Ah, yes, the physics. I thought to add that, but the article was getting longish... LOL! Indeed, Einstein was given the "theories" and used to push them as "truth" because they did not predict the energy in the aether. Tesla indeed was awesome, and much ignored in the Rockefeller "education." Another good One is Dr. Paul A. LaViolette whose counter theory to the einsteinian bunk, subquantum kinetics (SQK) predicts that energy and the Biefeld-Brown effect (which wikislimia says is "ion wind," despite its being orders of magnitude greater than anything ion wind can account for) which draws on it. They greatest thing about SQK beyond its predicting all the "mysteries" in einstinia is that it is euclidean! No "bending of spacetime" crap.
I start with the assumption that I can never know 100% if anything is true - there's always the possibility I do not have all the data - and ask if any data explain what I see. The more it explains, the higher the probability it is true. When new data come in, that better explain what I see, I adjust My probabilities. So it's not so much "demolishing and reconstructing" as it is not having emotional attachments to anything being true (or false).
It's that emotional attachment that trips so Many up in accepting a different view.