I realized you didn't read the post below as soon as I read it. I answered Raoul first because I knew it would be quicker than the response to you would be.

As for appearing to some as a crank...

...cranks are very useful tools. They started the first automobiles, help grind ice and still sharpen pencils in countless classrooms. ;-)

Most scientists go through cycles with the scientific community:

Unknown.
Known and considered crankish.
Known and considered controversial.
Known and considered mainstream.
Known and highly respected.
Well known and highly respected.
Known and considered a bit out of date.
Known and considered out of date.
Less Known and considered a relic.
Forgotten and considered irrelevant
Unknown

Time and the rising tide of popularity or media attention determines much of this standing, even if the views and scientific opinion of the scientist in question have not changed a whit through it all. Ever-evolving scientific thought does the rest.

If Raoul or anyone else wants to believe in a finite universe - hey, that's fine with me. If he thinks the science and mystery behind vortical motions are comparable to 'Ummit' space science - that's fine with me too.

Heck, I see and have read tons of papers regarding various cosmological models and other scientific theories - and while I don't call these folks cranks - I clearly can see the faulty logic which goes into their papers and scientific views.

And that's really what it all comes down to.

Science.
Evidence.
Logic.

It's fun to think and question how, what and why. Scientific thought is its own reward.

If it were all about notoriety, peers or competing with other scientists for the public's approval - I wouldn't bother.

Best wishes,

SDAI-Tech1