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.

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.

I hope that you will finally be able to write the guest post on cold fusion this time on Lubos's blog!

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.

I meant your earlier post about user12262's questions.

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  .

@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?

Do you think it's ethical to make dummy users, even if legal?

I find it makes the site stink of dishonesty and corruption.

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.

I mean that, I can see that from the relics of questions from before 2012.