The problem is that you are defining something as 'science' which is not science. Peer review is not science. Scientists may use peer review, but that does not mean that peer review = science. Einstein's ideas were initially rejected by many other scientists, before being accepted. The rejection did not in any way reduce the validity of his work, nor did the acceptance increase it.
I said that what becomes accepted is through peer review and testing further. I also said that Rowbotham violated a lot of the standards by making spurious claims. If all you took away from that was
PEER REVIEW, you need to look again. However, if you are saying that I'm saying that things that aren't peer reviewed or passed a peer reviewed test isn't admissible science, then you are correct. If you thought I was going to outline the entire process from formulating the hypothesis to the creation of a law, you are grossly mistaken.
The rejection did, though, make Eistein's claim illegitimate. Until it is accepted, it is not really used in the scientific community save for a few scientists, whose credibility could be called into question by this virtue. Are you actually implying that I think phenomena stop simply because scientists have not fully described it or it hasn't been accepted?