User:Natalinasmpf/aetherometry discussion

This article was nominated for deletion on January 14, 2006. The result of the discussion was delete. An archived record of this discussion can be found here. However, in the event that the article can be re-created with citing reliable sources, I'm intentionally leaving the talk pages alone. They can be deleted at a later time if editors feel they are no longer necessary.

Due to page size problems, the discussion has been archived.

• Archive 1
• Archive 2
• Archive 3
• Archive 4

This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles. This template is misplaced. It belongs on the talk page: User talk:Natalinasmpf/aetherometry discussion.

[edit] Mindless Wikipedia steamrollers.....

Pseudoscience refers to any body of knowledge, methodology, or practice that is erroneously regarded as scientific ^[1]. The standards determining such a distinction vary, but often include lack of empirical evidence, unfalsifiability, or failure to comply with scientific method or apply a heuristic such as Occam's Razor.

To link aetherometry to pseudoscience, it would seem that one would need to point out exactly how it is erroneously regarded as scientific.

Where is the lack of empirical evidence? Laboratory experimentation and results have been offered for duplication, and thus falsification is possible. Therefor, this topic has not been submitted as "unfalsifiable".

No they haven't. They have been offered by vanity publishing only. They have not been published anywhere proper.

By that reasoning, any new article submitted to a scientific journal for publication should be automatically rejected by the reviewers as "pseudoscience" because it hasn't been published before. Cool. FrankZappo 17:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Within a study of the methods and practices used, the presence or lack of measurement for a scientific method can be determined. The citation of materials, time, temperatures, and other measurement parameters have been offered. Thus again, by the use of empirical measurement devices, a scientific method is determinable.

Where has this info been offered. I myself asked the anon many times to provide details. He refused.

As to the application of say Occam's Razor, the logic process offered above, makes more sense by simplification, than the repeated linking of pseudo to a topic which has been clearly offered for verification, and even peer review.

No it hasn't. Peer review is defined by the scientific community not by those who are trying to avoid peer review. This topic has not been offered for verification. (For that you have to provide details of what was done and what the results were. That has not happened)

The fact that few people choose to research, or even attempt to duplicate experimentation, is much more a demonstration of the skeptics pathological dishonesty, than it is proof of pseudoscience. TTLightningRod 14:49, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

The reason that there has been no research is because the results have not been published in research journals. This is either deliberate, because Aetherometry is crap research that wont stand up to peer review and the authors know it, or it's been submitted and rejected because aetherometry is crap that didn't stand up to peer review. Either way it's pseudoscience. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 18:20, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Let's give you every chance..... Theresa Knott (whoever you are) you say that all of this [1] is "crap".

Yes. It's crap. That is exactly what I am saying. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 18:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

At long last, we all know TK's POV exactly.

I've never denied that I have a POV on this matter. There is no "at long last" about it. The "experimental evidence" presented isn't experimental evidence at all. It's crap. I've been saying that all along, as have asll the other science trained people. Experimental evidence has to be done properly. It has to be peer reviewed it has to be repeatable and repeated. Otherwise it's a load of bollocks dressed up a science. So bully for you. You have finally discovered that my POV is that evidence has to be up to the standards of this encylopedia or I'll dismiss it for what it is pseudoscience. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 21:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, to say that all the other science-trained people agree that it's crap is going a bit overboard. I would say that people like Aspden or Axelrad are quite excellently science-trained and yet do not regard it as crap. But it is also quite remarkable how the notion of scientific training has changed. In my days, scienltific training included instilling such qualities as open-mindedness, independence of judgement, and refraining from conclusions about things one has not thoroughly investigated. Now it seems to instill dogmatism, cowering before authority, and the ability to count Google hits. Who would have thought. FrankZappo 21:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

And you also assert that all of these people are lying and/or are full of "crap" too? Dr. E. Mallove, Dr. H. Aspden, Mr. U. Soudak, Prof. Emeritus A. Axelrad, Dr. M. Askanas, Prof. Emeritus W. Tiller, Dr.L. Balula, Dr. H. Brinton, D. Pratt, T. Bearden, M. Carrell, Dr. V. Bard, Dr. A. Microwski, Dr. I. Sapogin. Dr. G. Egely.

For goodness sake and the holy name of Wikipedia, please be very clear. I wouldn't want anyone to misunderstand you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TTLightningRod (talk • contribs) Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 18:08, 16 August 2005 (UTC).

We are again reminded of he/r fixation upon the identity of others.

Have any of these people published a paper on aetherometry in a scientific journal? Thought not. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 18:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

As well, a myopic demonstration of paper weight and gloss obsession. Lastly, he/r combination of Command Authority with willful self-delusion and public dishonesty... a sign of our times. Sad. TTLR

Resorting to attacking me furthers your argument how exactly? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 21:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Ms. Knott, stating that the evidence provided is 'crap' without citing any is illogical. Might I suggest that we all read this article, Nonequivalence between work performed by charge against gravity and the electric energy of the same 'charge gas' (The gravitokinetoregenerative phenomenon), which is free to all, so we can at least discuss an actual paper and the actual science involved? At some point everyone involved in this discussion will have to read and decide the validity of the science for themselves, no matter how much some of us would like to cede authority on reality to 'Science' and the biased process of peer review. Pgio 10:13, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Sure I'll read it. But it's vanity publishing and not to be trusted a source of the science (because it's not been peer reviewed) It can however be used as a souece of thier claims (as long as it is labelled as such) It cannot be used as evidence that this is not pseudoscience because it's only thier say so. Feel free to post a link to it on the article. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 01:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of attacks on Peer review, also available on that article

Thousands more where these came from. Not, of course, for knotted brains.

• Something Rotten at the Core of Science?
• Malice's Wonderland: Research Funding and Peer Review
• Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone?
• Peer Review as Scholarly Conformity
• Science and Politics: An Uneasy Mix
• Science Versus Science
• The case against peer-review
• Peer Review is Censorship and Intimidation
• Peer review: the Holy Office of modern science
• The end of the Peer Show - scientists’ misguided attempt to solve a non-existent problem
• Peer Review as Scholarly Conformity
• The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation
• Peer review is broken.
• Suppressing Dissent in Science
• Hampering the progress of science by peer review and by the 'selective' funding system
• A Case Study of Data Suppression and Misrepresentation
• "A Difficult Balance: Editorial Peer Review in Medicine"
• A STUDY IN SUPPRESSION OF INFORMATION
• Proposed Definitions Relating (1) to the Suppression of Research and (2) to the Repression of Research
• Suppression of Dissent in Science
• Science Versus Science

None of these have bugger all to do with aetherometry. None of these provide evidence that it's not pseudoscience. There may well be a lot wrong with the present peer review system in science but that doesn't mean we should accept any old rubbish as being true. There is a lot of rubbish out there on the internet. It can't all be true. It certainly isn't true because a couple of idiots say it is. For something to be science it has to be subjected to the examination of scientists. And skeptical scientist at that. Anyone who does not submit their work to be peer reviewed by skeptics is a fucking idiot. Because they will be labelled a crackpot or a frauster, but never a scientist. That is the way of the world. You appear to want to change it, but you wont here because this is an encylopedia. We report what is, not what you would like to be. You want to shut me up? Get the aetherometry mob to publish in a scientific journal. Then you can call it science. Or remove all claims that this is science. Call it magic or religion or philosophy. But all the time time there claims that this is science without it being published in a science journal then it fits into the pseudoscience category Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 01:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Really? I think they illustrated rather well, why your idiotic harping on not publishing in the mainstream is indicative of nothing - except your own vacuous religious dogmatism. Aetherometry, Theresa Knott, is NOT pseudoscience because a couple of idiots - that would be you, Jacobi, Freddie (the Dungeons and Dragons King) the Gnat and the other sorry members of your sorry wiki pseudoscience labeling club - say it is. And anyone who pretends that those scientists (and there are many in all fields of SCIENCE) who choose for perfectly legitimate reasons NOT to submit their work to patently biased mainstream journals are fucking idiots is, Theresa Knott, a fucking idiot. That would be you. Anyone who can't tell what science is by reading and thinking and reasoning (THAT is where the evidence lies) but instead needs to be told by google that some Big Brother or other somewhere has sanctioned it (no matter how stupid it may be), IS a fucking idiot, and is certainly NOT a scientist nor an independent thinker. What you 'report' - as you call your obsessive splattering of your idiotic wikipedian Pseudoscience label on the Aetherometry page - is what YOU would like Aetherometry to be. As for this being an encyclopedia and you being an encyclopedian - don't make me laugh. You're a google counter, a lazy, inept reader and a label spatterer. What DOES fit into the pseudo category is the wiki admin pom-pom club's ability to make any sort of intelligent contribution to this entry.

Really, Ms. Knott, that's too much. If you "report what is," then none of you could honestly label Aetherometry pseudoscience. After all, there's a perfect vacuum of "professional scientific" comment on the subject, sans scientists our collaborators here reject. No-one is saying this is pseudoscience except you few wikipedians; you're reporting nothing but a gut reaction. That is truly POV. If any of you would like to codify, from study of the material, exactly why you think Aetherometry a pseudoscience other than the way it "smells" to you, that could be valuable for the article. As it is I've written material I think could help people understand the claims of Aetherometry, but I would rather not share them while people are embroiled in an edit war about the category. Please, everyone, if you would accept that some of us are attempting to represent a new science in good faith, we could be much more productive.

And do you realize what personal power you cede when you accept that ANY science published outside the mainstream is pseudoscience? Look, people: if you undertake to contribute encyclopedia articles about scientific subjects, especially in this cordially anarchic way, you no longer have the luxury of letting Science be only what "scientists" say it is. You've seized the authority, and the only authority you can appeal to now is your own reason. In this way all of us communicating here have entered the scientific process. You must determine your own opinion of the evidence and arguments, and this can only be done through study. This "principled" stand against a new science in an echo gallery of uninformed voices is just embarrassing, so please, base your POV on something you've worked to understand. It is tedious being called an idiot by an uninformed speaker. Again, let us start by reading the article linked above. Pgio 06:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes i do realise that I give up personal power, and this is a good thing IMO. The people to judge the worthyness of an experiment are experimental scientists. Experimenting isn't easy, especially this sort of experiment where you need to eliminate all sources of discharge. Never the less I am in the process of reading the paper and will discuss it below. Also the idiots I were referring to were Correas not you or anyone else here. If I gave the impression otherwise I apologise. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 10:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Experiment repeatability?

