So here we have examples from both sides. Non-qualified people creating amazing inventions, better than qualified people, and qualified people being rejected by other qualified people and ultimately going on to exceed them (there are other complexities involved here that I don't want to go into right now but I understand your point that the context is different for Acharya, but it's not very different if you try to spot all of the similarities).
It is actually very different, because the other people you've mentioned were successful and managed to prove their theories to such an extent that they were universally accepted by mainstream experts in their chosen field, while Acharya is not successful and her theories have never been accepted by any mainstream experts in her chosen field.
They were not successful before they had proof;
Their writings were rejected by scholars but they still stood by them;
They made very wild claims that changed the way people had been thinking for a long time beforehand, which causes serious controversy and relentless attack and embarrassment. (Ok Higgs probably wasn't attacked for his claims, but a rejection of such claims can cause embarrassment and people to question your authority on the matter). The act of perseverance even through embarrassment is what eventually gets other people to start re-thinking. You will probably think I am setting a bad example of perseverance by giving up on the topic now
Here's a good explanation about Moral Absolutism from Delos McKown (Disclaimer: I haven't read the book which I have linked to the name, I added the link to identify the author of the below quote as required by BTDF guidelines).
Moral absolutism is an interesting issue. Do you believe that secular humanism contains no moral absolutes whatsoever? I just need to be clear about where you stand on this issue.
I'm not sure what the absolutes that you're thinking about are. When I say I subscribe to Moral Relativity I mean I subscribe to relativity in general, being that everything is relative. e.g. Gravity is only relative to certain planets. Other parts of the universe don't have any gravity, even certain places on earth have different amounts of gravity than others (e.g. a moving rocket, or a fast moving machine), but gravity on Earth is effectively absolute.
Morality is the same. Killing is considered morally wrong, but if you're a victim of a rape or attack on your life and must defend yourself, which may require killing the attacker.
I would consider rape and cold-blooded-murder to be morally wrong relative to my emotional maturity and human intelligence, if I was an animal; rape and murder may be required in order for my species to survive. I hope humanity doesn't come to that point - ever.
I'll leave it there. Thanks for the debate. I have no doubt there will be many rebuttals on this afterward but I will not be responding to the thread any more.