem. Similarly, the question in special relativity is whether it is logically consistent.

Aware of their marginalised position, many of Einstein's opponents turned to anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. "Our trouble in America is that all scientific journals are closed to the anti-relativists through Jewish influence. The daily press is almost entirely under the control of the Jews," Reuterdahl wrote in 1923. From this position, it was easy for Einstein's opponents to see themselves as victims rather than aggressors.

By the mid-1920s Einstein's opponents were facing overwhelming resistance, and most refrained from taking a public stance against the theory of relativity.

Note:  This shows relativity gain dominance through intimidation and coercion, not discussion.