Confirmation that the material (ISBN 0-9689060-0-1) is accessible without requiring the personal identity of the viewer, free of charge, and consists 18 pages, (at least half of which is way the f over my head). But the practical lab experiment seems rather inexpensive and, might I say ... easy.

I have found two kinds of electroscopes (surly there could be more), however I have a question if anyone would like to answer with their thoughts. Will the experiment be clearly observable using either the gold leaf type, OR the deflection arm type? When using a deflecting arm, would the weight and stability of the balanced arm permit repeatability in open air, where the leaf method requires a jar vessel? As I am more tactile than chalk-board mathematical, will I be able to make validly laymen observations of the phenomenon, without the "scientific-training" as suggested by Theresa above? TTLR

I never said you need scientific training to observe an experiment. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 01:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Reading ahead... I wonder if the deflection arm configuration may be an inadequate type of electroscope, when proceeding into the aethometric study component. Is this true? The surface area and balanced opposition of two opposing leaves, seems that it could have significance over the relatively smaller surface area working upon deflection arm electroscopes. Or is the facing surface area NOT a factor, rather simply the charge capacity of the arm or leaf? Thoughts anyone? In this same respect, there are two types of leaf electroscopes. Double free leaves vs. rigid vert. plate with one free leaf. Any thoughts on radial orientation to the input source playing a factor?

On a personal note: I am flirting with strong feelings of great inadequacy for my admitted lack of Scientific Training. Is it not terribly inappropriate of me to imagine that I could set up such an advanced laboratory experiment without a Peer Reviewed blessing from the NSF? If I don't have enough calligrapher parchment hanging on my wall, might the anger of God cause me to spontaneously combust for my arrogance? What of a serf like me, do something like this, without having read it in Nature first? Just some thoughts.... TTLR

[edit] Our own review of "Nonequivalence between work performed by charge against gravity and the electric energy of the same 'charge gas' (The gravitokinetoregenerative phenomenon)"

Pgio has made the excellent suggestion that we wikipedians take on a review of a specific Aetherometry article and see whether we can find any good/bad science in it, (without reference to external "authorities") so I have made this heading to keep this discussion together. Please read it at http://aetherometry.com/abs-AS2v1.html#abstractAS2-01 and the appendix, just below it. It's free and anonymous, you just have to read the usage agreement.

I'll make the first comment; I could say lots, but I'll start at the typographical level. Is it just me, and the fact I'm using an unusual operating system (Solaris on SPARC) that certain characters are messed up in the document? On the page marked 12, second equation from the bottom, I have 't_m = integral sign ='. Is that supposed to be 'approximately equal to'? Next page I have, 1st eqn, 'a = diamond (l_mf_m²)'. Do Windows users see different characters here? Maybe I have missing character set. I hope we will move onto the substance of the paper after this annoying digression. GangofOne 08:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Same symbols here, on a Mac. The = integral sign = is a convention the Correas have adopted to for functional equivalence -- in other words the energy represented by the left-hand side and the right-hand side are equal but in different forms. The diamond is unfamiliar to me.

(Just a note: If viewing the PDF version, shouldn't we all have some assurance we are viewing the exact same equations irrespective of our different operating systems? If not, this would scare the poop out of me for all the PDFs I've ever sent around. TTLR)

I'd like to note that there's an addendum we should all read as well, at the same page. In it the Correas respond to questions about the experiment. Pgio 10:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe that "=diamond=" denotes numerical identity without dimensional identity. If, for example, it takes me one second to traverse one meter, we could write (assuming that the units are clearly understood): "time-of-traversal =diamond= length-of-path" . FrankZappo 05:53, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm a touch lost in the concept here.. In the paper, is reference to trapped gases within the leaf, suggesting something like a "buoyancy" with respect to the confined gas surrounding the leaf? As the charge differential is made, this fleeting "buoyancy" in the leaf does suggest to me some indication of its dynamic, gravity subservience. Yes/No/Comment? TTLR

As I understand it, charge gas refers not to an actual gas but to the free electrons in the gold leaf acting within the conduction band as an ideal gas -- maintaining 'pressure' through mutual repulsion. The charges and thus the charge gas eventually leak away. But the kinetoregenerative effect has nothing to do with buoyancy, really. It refers to the fact that some energy source must be present which keeps the leaf deflected for extended periods against the pull of gravity, some energy source that the electrons 'borrow' to do the work against gravity of holding up the leaf. The paper attempts to carefully isolate the electroscope and consider all possible sources of charge leakage and seepage as well as ionic effects. The addendum I believe addresses some questions about the actual distribution of electrons in the gold leaf (concentrated at the surface, etc.) Pgio 20:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] OK here are a few comments about the paper - this is not peer review of course because I am not an experimental scientist.

• The first thing I noticed was the crap explanations in the abstract and the introduction, but I'm going to skip over them for now and concentrate on experimental details.

Well if it's crap, why didn't you skip over it. Yet commenting on it as crap, tells me you stepped right in it.

• There are no error estimations. Scientific papers usually contain "we found the blah blah to be some number +- some error.

The very experiment itself, is a plus/minus "error" examination.

Really? Then it's pretty important to include other sources of error and estimate thier relavence. The angle of deflection look to me. How precisely was it measured? We don't know because they neglected to tell us. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 14:56, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

• The electroscope was only calebrated up to 70 degrees, and yet thy chose 70 degrees as the angle they would charge it to. Why do that?

Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 12:24, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

If calibrated only to 70 deg, might that be why none of the material cites readings outside of the calibrated limit? Why the limit? Because of the nature of calibration, reliable/repeatable readings beyond a needed parameter, becomes inversely proportional to efforts needed for such calibrations. How reliable would you feel your bathroom scale is in telling you your weight within 2lbs, if it was calibrated for a total span of 2500 labs? Or rather, how much money would you waist to own such a bathroom scale? The same calibration effort goes into a scale telling you your weight within .2 lbs, at a max capacity of 250. The weight of a very light shat. TTLR

Imagine the following senario. The electrocope behaves well up to 70 then levels off at 70.003 degrees.No one knows this of course because they didn't callebrate past 70. No matter how much more charge is added, the angle never goes higher than this. Experement 1 is charged to 69.99 degrees. The Cs record it as 70 with no error. Experiment 2 is charges to 70.003. The Cs record this a 70 with no errors. The total charges are wildly different but no one knows because of the crappy scientific techniques involved in choosing an angle at the extreme of the callebration curve and not specifying precision in the measuremenrts taken Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 15:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Why would someone do this? Review the 'cost of service' at any load cell service provider. You may notice the tolerance demands are one of the fist pricing considerations, no matter the high/low span, nor the ultimate capacity of any load cell. Be that in micro grams, or 50k tons.TTLR

I haven't got the faintest idea of why you think pricing considerations have anything to do with choosing a value at the extreme of callebration rather than one in the middle of it. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 15:06, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Again, the very experiment is itself, a plus/minus examination. TTLightningRod

Which is why other errors should be included Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 15:06, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I can't understand the results of their experiment where the leave the electroscope to discharge on it's own. The appear to be saying that

1. the rate of charge leakage depends on atmospheric conditions ( I have no argument with that)
2. The areas under the two curves are different (again no argument from me)
3. This means the energy needed to charge the electroscope must have been different in the two cases? (this must be a missunderstanding on my part. would someone please explain.

Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 12:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

per #3. Not the "charge needed", but rather the environmental conditions effecting the plus/minus behavior of a given charge. This experiment seems to me, to have 'set' as many other variables as reasonably possible, and then tracked the unreasonably controllable variable, weather. TTLightningRod 14:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

When you " set" a variable as constant it is important to say how sure you are of just how constant it is. Plus you didn't explain point three. I'll put it a different way - what are their conclusions. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 15:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

The paper is gobbledegook. The bit about statues expending energy against gravity (p3, about 1/3 of the way down) tells you all you need to know. William M. Connolley 16:12:25, 2005-08-31 (UTC).

That was what I was referring to as "crap in the intro". Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 16:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah... well I don't think there is much point going past the first obvious junk. William M. Connolley 18:50:06, 2005-08-31 (UTC).

Wow! I don't check in for a day and everything happens at once! Let me respond to several points here.

