Quantcast
  • Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.

News

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback

Attributions

(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

198 submissions , 156 unreviewed
4,910 questions , 2,085 unanswered
5,318 answers , 22,540 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
808 active unimported users
More ...

Wall for Ron Maimon

I don't care if I am criticized, Pons and Fleischmann were criticized worse. There is no excuse for political scientific dishonesty, and the critics were completely dishonest, and must be ripped to shreds academically, these people should be thrown out into the streets, not heading funding departments at NSF, as for example Koonen was. These people were denying clear undeniable reproducible overwhelming experimental evidence. This is unacceptable behavior.

I also can answer any criticisms from ordinary physicists, I never got any, because my idea was perfectly fine theoretically. The only people who shot it down successfully were the cold-fusioneers! Hagelstein correctly showed a while ago that one of the ideas I am using (that the He4 is born incoherently with 24 MeV) is incompatible with the experimental neutron counts in the excess heat events. It is not theoretically ruled out, mind you, it is experimentally ruled out. The 1-in-a-million neutron-per-fusion counts (rather than 1-in-a-thousand, as I predicted) makes the phenomenon mysterious again. I still think I am on the right track, but I no longer claim to have the full answer.

But most of the post will be a collection of interesting and uncontroversial results on (somewhat novel) methods of computing inner shell excitations, x-ray transitions, and the behavior of deuterons in solids. I will present my theory, and also explain why it doesn't work, and speculate on how to close the theoretical gap. Once you see how to make it happen in principle, which is what I did, you can get a reasonable guess for what is going on, if you consider Hagelstein's coherent magic in addition. This is not easy to make work, but it's certainly easier with coherent excitations of the KeV energy stuff I am looking at than with thermal or optical phonons, as Hagelstein wants.

Anyway, I've written about cold-fusion for more than a year already, and it is really an open minded thing for Lubos to do to invite me, so I'll do it. The ideas here are important, but it is most important to include a link to Hagelstein's summary of the experimental situation, so that it is clear to anyone that the critics didn't have a leg to stand on, and to take a lesson for future experimental anomalies.
May 4, 2014 by Ron Maimon
I'm not sure it's a good idea for you to write a guest post on Lubos's site, unless you can answer all the criticisms that you'll be flooded with in advance.
May 3, 2014 by physicsnewbie
I hope that you will finally be able to write the guest post on cold fusion this time on Lubos's blog!
Apr 28, 2014 by dimension10
Yes, I agree; we should definitely not import our posts to SE, even if that gives us some links. That will mean that SE will also have the content that we generate.
Apr 28, 2014 by dimension10
I meant your earlier post about user12262's questions.
Apr 24, 2014 by dimension10
Regarding your post on my wall,  

I understand your issues with the question, but even though it's content may be crackpottery, removing it or even closing it really is censorship.   

I agree with what you had said here: http://www.quora.com/Theoretical-Physics/Physics-Overflow-Which-non-mainstream-physics-topics-could-be-allowed-on-the-upcoming-physics-site-Physics-Overflow/answer/Ron-Maimon  .
Apr 24, 2014 by dimension10
@physicsnewbie Firstly, let me clarify that I am only talking as a user here, not as an administrator, so I am not "ganging up against" you, as you have previously accused.  

Dishonesty? Corruption? So, who are we taking a bribe from, huh? It must be very fun for you watching us respond to your crap, right?
Apr 23, 2014 by dimension10
Do you think it's ethical to make dummy users, even if legal?

I find it makes the site stink of dishonesty and corruption.
Apr 23, 2014 by physicsnewbie
Hi Ron,

Regarding your post on my wall, it already exists:  
http://www.physicsoverflow.org/4534

(By the way, it says "Delete" votes, but it's really just "hide" votes, since something that will actually be erased from the database (duplicated imports, spam, etc.) would not need to go through the same procedure.
Apr 22, 2014 by dimension10
I mean that, I can see that from the relics of questions from before 2012.
Apr 5, 2014 by dimension10




user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights
...