Basically correct, though 'majority rule' I think puts more oomph behind mainstream theory than some of it deserves credit for. Take gravity as an example, the current "mainstream" theory, while crunchable with the numbers, is actually rather crude and unbeloved, even among its proponents, because the danged thing makes the connection between GR and QM all but unworkable. I'm sure there are "mainstream" scientists who would love nothing more than for someone to prove to them that the currently understood theory of gravity is wrong and show them how it works within those two frameworks.

ATM ideas aren't necessarily going to receive a hostile welcome when they're put forth, but if the presentation of the idea doesn't measure up to the observed reality, its going to be pigeonholed (however politely). The thing that turns the heat up that I've seen is either evasive answering of challenges, failure to produce unbiased support and outright handwaving.

ATM covers a lot of territory, really, from pure woowoo on up to legitimate debate about currently accepted theory. Its all fair game, all that's being asked to make for a better ATM debate is to be ready to rationally, cogently, and with supporting evidence and a modicum of critical thought, defend your position and have a little respect for the people who offer challenge to your idea.

__________________
The last time I felt a warm fuzzy feeling, I was informed by my doctor that it was just gas.