1. The experiment compares the initial charge needed to deflect the electroscope with the kinetic energy needed to sustain the leaf's deflection over its entire period of discharge. The charge quantum needed to deflect the leaf is the same in every case, but the discharge times vary with environmental conditions.
   1. There is no kinetic energy needed to sustain a leaf deflection.
2. The leaf may be considered a lawful gravitational pendulum over the proportional zone; see next point. The maintanence of deflection over time is provided by the elctrokinetic work of the trapped charges against gravity.
   1. There is no work done by the charges against gravity.
3. The electroscope is calibrated up to 70 degrees because this is the extent of the proportional zone -- the range of deflection angles for which deflection is proportional to charge. Beyond this zone the electroscope leaf flexes (as would the suspension line of a suspended pendulum.)
   1. You mean approximetely propotional to charge. The calebration curve is not linear. I wasn't questioning why it's calibrated to 70 I was question why chose 70 as an initial angle.
4. They deflected the electroscope to 70 degrees to provide the maximum possible time for discharge. This would be especially important for conditions with fast discharge rates, as during rainy weather, when the discharge and loss of deflection can take only a few seconds.
   1. But 65 would be nearly as long a discharge time and isn't on the extreme limit of the callibration curve.
5. I quite agree that estimations of error are in order. I assume though that any measurement error would be dwarfed by the ratios of the initial charge to the kinetic energy spent in resisting gravity over the discharge period, as reported on pp. 14-15: 1:228 in the first case and 1:736 in the second.
   1. Or 1:0 and 1:0 as there isn't any energy spent in resisting gravity. The leaf falls because it discharges not because it uses up energy against gravity. The initial gravitation kinetic energy is transfered to the discharging ions and ends up as heat.
6. For the purposes of this particular experiment, the causes of the discharge are unimportant, though obviously heavily ionized air will quickly neutralize the trapped charges in the leaf. The greatly disproportionate energies deployed during charge and discharge are the central point.
   1. GPE energy at start = 1 GPE at finish (once it's discharged) = 0 difference = heat. It's all quite simple. Are you aware of the experiments of Joule?
7. Some environmental factor or factors must contribute to the kinetic energy of the trapped charges in the leaf to achieve the extraordinary ratios mentioned above. The nature of this environmental factor is considered in later papers.
   1. Or the maths was incorrect. Treating a falling electroscope leaf as a pendulum is valid hoe exactly?
8. The mention of the statue holding out its arm does indeed tell you everything you need to know -- but not that this paper is crap or the authors methods or conclusions erroneous. They point to a semantic hole in conventional mechanical theory that cannot see work against gravity as an actual expenditure of energy at all.
   1. The paper says that a statue holding out it's arm will eventually develope cracks at the join becasue of energy expended against gravity. This is simple not true.

I'm really glad that Ms. Knott and Dr. Connolley have started to read the paper, but simple objections of 'it's crap' and stopping after the third page are not very interesting responses. I'd much rather understand why you think the abstract and introduction lack lucidity. I have essentially provided the conclusions as you requested, Ms. Knott, but you really should read the paper.

In closing, please don't be so hasty as to dismiss an honest work of science. Everyone loves a 'slam dunk' objection but I have not seen one yet.Pgio 07:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I stopped at the first piece that I considered to be obvious nonsense. I say that statues expending energy against gravity is nonsense. Do you defend their statement or not? William M. Connolley 08:38:12, 2005-09-01 (UTC).

Wheras I carried on, past that point but I still say it's nonsense. No wonder they never got this into a scientific journal. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 15:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

What, statues expending energy against gravity is nonsense because the definition of work allows you to ignore the expenditure? This is the semantic hole in the definition of work, and it's well known: from an energetic perspective, the definition of work is inadequate to describe energy expended to hold something in place against gravity. Substitue your arm for the statue's, hold it out straight for a while, and you can be sure you'll expend energy. The mechanical strength of the statue masks the fact that it is resisting gravity, especially the cantilevered arm; feel free to build one out of something weaker -- say, macaroni and cheese -- so you can watch it fall apart much faster. Pack it into a mold, cure it, stand it up, and the extended arm will be the first thing to fall off. Or build a cathedral out of marshmallows and wait for it to lose its battle against gravity. That marshmallow cathedral is undergoing a process of dynamic equillibrium between gravity and material strength.Pgio 05:02, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Work is force times distance moved. Distance moved = 0 implies work equals zero, indep of the force. If the Correas really have discovered that this formula is wrong, and that statues expend energy (or tables do, in supporting objects standing on them) then this is a major revision to physics (with the obvious troubling problems of where the energgy comes from, where does it go to, and how come the flows inexplicably balance leaving the statue with exactly the energy it started with). If all of this *really can be seen* from the statue stuff on page 3, then all the rest of the paper is pointless: they could stop there: if true, it would be nobel-prize stuff. But, of course, it isn't true.

Analogies with biological systems don't help. This is a common confusion. William M. Connolley 10:10:00, 2005-09-03 (UTC).

I didn't write anything about revising the definition of work. That's quite clear. But there's also clearly an energy expenditure here that the definition of work doesn't account for because it's not designed to. Falling back on repetitions of the law won't change that. And the source and sink for the energy expended are more fascinating than troubling. After all, logically gravity must have an energetic substrate -- it's not just magic. Where does that energy come from and go to? Much simpler never to broach that question -- that's what you're doing. And yes, this is Nobel stuff, but you'll never know unless you read the papers.Pgio 16:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

No there isn't an energy expenditure here. You saying it doesn't make it true you know.I don't know what you mean by "logically gravity must have an energetic substrate" but I do know that a force can go on acting forever, it doesn't expend energy to do so, if it did we would notice it. The law of conservation of energy has always held, we have no reason to suppose that it does not hold when all experiments have shown that it does. If gravity were expending energy, then that energy would show up as heat - and it doesn't. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 21:14, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Theresa for reminding me my power of universal fiat is broken. Must remember to put it in the shop.

You should note though that the definition of work can say precisely nothing about expenditures of energy that don't result in positional deltas -- not that those expenditures do or do not exist. Work is not an all-encompassing idea, merely an energy exenditure for which we have inherited analytical tools. To say there is no expenditure because we don't have the analytical tools is unfounded (especially when referred to a report that begins to carefully construct new analytical tools for the phenomenon.) You may believe that forces can act forever without expending energy, as gravity appears to, only because science is unfamiliar with the tools needed to talk about the form and nature of that energy. You would gain them if you'd read on.

And a further consideration: if no energy is being expended to sustain the deflection, what can you make of the report in monograph AS2-08 [2] that blackbody light and especially non-ionizing blue light can completely arrest the discharge of a positively or negatively charged electroscope without changing the magnitude of the stored charge? Here is a clear input of energy that results in an indefinite prolongation of the action of those 'static' charges, even though such light was previously thought to have no effect on an electroscope. The discharge can also be arrested inside a Faraday cage, which should be free of impinging electromagnetic radiation. What would the conventional explanation for these phenomena be?Pgio 05:29, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

This should be in the page. Its clear simple and easy to understand: the Correas think that an object on a table is constantly expending energy doing work against gravity. Even their supporters agree they say this. All the other stuff listed is wacky but hard to know about; this allows anyone with basic physics to know how - ahem - original they are.

Wherever did you get that? If the electroscope leaf is the object, the kinetic energy of the trapped electrons is the table. I believe they would propose that the table is expending energy, in the form of displacement of grain spacing, say, in holding up the object. Please be a little more careful in your mockery.Pgio 05:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Experiment Design (initial conformation for the above) and a few questions (not to be confused with the review work being conducted)

It seems that the study in question involves observing a particularly subtle phenomenon, that being the effect upon electroscopes in cyclonic atmospheric conditions. Thus, a single gold leaf pendulum-articulating electroscope as used in the gravitokinetoregenerative experiment, seems to be the best suited. Deflecting arm versions are a bit too crude, and double leaf versions compound the difficulty in noting the time/angle measurements. Additionally, as astutely noted by Theresa earlier (no, this doesn't make us buddies), a supremely isolated electroscope is also of great importance. Has anyone seen a strictly horizontal leaf electroscope held in a trampoline fashion? Would the isolation, or elimination, of the pendulum/angle/gravity calculation, reduce the complexity of measurement and observation? I'm not so much trying to modify the experimental set-up as described, but rather simply conducting thought experiments to visualize how the phenomenon might be duplicated and observed in other/future configurations. Or what if the spark leader was brought to the edge of the isolated leaf, rather than through the leaf holder? Would such a configuration, measuring simple vertical distance over time, simplify the observation? Equally challenging, are design and fabrication questions about edge holding and suspension of the leaf with dielectric tethers, but as I said, this is more of just a thought experiment. TTLR

What's subtle about it? According to the curves they got there are whacking great differences. And these differences are easily explained. Moisture in the air affects it's conductivity. It is nigh on impossible to charge up a Van de Graaf on a damp day. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 15:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article protection request 20:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I've requested the protection of this article. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Request_to_protect_Aetherometry. Fernando Rizo T/C 20:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I've protected the article until things calm down, If the anon reverting with personal-attack edit summaries were using a static IP address, blocking would probably have been an option. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:48, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• • Very good Mel. You lock the page to protect William Connolley's smear club's obnoxious vandalism of this entry - and you just happen to lock it down with William Connolley's smear disinformation of pseudoscience - when Aetherometry is not pseudoscience but protoscience.

I note, by the way, that William M. Connolley is well known for his pathologically abusive behaviour. See -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/William_M._Connolley_and_Cortonin#WMC.27s_revert_behavior

"Due to a long history of reverting, often without giving adequate explanation for the reverts, William M. Connolley is hereby prohibited for six months from reverting any article relating to climate change more than once per 24 hour period (vandalism excepted). Each such revert must be backed up by a talk page comment where a reputable source is cited or asked for as appropriate (see #Relative value of references). This includes but is not limited to all pages in Category:Climate change. Violations of this order should be treated as WP:3RR violations and administrators not directly involved in the dispute should act accordingly"

Exactly the same malignant behaviour William M. Connolley has exhibited on this entry with the assistance of his smear club and now defended by Mel Etitis . What a disgrace.

• Despite the fact that the revert parole does not apply to this article, WMC has only reverted this article 3x recently, on different days.
• That problem existed due to an unwillingness of admins to do what they should have done, which is protect article subject to edit wars.
• There were no findings of fact against WMC in the arbcomm case, and thus was a flawed decision which WMC nonetheless has abided by.
• So, do you also think that Global warming is a myth?

Guettarda 18:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm just hearing more "Blah, Blah blah...", but that last part is with a comment.

No one brought up a .5 deg.C change over 100 hundred years, as a particularly challenged data point. Nor that influential creepy-crawlies, a group of which yourself is included Guartada, played some significant role in effecting that temperature change. The heroic efforts of Dr. Billy, to examine this important observation, are also not under contention. What is, is the right of ANYONE to scientifically postulate other possible cause/effect. Please try not to misunderstand me again, like you've been clearly apt to do, but I would enjoy whole heartedly a substantial reduction in global petro consumption, and a reduction in all the trappings that go along with it. Yet should climatologist remain largely fixated on only one postulated cause, and miss something.... Gee Whizikers, wouldn't it be nice if a few other people were keeping the scientific method alive. Hey if for no other reason, just in case, the same as reducing the use of smelly petro crap, "just in case" it is causing truly unsettling global temperature change?

