Not entirely, and the "bogus" part implies more than I'm saying or willing to focus on.And so on. Correct me if I'm wrong but what you're getting at is that there's too many kooky projects out there begging for funds, that'll never deliver because they're bogus.
You and I both know I could go hit up some zero-point energy/antigravity/whatever fringe websites and provide you with links until the cows come home. What you're arguing is that this particular project is better than those, thus:If so, all you need to do is show a trend, some links, whatever (I'm not trying to play debate here, I'm genuinely curious to see the evidence, or evidence of a trend supporting your argument), it doesn't need to be peer review-level quality bibliography.
...which to me is not worth proving, and in fact very difficult for either of us to prove, because of what I've really been arguing: we are not experts, and we should leave it to those who are.Just show me this trend that ME is nowhere near the top of fringe projects.
Honestly, I haven't been anything but consistent in this. I am not arguing that his experiments aren't worth funding. I'm saying that it isn't obviously worth funding without actually looking carefully at technical details. My objections based on his professional merits or previous results are meant to underline this; he has nothing else to point to for credibility, so his theories and proposals must make it on their own merits.
Now, you can claim some intimate knowledge here. You could even embarass me by proudly displaying your physics doctorate, but I suspect that you would have done so already if you could have. I could read everything he's published and try to have some intimate knowledge too, but I know that would be deceptive. A little bit of knowledge can be a bad thing, and learning only about his proposals would leave me too biased. To really understand and have a balanced veiwpoint, I need several years worth of physics background and a connection to the greater physics community.
If his science has merits, if it is easily falsifiable, if his experimental design is as cheap and thorough as he claims, then grant funding panels will notice this. They'll also provide criticisms and keep him on track where he could wander, and they'll be there to shout it out if some twist of theory has already disproven his hypothesis. That's what they're there for. Do you think them too biased? Well, there's more than one agency he can apply to. He's been getting funding so far, of one form or another, which he can use to get enough preliminary data to justify more experiments. That's how the process goes, and science is absolutely full of not just fringe projects, but mainstream ones too, that also need funding and have to go through the same bloody process. I could show you a huge trend there if you want.
If a proposal has known physics and a proven track record, or is at least backed by people with proven track records, that's the sort of thing investors take note in. Bill Gates has shown that's what he's interested in. Given that he's not a panel of physicists, that's the wisest way for him to spend his money.
And now you know why I'm tired and sour. I've already communicated all this, and honestly, are we any further to anything like a consensus? You're going to read this and go, "Trash!" I fundamentally trust authority and professional organizations more than you do. Can we call it a day now?