The physics and math is wrong or more precisely incomplete.
It is difficult to analyze new ideas to interpret whether they are valid or misleading when there is no common system of devising the possibility of a specific claim. Part of that problem lies in the mathematics itself. The present system of math is woefully inadequate at analyzing an predicting complex physical phenomenon.
What comes from this is a certainty which cannot exist when you rely on the methods which are taught. A member of my family created a system which I looked at briefly which is called Mohr's circles of stress and strain. Very interesting, but vastly incomplete. Mechanical systems will decay in use and perhaps I use the phrase entropy incorrectly. To me there is not just one entropy, but several. It is the same confusion which comes with language itself. Wood, would. If there is insufficient ability to recognize the properties that lie below the process then it is lumped together and dealt with improperly.
There are ways to create new mathematic systems automatically which are better suited for the problems. I always try to get above a subject or at least far enough away to see the big picture and not get mired in nonsensical detail.
Using Bell and Edison as examples is a bit weird in my opinion. They fostered the intelligent Monte Carlo method of science investigation and some of these things lead to solutions that become problems for generations to come.
This is a product of my studying heuristics again and trying to integrate it with other science methods. Somebody really goofed up in the 80's when they decided to use a standard approach to computer software and hardware while rejecting any anecdotal contradiction that came from those who worked with it.