Get a grip, this article has never challenged your right, nor Billy's, nor any knots' desire to pursue a scientific investigation. What you are doing that is vastly more unscientific than any flaws within Aetheroemtry, is denying all other possibilities other than your own fixations. Only by that, have you become an annoyingly small minded twit. TTLR

[edit] Seems like a good comment worth repeating

"Please please please stick to articles you KNOW about! Ignorance is the Wikipedia's greatest enemy. You don't see me screwing around with entries on advanced physics! I only contribute to poltiical information that I know, historical information I know, and musical information that I know! Stick to what you know."

As for pathological physics... Do you guys believe in that Ort Cloud too? TTLR

That's spelled Oort Cloud, there, buddy, as in Oort cloud. Perhaps you should stick to...nah, not gonna say it. (What can I say? I love cheap irony.) --Calton | Talk 06:09, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

So tell me about this Ooort Cloud. I too love cheap Irony. TTLR

[edit] Drop the category already!

So Mel has protected the page. What a victory for everyone.

As the bone of contention here is the category, would the revert squad and the pugnacious anon agree to dropping the category altogether? We can discuss it at some later point, although I see no evidence that the pseudoscience supporters wish to actually defend their position as I called for on the RfP page. As I've said before I have more to contribute to this article but I would really rather wait until some good faith has been established.

I hope everyone is reading the paper mentioned above. Mr. Connolley? Pgio 22:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC) [Its Dr Connolley to you. Score -1 for accuracy - William M. Connolley 17:04:23, 2005-08-29 (UTC)]

Wait, you're saying that since the controversy is that one group wants to include the category and one person wants to drop it, a compromise is...to drop it.

Fine, fine compromise there. Very fair. Not in the least biased. --Calton | Talk 22:20, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

No, no, Calton. Not that glib. The two groups here cannot agree on the category - pseudoscience or protoscience. I'm suggesting we drop the use of the category altogether as there is no consensus.Pgio 01:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Two groups? I believe you're half right. --Calton | Talk 18:06, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

That's just silly. There are two groups of contributors here. While I don't agree with the anon's edit warring, I do agree that the pseudoscience category is inappropriate, and I have continually called for some proper discussion about the issue of category -- none of which has appeared. I'm certainly not the only contributor trying to discuss this issue rather than edit and revert pointlessly. Others arguing this side include TTLightningRod and FrankZeppo. So yes, two groups. What is this Wikipedian tendency to sail into an ongoing discussion with these glib, uninformed snaps, anyway?Pgio 05:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

You only have to read TTLR's contributions (the Gravity Challenge, and The Fundamental Right of Science to Challenge it! is an excellent example) to know he can't be trusted with any scientific article. Aetherometry is patently psuedoscience, the Correas stuff is vanity publishing. William M. Connolley 17:17:56, 2005-08-29 (UTC).

Willy, you actually become less annoying with every passing day, and a lot more like comic relief.... thanks for the good laugh. TTLR

So, Pgio - are you happy with the company you're keeping? William M. Connolley 19:37:40, 2005-08-29 (UTC).

Honestly, William, do you care?Pgio 10:01, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I do. Now, read some of TTLR contributions - the one just above will do - and ask yourself, is this company that you're happy to be in? As the proverb has it: "lie down with dogs, get up with fleas". William M. Connolley 11:09:14, 2005-08-31 (UTC).

Dr Connolley, I am sincerely touched that you do care. I was worried you were only baiting me. I have read some of the same materials as TTLR with regards to plasma cosmology, the electric universe and even the constancy of gravity; as well, I've been a student of cosmology and astronomy since I was a child. I've had a lot of time to consider our standard physics theories, even as they were developing, and my sincere conclusion is that they are incomplete and wanting as there are anomalies left unexplained in almost every area. Some of our theories are based on unwarranted assumptions, and I don't think it's unreasonable to question those assumptions. That doesn't mean every assumption will be replaced, but it's a better to me to question the assumptions than to ignore anomalies. I wish TTLR would be more respectful, but I also wish you would. No-one here is a dog even in metaphor. And I would love it if the anon would stop the edit wars so we can have a discussion.Pgio 07:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Thats a very weak answer which does you no credit. This page is littered with insults from TTLR, and you think we're equivalent? No thank you. William M. Connolley 08:34:49, 2005-09-01 (UTC).

• REMOVE THE IDIOTIC PSEUDOSCIENCE CATEGORY - Akronos Publications is NOT a vanity press, Mr. William M. Connolley, pseudoscientist - but since you've never read anything published by Akronos, you wouldn't know that would you? Nor do you care, because your only jerkish function here is to smear a topic you know nothing about and your only intent is to preserve your perverse wikipedian ladies' tea room muzzle on all non-mainstream science topics. Pretty neurotic if you ask me. But you do know enough to know that the term 'vanity press' is as good smear as your asinine pseudoscience category crap - so in it goes. Right, Billy-boy? Another in the long string of brilliant contributions by the William M. Connolley frantically insecure, fearful, little, smear club. Akronos Publications is, in fact, a small scientific publishing house and publishes alternative, non-mainstream scientific publications. So why don't you go be a jerk on climate change and parade your scintillating ignorance over there?

Vote.

• Yes! Drop the use of a category here until some (who cares?) future date! TTLightningRod 22:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• Get rid of the category. A sampling (not an exhaustive list) of the categories employed by the National Library of Canada applicable to the scientific publications by the Correas include: Plasma (Ionized gases), Plasma oscillations, Glow discharges, Vacuum arcs, Field Emission, Plasma Physics, Atmospheric Electricity, Ionization, Bioenergetics--Measurement Physics, Acoustics, Optics, Nuclear Physics, Geophysics, Meteorology, Climatology, Stirling Engines, Solar engines, Heat storage, Cosmology, Tesla coils, Electric waves, Blackbody Radiation, Atmosphere--Latent Heat Release, Photoelectrons, History of Science, Philosophy of Science, etc. If an accurate, descriptive, encyclopedic entry were being written here, these are the types of categories that should be employed on the Aetherometry entry. The Pseudoscience label is obviously meant to be deliberately and maliciously disparaging. It's inappropriate and downright ignorant. While the repeated, malignant so-called 'edits', that is smears, have certainly not been limited to the abusive Pseudoscience category - the war over the category has served to eloquently illustrate, once again, just exactly who the members in the smear club are - and just how determined they are to be so obnoxious that they effectively ensure not a single, accurate thought will ever be permitted to be developed here. Of course, I agree the patently stupid, defamatory pseudoscience smear label should be removed - immediately and permanently and no category at all would certainly work - but unless an end is put to this kind of ignorant interference with this entry, it will only migrate to some other equally stupid locus. Like the idiotic repeated deletions of the names of Tesla and Einstein.... etc.

[edit] Gravity Challenge, and The Fundamental Right of Science to Challenge it!

Essay by TTLR removed by Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) as it isn't about how to improve the Aetheromentry article.

Oh dear Theresa my love, the quixotic fantasy though the essay was yes all mine. A fantasy wherein you, a person doing quite a bit less to improve the article, might see how real science is introspective, quite unlike you.

The closest synonym I could find for an "experimental scientist", is experimentalist. One who employs the use of empirical or experimental methods in determining the validity of ideas.

"I am not" an experimental scientist? Thus the antonym for experimentalist looks an awful lot like "pseudo-scientist". I must say Theresa, even in light of your new found interest in commenting on material, you've brought this moniker upon yourself. TTLR

LOL why should I care about you calling me a pseudoscientist? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 14:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What happened to our discussion?

It's been nearly ten days, William and Theresa. Does anyone out there have anything more to say about AS2-01?Pgio 04:39, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] No more

Apparently appeasement or compromise doesn't work. Since you don't appear to be satisfied with the removal of the pseudoscience category and continue to add irrelevant interwiki links and categorizations, I will no longer attempt to remove a category I used think is extraneous, thanks to your behaviour. -- Natalinasmpf 00:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, that can only be met with, WTF? I am offended you've chosen to reply here, clearly to me, and blame me for behavior that is not mine. I opened a dialogue, and engaged until the Wikipedians walked away. And you Natalinasmpf walked away rather early. I'm glad if the discussion at least temporarily relieved you of your punitive desire to label Aetherometry as pseudoscience, but your implied smackdown I can certainly do without. That said I've nearly finished a rather long addition to this article that I think will make the subject more comprehensible. Perhaps with that information we all can have a new discussion. Pgio 10:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

This was not directed at you. It was directed at whoever keeps adding irrelevant categories and inserting irrelevant links in. -- Natalinasmpf 12:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Might it not have been too much to address the anon, then?68.164.0.184 08:14, 10 November 2005 (UTC) Damn, forgot to log in! Pgio 08:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New material

I'm adding a huge chunk of text I hope will better explain what Aetherometry claims and how it compares to accepted theories. I'm sure the passage needs wikification and I haven't learned how to do an ISBN reference, so I'd really appreciate other contributors' help. Please read the text though before arguing about it.68.164.0.184 08:14, 10 November 2005 (UTC) Again, that was me.Pgio 08:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Calton, will you find this? Hope so. Please, let's talk about the text, and maybe about that paper I requested we all discuss, before you insist again that Aetherometry is pseudoscience. Please. Pgio 07:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Lots of people think is psuedoscience. William M. Connolley 10:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC).

Please stop inciting an argumentative air around the article categorization alone. Aether Theory would seem safe enough for most people at this point. Your provocation is blatant, strategically pointless, and tactically inept if your true purpose is understanding. Your continued incitement and fixation on that word being applied here is simply pilling proof upon, that you are less a real scientist.... and more just an ass. 208.54.95.129

I don't know why you think personal insults are likely to advance you case. I can tell you: the opposite is true. Wiki even has a policy against them. Wiki also has a psuedoscience category, and it has one for a reason, and the reason is stuff like this article. William M. Connolley 16:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC).

