First, I apologize for the attitude in my previous post. But is it diplomatic to tell me to jump off a cliff, call me arrogant and ignorant, and then refuse to talk to me? I think the rest of my message asks valid questions in response to your message. Ok, so hopefully we can start fresh here.
If you want to question the fundamental laws of physics, then that is fine. I honestly wish you well in this pursuit. If the laws of physics are flawed, then it should be pointed out and corrected. But you're talking about the FUNDAMENTAL laws...laws and theories for which there is substantial supporting evidence. It will take some extraordinary proof to show the universe works otherwise. I'm willing to consider/discuss any ideas you may want to share on this message board. Obviously, I am not a frequent user of this message board, so I may have missed your previous discussions.
(1) Black holes cannot be directly photographed because, by definition, they emit no light. But there are many photographs of the accretion disks around objects that can only be described as black holes.
Here are some...
(2) The graviton is not part of the fundamental laws/theories. Gravitons are still a hypothesis of quantum mechanics.
(3) Detecting gravitational waves (their existance being predicted from Einstein's work) is one of the latest research topics. A new facility is being created right now to address this question. Here's a link...
(4) Grand unification theory...again, this is at the edge of modern physics and certainly not part of current fundamental theories/laws.
(5) I agree that there is a scientific "mainstream" of ideas. Of course, these ideas represent those that do best in the peer review process and are the best available theories. New theories or modifications are expected (and hoped for) but scientists have to start somewhere. There are examples of "out there" ideas that the mainstream does not immediately reject (for example, the astronomer who recently reported that the Earth is bombarded daily by small/weak comets...in general, the mainstream does not agree yet still examines his work because he does present enough evidence to be considered).
(6) Yes I equated the "stubbornness/ignorance" descriptions you gave to a cartel. Sorry if that is not what you intended.
I'm looking forward to the exchange of ideas on this message board. I'll be nice, but in general I will usually try to ask for specifics and try to open things up to a civilized debate.