What will truly interest me is to find a way to develop serious
criticism of Znidarsic's ideas. I have no idea if these ideas are
cogent and closer to the truth than standard theory, because merely
being able to come up with fine-sounding arguments is not enough. Far
deeper analysis is required.
My sense is that Znidarsic is rejected or ignored by mainstream
physicists for two possible reasons. Stating these is not agreeing with them:
1. He's an outsider.
2. He's wrong about X, which I know about, so he's probably wrong
about everything.
3. His theory threatens the solicity of my knowledge, would turn what
I know on its head.
However, even if Zndarsic is wrong, there would be educational
purpose in showing exactly why and how. This requires detailed examination.
And, of course, if he's right there is even more a good purpose in
the examination. There is a certain percentage of physicists who
would participate if asked, I believe. Robert Duncan was skeptical,
and probably would not have given cold fusion, as such, the time of
day. He only investigated it because he was asked to by a prestigious
news organization, and he had the integrity to do an unbiased
investigation, that gave the idea a chance.
He did not conclude that cold fusion was real, at least that's not
what he announced. He concluded that there was some real evidence
that might show this, and that it deserved further careful
investigation. And he's facilitating that.
I haven't seen that Duncan looked at the heat/helium evidence, which,
in fact, knocks the ball out of the park. Cold fusion is real, it can
be asserted with confidence.
Who would like to participate in a serious investigation of
Znidarsic's ideas? He sounds pretty good to a nonspecialist like me,
but I'm also aware of how easy it is to snow people who don't really
have a solid grasp of a topic, and who don't have access to neutral
investigation. Obama, after all, is a Muslim, right?
I'm willing to serve as a trustee of this. For example, I could start
a mailing list that coordinates the investigation, which might take
place in many linked resources. I would run that list according to
list consensus (or would resign if I could not abide by a consensus,
taking steps to ensure that what succeeded me or the list was fair to
all, and that the "dissident faction," which would be, at least, a
majority of participants, did get what they wanted, though not
necessarily with my name on it still....)
My general interest, which long predates my interest in cold fusion,
is in consensus process, which is mostly about complete consideration
of issues.
There is also the possibility of starting a Wikiversity resource on
Znidarsic's ideas. Wikiversity is a WikiMedia Foundation project,
like Wikipedia, but it allows original research, and is not
restricted by notability considerations as to what to present. It's
for study, as distinct from presenting encyclopedic conclusions.
Alternate pages can be presented; the overall coverage of a subject,
if editors supporting various factions participate, should be neutral
in overall presentation, but need not be neutral in detail as long as
pages don't claim to be neutral. Unlike Wikipedia, Wikiversity
mainspace allows subpages, so what is controversial and cannot be
resolved at the top level can be shoved into subpages that are linked
as presenting factional views....
So far, I have had no difficulty elaborating on cold fusion at
Wikiversity. Even though I'm topic-banned on Wikipedia over this.