All right, I'll bite. Tell me, what exactly is it that would advance this person's case? Does it really make any difference whether this person insults you or not? Your treatment of Aetherometry as something "pseudo" and icky is, it seems to me, completely aprioristic, as is witnessed yet again by your phrase "stuff like this article". You know nothing about the particulars of the research, its methods, arguments or results. How can you honestly tell what "stuff" is "like it"? And how can you honestly pronounce this particular "stuff" as being "pseudo" rather than scientifically sound? All you have to go by is that it's not published or talked about in mainstream journals. And the same holds for the "lots of people" who you claim "think" that Aetherometry is pseudoscience. So how exactly, in your opinion, could those who have actually read the Aetherometry materials, and who do not think that it's "pseudo", advance their case with you? Does it really make any difference to the advancement of their case whether they insult you or try to be polite or cooperative? I haven't seem any evidence of a difference. To me it seems that your rhetoric about the drawbacks of personal insults is just that, empty rhetoric. I have seen no evidence that you actually listen to anything constructive that is being said by the people who know something about Aetherometry. Consequently, one might just as well insult you. FrankZappo 00:34, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I think you're making a mistake here. As far as I'm concerned, its psuedoscience - and the statues arm is enough for me. But you're not just talking to me, you're talking to other people too... And if you can't cope with the wiki policy of no personal attacks, then go somewhere else. William M. Connolley 11:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC).

Yup, I agree that I am not talking to anything that could properly be called a "you". There is no such person as William M. Connolley - it's just a label stuck on a brickwork of "majority opinions", textbook dogmas, Google ratings, and "Wikipedia policies". If there ever was a "you" behind the label William M. Connolley, it has barricaded itself behind the brickwork. There is a name on the door, but nobody is ever home - no breath, no thought, no responsiveness, no life. Yes, I have no doubt that the statue's arm is enough for 'you'; anything threatenening to require thought makes 'you' head for the woods as fast as 'you' can, shouting "Pseudoscience!" at the top of 'your' voice so as to ward off the enemy. And as for personal attacks, since I am never just talking to 'you', I don't see how any of what I say can be personal. Does Wikipedia also have a policy against impersonal attacks? FrankZappo 00:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I supported the removal of the category to promote peace. Perhaps it is a bad decision, seeing how either parties don't seem to like compromise. -- Natalinasmpf 04:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I like compromise; I just don't like Connolley. FrankZappo 05:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

The above comment was wantonly removed by William M. Connolley and reinstated by me. To quote Paolo Liberatore's apt recent remark, Comments by others should not be changed. And it is shameful and despicable that Connolley would go so far as to recategorize an encyclopedia entry as an act of personal vengeance because somebody doesn't like him. This is a guy who aspires to the position of Encyclopedia Administrator. What is this, a kindergarten with a kapo system? FrankZappo 19:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I am also wondering about your remark above, Natalinasmpf. Why did you choose to focus on my exchange with Connolley, rather than on the constructive dialog that Pgio is trying to have? Since you, too, seem to want a constructive solution, why not continue working with Pgio? But instead, you ignore his latest comment, and suddenly take my remarks - which had nothing to do with eithr you, or Pgio, or your compromise initiative - to issue unwarranted and purely punitive threats about the initiative. I didn't think your attention span was so short. FrankZappo 19:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Personally I think the material is acceptable, because it presents it in an NPOV way than the other version, and even highlights the mainstream theories it comes into conflict with, which is a lot, and the reader has to realize this before ever agreeing with aetherometry. I removed the category in order to try to make a peace agreement, because having it as "aether theory" solely is better than jumping forth between a constant revert war of two categories and nine and dozens of links to irrelevant foreign language articles.

Um, this is Natalinasmpf's comment above, right? I'm glad you find the material acceptable for exactly the reasons you give. I tried to be careful to present the Correas' *claims* without asserting that their version of physics is the only one. That seems like the only appropriate treatment of the subject for Wikipedia until someone publishes a review in a journal somewhere. And I also like the Aether Theories category. WMC, can you at least be satisfied that having aether in the category name will automatically discredit the theory for those who seem certain that the aether doesn't exist? They'll just skip it entirely, won't they?Pgio 05:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jargon

Down with jargon and gobbledegook! Up with plain english and simplicity.

Simplicity like 'particlus', 'physisissist' and other Knott-ian neologisms? I think the fraud is Theresa herself, a physissist who cannot read, write, listen,nor know what is electrodynamic vs electromagnetic...

I can read, I cannot spell though. I can certainly spot a bit of talking bollocks though. I note you failed to answer any of my questions but instead chose to insult me personally. I presume this is because you cannot answer my questions? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 19:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

What do the following terms actually mean?

If you really want explanations I'll supply them. See below.Pgio

Theresa, please try reading all of these explanation before you reply, as the answers do tend to build on the ones before.Pgio 07:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• The dynamic aether

Not static, like the luminiferous aether.Pgio

I know dynamic means non static but it it's moving then what direction?

Put it in context. The luminiferous aether was thought to be static, and therefore an unchanging frame of reference; things would move through it and that movement could theoretically be measured. Those measurement techniques won't work if the medium itself is constantly in motion. And the motion is both unordered and orded, on scales from the microscopic to the cosmic -- so parts of the aether are moving randomly in all directions at many scales, and parts are moving in defined directions at those same scales. It's the ordered movement that forms the radiant electrical background. Pgio

• imponderable (non-massive)

That's defined right in the parentheses. Without mass. In this case an energy continuum that has no mass itself (but produces mass, essentially by piling up on itself.Pgio

I don't understand you explanation - how does piling up on itself produce mass? what is the exact prposed mechanism?

The exact proposed method is superimposition, as stated in the text. You're familiar with two sound waves superimposing, right? If they're in phase and of the same wavelength and amplitude they'll form a composite wave of double the amplitude. Mass-free (imponderable, non-massive) units superimpose, and if they're in phase, they create not a greater amplitude, but a mass-free electrical particle. Pgio

• non-electric aether continuum

Filling all space continuously, non-massive, and non-electric; also non-electromagnetic.Pgio

Well obviously if it's non electric then it's non electromagnetic. You've said what it is not, you haven't explained what it is.

The 'non's are important to distinguish this idea of the aether from, say, an aether made of electromagnetic radiation filling all space, or even one of electric radiation (which is different in structure than electromagnetic radiation). Like the text says, the primary function of the energy that consitutes the aether is to produce space itself. Everything else arises from superimposition of these units of energy. Pgio

• cosmic radiant electrical energy spectrum,

A frequency range of radiation in electrical form, filling the cosmos.Pgio

Why electrical and not electromagnetic?

Electromagnetic waves are supposed to be transverse waves -- the impulse moves from side to side in the direction of travel, and the shape of the wave follows the Planckian relation of energy to wavelength, with planar electric and magnetic components at right angles and out of phase. That is the idea of photon radiation everyone's familiar with. Electric radiation is longitudinal -- the impulse travels in the same direction as the wavefront, like sound waves, so it's like regular density waves of impulse travelling through space; at no point does the whole of the wave's energy convert from electric to magnetic as is supposed with the photon. This is answered below as well. Pgio

• ponderable matter

Tangible matter as opposed to any intangible conception like spirit, pneuma or aether.Pgio

Earlier on you said is was massive. Are you saying that massless particlus such as photons or neutrinos are ghosts?

Your question is unclear to me. In context 'ponderable matter' just means the everyday matter we're familiar with. Pgio

• electrodynamic interactions

Are you serious?Pgio

Of course! Move an electric field and you get a magnetic one. So the word physists use would be electromagnetic interactions. Presumably there is is difference between electrodynamic and electromagnetic so what is it?

Knott does not know the difference between electromagnetic and electrodynamic. What does she teach, sowing?

LOL you misspelled sewing in the same edit that you critisized my spelling errors. You've made my day. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 19:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Seriously, Theresa, you're wrong here. Electrodynamics is a well-known subject. Pgio

• electrodynamic force

Come on!Pgio

See above

• energy spectrum of the cosmic radiant electrical energy background

See above.Pgio

This sounds superficially similar to the cosmic microwave background - is it?

Besides both being cosmic, meaning appearing to come from all directions in space, It's related only in this way: if there's radiation, that radiation will have a spectrum you can identify, and the spectrum can tell you about the processes creating the radiation. That's the idea behind the redshift interpretation of the CMBR spectrum -- that those microwaves are the energy signature of the Big Bang. The spectrum of the cosmic radiant electrical energy background is likewise measureable and exhibits specific spectral features that can tell us about processes happening in space. Pgio

• solidary momenta and waveforms in constant motion

Solidary, as in non-divisible and contiguous, packets of moment of inertia or if you prefer impulse, that have a form defined by a wave equation, that never stop moving.Pgio

ooooooookaaaaaaaaay

How cute.

What more do you want here? Pgio

• Aether units

The smallest analytical piece of aether; a non-electric aether quantum.Pgio

What are thier properties? Do they obey QM?

You mean, like the properties stated in the text? And as for QM -- well obviously not QM as we know it, since it has no conception of aether apart from the zero-point energy. But they are quanta, meaning discrete packets of energy, like the concept of the photon as a quantum. Pgio

• lattices of quanta

Regular, space-filling arrangement of aether units; like stacking blocks, but immaterial, moving blocks in this case.Pgio

Does this aether move as a whole or piecemeal. If as a whole what direction? If piecemeal what haapens when bits of the lattice move apart from one another?

As stated above, piecemeal, in many directions. The units travel in lattices, and everywhere in space many lattices are passing through each other at any given time. As I understand it, if a unit breaks off from the lattice it's generally part of some physical process like forming a particle of matter or imparting kinetic energy to matter. Pgio

• threshold energy density,

Again...Pgio

Again what? Threshold of what? What determines the threshold?

Again, in context, that would be a threshold of the density of the kind of energy you're talking about, in this case aether energy. Crossing that threshold is akin to a substance undergoing a state change -- here from individual units of non-electric energy to a single unit of electric energy. That threshold is determined by the energy properties of the units themselves. Pgio

• mass-free electric energy particles.

Defined in the text.Pgio

I can't see a proper definition. Whats the difference between these particles and a photon?

My god Theresa, that whole paragraph is a proper definition, just not a simple one. These are non-massive units of charge, always moving in specific ways determined by their structure. And if you ask me to define charge, I can only refer to the Correas' work, because only they claim to have figured out what electrical charge really is: a specific arrangement of linear momentum travelling through space. The electrical charge we're more familiar with is the same mass-free charge fixed to a particle of matter. Pgio

• abstract space

As opposed to space we can measure; it's important to distinguish the two because aether units create an abstract space at the lowest theoretical energy density, but they almost always will be found superimposed, sharing the same volume of measureable space at a higher energy density.Pgio

I've no idea what you are talking about. How can you have a space that cannot be measured?

The abstract space you mean? The space created by an individual aether unit will always remain abstract to us because there doesn't appear to be any physical way to isolate a unit. It will always be surrounded by more aether units, all creating space, all tending to superimpose. The measurable space we encounter is the composite of all those abstract spaces. Pgio

• longitudinal voltage waves

Displacement in wave is parallel to wave propagation, as opposed to transverse, so, like sound instead of electromagnetic waves. Voltage waves, same as conventional, but travelling through space.Pgio

OK

• ambipolar electrical radiation

Defined in the text. Please read it and ask me about specific points.Pgio

Ok I'll read it again.

• tightly looped toroidal coils of electric energy

Take a Slinky, and join its head and its tail. That is a toroidal coil.Pgio

How tight is the coiling, what causes the coiling? How much energy, wtf are you talking about?

The well-known mass-energy of the electron, shaped like a Slinky joined head to tail, plus its attached mass-free electric charge, attached graviton, magnetic field and kinetic energy. All the energy you're used to thinking about in an electron, but with a definite shape. The mass-energy IS the loop; it's electrical charge (linear momentum) coiled into a stable configuration. The geometrical mean radius of the toroidal coil is the conventional electron radius.Pgio

• Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 06:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I find this to be a pretty good question! - Ta bu shi da yu 06:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

So, more questions?

Certainly. I will continue to ask questions until I understand you. Bullshit baffles brains, and all that. (this last sentance was deleted by the anon as an insult. I certainly never intended as an insult. It is a well known saying where i come from that means - if you talk enough jargon you can baffle the cleverest od people. Obviously Wikipedia articles are meant to be clear rather than baffling) Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 19:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, and I think more importantly: the primary, secondary, tertiary designations in the The Dynamic Aether section mean what they say: these are orders of superimposition, not a list, so not firstly, secondly, thirdly. No order can exist without the one before it, unlike a list that can be re-ordered. So I'm changing those words back.Pgio 07:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

OK I have no problem with that. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 15:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

OK good. But really, if you don't think that 'bullshit baffles brains' is not insulting when I'm sincerely trying to explain this, I'm at a loss. I'm not trying to bullshit you after all. Pgio 07:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category revert war, again.

This little war is sad. Look people, even if Aetherometry turns out to be wrong, that would only make it mistaken science, not pseudoscience. Popper's falsifiability requirement. Aetherometry is eminently falsifiable. WMC, if you believe you can falsify this body of work by the statue-arm argument, great. But again, not pseudoscience, just mistaken.

The article is NPOV, all except for the pseudoscience tag, which has always and merely been an assertion, and a slur, meant to -- what? Protect the minds of the innocent? This article is absolutely clear that the theory is unknown in the mainstream and drastically in conflict with the mainstream -- it even provides WMC's statement on that. I don't think any reader is in danger of being 'poisoned' or believing that Wikipedia endorses this theory.

Does the tag imply that the Correas haven't followed the scientific method? An unjustified conclusion to draw for those who haven't even read the papers, or read just enough of one to find a point of ridicule.

So is the tag meant to imply some evil intent on the Correas' part? I hope not. If anyone really means to say that Aetherometry is a fraud, and can provide some evidence of that, please do so. Pgio 06:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Pseudoscience doesn't mean it's fraudulent.

Fraudulent is your ass Knott. Fraudulent Wikipedia editor. Fraudulent collaboration with contributors. Fraudulent physicist.

It means it's not science even though it claims to be science.

YOU AND WMC HAVE FAILED TO PROVE THAT IT IS NOT SCIENCE. JUST AS YOU HAVE FAILED TO QUOTE A SINGLE DETRACTOR OR PROVIDE ANY REFERENCES TO THESE ABUSIVE AND FALSE STATEMENTS. This is a sign of cowardice and outright lying.

Science is an evidence based discipline. The claim that a statue uses energy to keep it's arm raised is not supported by any evidence whatsoever. This is a sign of talking claptrap. BTW your caps lock seems to be sticky. You should get that fixed. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 19:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

They haven't followed the scientific method at all.

Where is your proof of this?

Spouting a load of bollocks using technical sounding words does not make their ideas science. If thy were doing science they would be publishing in proper scientific journals for scientists to review the "work". The fact thay they haven't done this says a whole lot about how scientific they are. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 15:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

It sounds like you gauge the scientific method by whether a piece of work is published in mainstream journals or magazines...Are you this confused?

Yes I do gauge it like that. If it's scientific, then get it published somewhere.There are a lot of journals out there. Of course if it's a load of crap then no journal will accept it. What I've seen so far is a load of old crap, but of course I haven't seen it all. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 19:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Pgio... yes revert wars are sad. But, you know, it takes two sides. One helpful thing you could do to try to get a decent discussion is to try to persuade "your" side (FZ and 209.183.18.161, who I presume are one and the same) to be polite and reasonable.

The statue example... I think you're misunderstanding it, or at least my view of it. You say 'WMC, if you believe you can falsify this body of work by the statue-arm argument, great. But again, not pseudoscience, just mistaken. - this misses the point. Once its been falsified, holding onto it makes it psuedoscience. You complain about the tag whose purpose you speculate is to Protect the minds of the innocent? I presume your implication is... if left out, people will come to their own conclusions. But by the same logic: leave it in, people will still come to their own conclusions. *Noone* wants their favourite theories in the PS category. William M. Connolley 19:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC).

I don't think I'm misunderstanding you. I don't agree with you about the statue-arm argument, of course; note (far) above that laws of work do not subtend all energy-consuming processes, and the Correas have shown that a simple input of photon energy can mimic the effect of the energy that keeps the leaf deflected, or keeps the statue arm raised aganist gravity. In most cases this is an energy expenditure we can simply ignore since it's happening to everything in our frame of reference, until there's a material failure and gravity wins. So I do believe your falsification is grossly premature, especially considering the expressed extent of your survey of the material; and if I don't agree that the theory has been falsified, I certainly won't agree that it is, then, pseudoscience.

Of course. We disagree. You've explained you reasoning, which seems to me invalid. And I've done the same. William M. Connolley 10:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC).

So we are at an impasse. And my presumption is that yes, given the clear warnings in the text, people will come to their own conclusions about Aetherometry, and most, like yourself, will reject it. But this pseudoscience label is no benign tag; it's not just a guide, or an assertion that the work is merely mistaken, or even unverified. It maligns the intent and method of the work for no purpose except to consign it to the realm of the, as you say, 'whacky.' That's not classification; it's mockery -- a justification for the Caltons and Theresa Knotts and yourself to ridicule and then ignore. That's the effect of the PS label, and I think it's deeply unethical.Pgio 06:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

You assert that the PC tag intrinsically maligns the intent and method of the work for no purpose except to consign it to the realm of the, as you say, 'whacky.'. If thats true, the entire PS category violates wiki NPOV policy. In which case your way out of the impasse is to get the cat deleted as violation of policy. Naturally, I'd disagree. While the PS cat exists, it exists for a good reason: and aetherometry is one of them, IMHO. William M. Connolley 10:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC).

Perhaps I should have clarified by saying 'YOUR application of the pseudoscience tag maligns ...' etc. To suggest I campaign for total removal of the tag from all of Wikipedia as the solution to our impasse implies that you would equate your own hasty opinion of Aetherometry with whole bodies of documented work detailing the failings of, say, Dianetics or Intelligent Design. Yes, the category does exist for a good reason, but IMHO you haven't come close to proving that Aetherometry fits it. As it is we've gone over a day without a recategorizaion, and I personally think the current state is the best possible comprimise. Cheers to Natalinasmpf for her overture of peace.Pgio 12:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, let's see. I would, of course, be perfectly willing to let myself be persuaded by Pgio, should he/she choose to engage in such persuasion,

Sadly Pgio seems to show no interest in toning down your impoliteness, which diminishes her (and of course you) as far as I'm concerned. William M. Connolley 10:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC).

Wow, that's a heady concept, Pgio "toning down my impolitenesses'. Are you proposing to equip him/her with one of those "god plugins" that allows one to see what other user are typing and block it if it's not up to snuff? But you know, that kind of spying, even with the best software, entails quite a lot of work, and you still haven't said what you are offering in return. Whose impolitenesses are you offering to tone down? Theresa's? Phil Sandifer's? Pray tell. Or are you thinking of paying Pgio for his/her "toning" services? FrankZappo 01:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

but I would first like to be clear on what exactly it is you're offering. If I remember correctly, there have been many times in the past 6 months when "Pgio's side" was trying to be "polite and reasonable", and it didn't seem to make an iota of difference in the attitude of "your" side, WMC. In fact, the "unreasonable and impolite" behaviour on the part of "Pgio's side" has invariably been in response to disregard and disrespect from "your" side. So are you now proposing that this time, if I, for example, start once again to be "polite and reasonable", then you, Theresa, Calton, Gadfium, Hipocrite, and all the other Toms, Dicks and Harrys who don't know the first thing about Aetherometry but are eager to exercise their "scientific" judgement by re-categorizing and otherwise "improving" the Aetherometry article, will stop doing so? And that they, too, will start talking to "Pgio's side" politely and respectfully - for example, in the kind of tone one would use for a scientist whom one respects but with whose conclusions one disagrees? Please clarify the deal you're proposing.

And no, as far as I know, 209.183.18.161 is not my IP number, at least not today. I am on a dialup here, so one never knows. FrankZappo 02:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

That's the problem - you don't like anyone editing a work on your beloved subject. That's what Wikipedia is. The way to correct false information is to use consensus in order to produce a "stable", "accepted" version as a "fallback". What I would suggest is you bring this up in a Request for comment, which it itself is a concept of peer-review. My stance is to remove the category, ignore any personal attacks and simply state your argument for removing so. You do not have to mention, "YOUR [attribute here]" in every comment, but rather attack the argument, not the people. -- Natalinasmpf 11:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Work Strawman

I have to say, I'm pretty bored with the amount of time that is being wasted on William M. Connolley's pretensions to having discredited Aetherometry by making jeering grunts about the suggestion that work may be performed by an apparently immobile inorganic substance or non-living system. That told him all he needed to know. It is laughable, says Mr. Connolley, that a statue might actually be performing work. It is laughable, says Mr. Connolley, that the Correas are ignorant of the very basic laws of physics which, as he says, state that

"Work is force times distance moved. Distance moved = 0 implies work equals zero, indep of the force. If the Correas really have discovered that this formula is wrong, and that statues expend energy (or tables do, in supporting objects standing on them) then this is a major revision to physics."

Unfortunately for him, it really is Mr. Connolley who is laughable, for if he had bothered to read the primary sources on the subject about which he speaks - as he so much likes to criticize others for not doing - he would have seen that the Correas don't anywhere claim that the formula for work is wrong. What they claim is that there is microscopic work involved in sustaining the arm of a statue, just as there is microscopic work involved in sustaining the deflection of an electroscope leaf. Worse, however, is that it would appear to be Mr. Connolley's knowledge of basic physics which is sorely deficient. Is it possible that a man who claims to be a climatologist is unaware of the well established notion of "intrinsic work", or molecular or microscopic work...? Perhaps that's why I never get a single accurate weather report... One must not confuse, as Mr. Connolley regularly does, the 'work' of classical mechanics with molecular, microscopic work. And Aetherometry doesn't. The 'Force times overall distance moved' (where "distance moved" referes to the distance traversed by the center of gravity of the given system with respect to an external frame) law he keeps quoting does not, nor does it claim to, account for molecular or intrinsic work. An object which for classical mechanics may appear to be immobile is, from a molecular point of view, anything but - all the more if it is resisting some form of stress. That Aetherometry contends that the molecules of any system, living or not, which are put in a situation of resisting gravity, perform molecular work, violates neither Mr. Connolley's precious classical training nor any basic laws of physics. There is molecular displacement, even if the overall system appears to be at rest or there is no overall or overt displacement of the system (with respect to some frame of reference). And if Mr. Connolley purports to be a physicist, he should know this. In accordance with classical mechanics' definition of work, a weight lifter is indeed said to be performing work only when he lifts a weight, but ceases performing work once the weight is held steady over his head. Indeed, Resnick, Halliday and Krane, for instance, write: "For instance, a weightlifter does work in lifting the weights off the ground, but he does no work in holding them up (because there is no displacement)." In other words, when a displacement cannot be macroscopically detected or measured, it can be assumed not to exist from the viewpoint of mechanics. And for classical mechanics, no accounting of energy, no science of energetics is required. But the macroscopic concept does not account for the fact that in order to keep that weight raised, molecular work, intrinsic work, must be constantly performed - whether by a lifter, a lattice of charges, or a man-made machine. Molecular work is not something restricted to biological systems; any system of particles can in principle perform internal work. So the concept of work clearly needs to be extended beyond its mechanical meaning - not revised nor 'defied' , (nor 'defiled') as Mr. Connolley pretends, but expanded upon so as to also account for the obvious and undeniable molecular work which is being performed for as long as that weight remains aloft. This isn't rocket science. But it is well established physics. Indeed, work from a microscopic perspective includes both macroscopic or mechanical work and the internal work of a system, its true microcopic work. Now, in what concerns the Aetherometric electroscopic studies, what is being examined is not only the work performed in deflecting the leaf, but also the molecular work of the charges trapped on the leaf that compose the integral charge system. A deflected electroscopic leaf may, in accordance with classical mechanics, be doing no macroscopic work as it retains its deflection for variable time periods (the reasons for the time variation being one of the fascinating subjects of study), but that doesn't bar legitimate scientific inquiry into whether the charges trapped in the leaf system are performing work in retaining the deflection. And one of the specific questions with which these studies concern themselves is not only whether the �electrostatic interaction� is a dynamic, kinetic process, wherein charges perform intrinsic work, but also whether the different rates of spontaneous discharge of an electroscope - irrespective of charge polarity - indicate a variable amount of intrinsic work performed against gravity by those trapped charges. A perfectly legitimate and interesting question - if one is disposed to such basic scientific inquiries.

Basic physics and biophysics - that's what Aetherometry claims to be its specific subject of interest. So what are we to conclude about Mr. Connolley's insistence that the notion of molecular work is pseudoscience? Is Mr. Connolley really so ignorant of, for example, the extensive research and expenditures, by thousands of laboratories the world over, into the study of adhesives? Why is it, do you suppose, that - over time - an adhesive which has been applied to an inorganic object - to a statue, for example - suffers fatigue, stretches and may eventually break? Could it be because the Correas are pseudoscientists? Why would an adhesive even be require d to have any bonding power whatsoever, since a repaired stationary joint would require no work to sustain itself? Or why is it that over time, even a solid statue-arm which has never been glued - may still crack. After all, a statue isn't performing calisthenics, is it, Mr. Connolley? The studies of structural fatigue in architectural structures should, I presume, also be filed under Correa pseudoscience. Should't they? Anyway, I doubt that Mr. Connolley could ever imagine such an outlandish suggestion as that there may be a relationship between chemical bonding - covalent and noncovalent - such as that employed to holds the arm of a statue erect, and the intrinsic work performed to maintain its pose against the force of gravity...

To summarize the many experiments on this topic, meticulously conducted over many years and extensively described: what Aetherometry contends is simply that in analyzing the phenomena associated with electroscopic deflection, one may avail oneself of the perfectly well established physical principle that any system, when considered molecularly, is performing work when there is evidence for molecular displacement, even though the overall system appears to be at rest. The system being considered need not be a physiological one. The charges trapped in an electroscopic leaf system do indeed perform work at a molecular level, when they are considered microscopically. What is novel it that Aetherometry contends that experimental proof may be derived for intrinsic work against gravity performed by charges engaged in an electrostatic interaction, and that specific experimental methods may be developed by which to quantitate it. But to learn about that, one has to be interested in the subject, and has to be willing, able and courteous enough to actually read, and think about, the source material. DrHyde 00:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Yet more claptrap I'm afraid. All the fundamental forces are conservative. If a particular molecules does work against gravity by moving up a tiny bit then that energy is got back a fraction of a second later when the molecule moves back down again. The net work done is zero. Likewise for the chemical bonds. If the atoms in a molecule move away from their equilibrium distance then yes the do do some positive work. But the work done moving back again is negative and once again the net work done is zero. The statue does no work holding it's arm up against gravity. Theresa Knott [[User talk:Theresa knott| (a tenth stroke)]] 06:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Ms. Knott, you're embarrassing yourself. I would recommend that you read up on the concepts of intrinsic work and internal energy. The work performed on the (macroscopically immobile) arm of the statue, or on the (equally macroscopically immobile) statue as a whole, is different from the internal work performed by the statue as a system of particles. The kinetic energy which the particles of the statue spend in moving is most certainly not 0, even under your ludicrous suggestion that all the particles, as a net result of their movement, would return (after some time, no?) to their initial positions. Nor is the integral of their internal work, or of each particle's work, zero. DrHyde 23:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Clarification of terms: look up "claptrap" http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=claptrap It does not mean "stuff I don't understand" or "stuff I don't agree with".69.17.136.204 13:06, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Dr Connolley, unlike DrHyde, actually has a doctorate. Though not in physics. But thats OK, because we're down at A-level (or indeed O-level) type stuff here. The Correas stuff about microscopic work is just so much mumbo-jumbo; there isn't anything there to refute. I'm not sure where the strawman stuff comes in, though. William M. Connolley 22:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC).

Good grief, Connolley, and you call yourself a scientist? Sounds to me like your doctorate is in being vacuuous, full of yourself, and wrong. DrHyde 01:37, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

One of the many reasons why aetherometry gets such a bad name is because its proponents (you, FZ) seem unable to talk about substance and politely; and the few that are polite (Pgio) consistently fail to even attempt to restrain the impolite. You do yourself no favours (or... are you a subtle plot by anti-aetherometrists to discredit it?) William M. Connolley 15:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC).

Anybody who with a fair and unbiased mind reads the present exchange, or the entire discussion of Aetherometry on these pages, will see who it is that attempts to talk about substance, and who it is that constantly tries to manipulate the conversation away from matters of substance by resorting to shouts of "Pseudoscience!", "Claptrap!" and "Mumbo-Jumbo!" whenever the discussion gets down to scientific nitty-gritty, by diverting the conversation to topics such as politeness, and by employing simple good old underhanded contempt and insinuation. The record stands very clear, and to those who read it honestly and squarely , the discredit will not be on the side of Aetherometry. FrankZappo 17:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New book from the Correas!

The Correas seem to have a new book out. It will interest everyone (Thanks to N for pointing this out). See http://www.aetherometry.com/antiwikipedia/awp_index.html. I think Jimbo is the one on the right. I don't see any pony tails though so none are me :-(.

Look, Ma, no pigtail! 4.232.0.222 22:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you're half right, but I think its this one: http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/wmc/ and I'm on the left! William M. Connolley 13:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC).

Notice that they've put their doctorates on the cover, so I guess the usual suspects will be citing this as scientific peer-reviewed evidence of... err... whatever their pet theory is this week.

Natalina gets her own chapter! http://www.aetherometry.com/antiwikipedia/awp_index.html in which "scientific" hitmen (such as Freddie Salsbury and William Michael Connolley) indulge in the brazen manipulation of the minor, or supposed minor (for it has been suggested that this minor might, in fact, be a 'sock puppet' of one of these people).

As a point of order, I've never seen anyone suggesting that N is a sock. Does anyone? Sorry for manipulating you N.

Meanwhile... they found a comment I made on my talk page, which I thought a rather good idea: how about Create a "complete and utter b*ll*cks" tag: "this article is total twaddle; having said that, we're prepared to let the wackos have their say: read on at your peril..."

William M. Connolley 10:18, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Isn't that just a tad disingenuous? The tag would be a lot more honest if it said: "We, the self-appointed jurors of science at Wikipedia, are too incompetent and too lazy to honestly evaluate the scientific merit of the research to which this entry pertains. Whenever this happens to us, we label the given body of research as 'twaddle'. Trust us at your own peril." FrankZappo 19:09, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The tag would be a lot more honest... That's a strange new meaning of "honest" I wasn't previously aware of. --Calton | Talk 23:48, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

It's ironic, that on their website, they have another book dedicated to exposing Global warming as an "official" pseudoscience, yet deny that aether magic isn't even a protoscience. So according to these guys, Global Warming FAKE, Aether-me-do REAL. - Hahnchen 19:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

From Wikipedia: Techno-Cult of Ignorance: "This article would not have been possible without the spirited help of the numerous friends of Aetherometry who gallantly threw themselves, day after day, into the Wikipedia slugfest, and supplied us with their observations and findings. We extend to them our most joyous thanks."
But the Correas don't reveal who those Wikipedians are, (other than User:Helicoid). And they seem to be saying all their experience of Wikipedia is second hand -- hardly a good way to do research. GangofOne 02:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

When was the last time you heard of a pathologist injecting him/herself with - say, for example - Yersinia pestis in order to describe the etiology of a local outbreak?

4.228.117.4, two cases come to mind. Some AIDS dissident infected himself with HIV, he didn't get it I think, based on recollection of something I read on the internet, so you know it's true. Years ago I read some researcher of yellow fever let himself be bitten by mosquitoes; he got it. Doesn't prove much about anything either way. GangofOne 04:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh God. This is the funniest thing ever... - Randwicked 07:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh yes, never a dull moment in Pedialand. They used to accuse every contributor who didn't attack Aetherometry of being the Correas, now they are accusing them of never being the Correas. Oy, people, do you never stop inventing? And not only do you invent when it comes to the Correas or to Aetherometry, you even invent when making pronouncements about "good ways of doing research". And bla bla bla and bla bla bla you go. FrankZappo 16:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

see also John Seigenthaler Sr. and its blablablah page. GangofOne 04:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Correas, the Correas, the Correas .....

Their names crop up regularly. So why isn't there a general/bio article about them? Moriori 23:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

protecting the page to cool things down for a bit. Work things out. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 07:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, let's see. The content of the article hasn't really changed, just the categorization. Again. And those changing the cat to pseudoscience decline to discuss their rationale here on the talk page, even those new to the discussion! So in his edit comments, when Calton says "You best have a chat with the dozen or so editors who've restored the tag you keep removing" he must mean the mute incivil chorus who will not chat about the cat. And his own contribution has amounted to a big raspberry. Can't we do better than that? Calton, Randwicked, other fond Wikipedians, let's talk aetherometry. We all deserve to know what we're talking about.Pgio 08:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

And those changing the cat to pseudoscience decline to discuss their rationale here on the talk page The politest characterization of that comment is "nonsense". A less restrained -- albeit more precise -- version would start with "Complete and utter" and end in a rude word, as even a casual examination of this page and its archives would show.

Since you admit that the only problem is categorization, the simple bare fact of overwhelming consensus pretty ends the issue, doesn't it? Glad you could help, there. --Calton | Talk 08:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Calton, you act as if a consensus of the ignorant has any legitimacy! There's an entire science to understand here whether you choose to admit it or not. If you won't engage the meat of the article you can have very little idea what you're categorizing, despite the snap-snap surety of your putdowns. Why bluster to defend your own ignorance?Pgio 08:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:Consensus. --Viriditas 10:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Ignorant consensus? Unjustified consensus? Application of category with no justification, citation or proof? Don't attempt to hide unethical behavior behind Wikipedia rules, Viriditas.Pgio 10:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, even better: now Viriditas is removing honest criticism and complaint from his talk page as personal attack. Ridiculous. Pgio 10:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] EM vs. Aetherometry Question

I would be very interested in an Aetherometrist's description of where in the 'aethometric' energy spectrum, one would find the corresponding electromagnetic spectrum, the one common and well accepted by mainstream science. Could this spectrum be described with 'such and such' X, Y, and Z coordinates defining a given 'volume', with the well known EM as a portion of the larger Aetherometry field? Or is it thought of by Aetheroemtry to be the other way around, such that Atherometry exists at an as yet unacknowledged (unexplored) area of the vast EM field?

Said another way; Is the well known (even if simply misunderstood) EM spectrum the larger filed, of which aetherometry explores a subset component. OR, is the EM spectrum propertied by Aetherometry as a subset manifestation of this particular brand of 'aether' science.

I suspect that Aetherometry offers itself as a sort of raw cloth, thus without, current understandings are being cobbled together in a clumsy fashion? If such is the case, please offer an aethermetric explanation of a common, yet incorrectly, understood phenomenon such as color gradient transformation through just that portion of visible light spectra. Please.

Neither, actually, but it takes some explaining to get there. The EM spectrum is a subcomponent of the 'aetherometric' energy spectrum if by that you mean all possible manifesations of energy, but if we pull apart several concepts here we can perhaps see the nature of the spectrum in question differently. The radiant energetic wave Aetherometry conceives to be the true source of the quanta of electromagnetic energy we detect and call light is very different from the idea of travelling EM waves. In fact Aetherometry separates the EM photon from the travelling wave that produces it, which is composed of mass-free charges.

First, charge is proposed not just as a property of mass but also as an energetic species that can exist seperately, though every particle of mass has a charge permanently affixed. Attached to mass, a charge produces the characteristic linear motion we see of charged particles in an electric field. Unattached to mass, the charges form the electric field itself. These mass-free charges are basically quanta of linear momentum travelling in longitudinal wave formations, perpetually moving through the non-electric Aether background.

In Aetherometry what actually propagates is not the photon or EM radiation but those continuous waves of mass-free charges, known as ambipolar electric radiation. They exist in a substrate or background that is real, never imaginary: the non-electric Aether, the latent energy background that produces Space and Time. An ambipolar wave looks a lot like a sound wave, propagating in all directions from a central point, transferring momentum in its direction of travel and rotating in phase as it progresses. They are not absorbed by the non-electric Aether background, so they are nondispersive waves of linear momentum.

In contrast radiant electromagnetic energy is supposed to propagate in a void or vacuum, despite any theorized zero-point background. It is supposed to be a transverse wave as well, swinging its energy from electric to magnetic in perpendicular planes transverse to its direction of motion. It is also supposed to be a particle with wave-like properties, the photon.

Aetherometry separates the photon from the propagating wave. So what is the photon if it is not a propagating wave? Consider that a mass particle and its attached charge can absorb linear momentum from the travelling mass-free charges of an electric field and use it as kinetic energy which propels the particle, causing the motion of the charged particle in the electric field. What happens when the mass particle releases the energy not already used to move it through space? In Aetherometry, energy is released as the quantum of EM quantum known as the photon.

In this view, the photon is only a local effect. A poetic way to put it would be that the energy shed by the matter particle inscribes itself into the latent energy background in the shape of a photon before it merges with that background. If you were to imagine the latent energy background as a physical lattice of elements, and the photon as a deformation introduced into the lattice, the elements in the volume of the lattice near the shape inscribed by the photon would distort and collectively absorb the photon energy, but the deformation wouldn't travel anywhere, or at least not very far at all. In contrast, an ambipolar wave would move through the lattice largely without being absorbed.

So, the photon doesn't travel so much as develop in shape, at the familar speed of light, over its lifetime of one frequency cycle and one wavelength. The total energy of this lattice deformation ties the photon's wavelength to its frequency through the familiar Planck relation. In contrast the total energy of the electric ambipolar wave is directly related to its wavespeed, which is what the Correas have determined to be the proper dimension for voltage. The higher the frequency, the greater the wavespeed and thus the higher the voltage; the wavespeed can range from much greater to much much less than the speed of light.

In terms of your proposed 'volume' imagine the positive sector of the dimensions of wavelength, frequency, and wavespeed; I think the photons would map out a curve of inversely related wavelengths and frequencies in a plane of constant wavespeed. Ambipolar radiation would map out a curve of directly related frequencies and wavespeeds inverse to the dimension of wavelength. You can see that these curves will cross at the familiar wavespeed of light but are quite orthogonal. Thus as I understand it the spectrum of photons of EM energy and the spectrum of ambipolar electric radiation are different things and neither is truly subsumed by the other.

It's also confusing that we can detect both spectra. Electric waves propagate through space, mass particles absorb some of their energy, turn it into momentum, then shed what's left as photons. If we're close enough we might intercept those photons while they're travelling and call the phenomenon light or radiation, or we might capture the an electric wave of similar wavelength and think it is the same thing, because it produces a photon of characteristic energy in the detecting component of the machine that captures the electric wave, whether it is a chromatin or the molecules of an antenna. In the visible wavelengths, our eyes absorb both photons and electric waves, convert them to nerve impulses, and then the machinery of color vision takes over. When an antenna receives electric waves its molecules resonate at that frequency, moving and thus inducing moving waves of charge in the material of the antenna, which we transduce at another point in the circuit and record. A transmitter is just the reverse; moving charges in the circuit induce electric waves in the molecules of the antenna, which induce electric waves in the surrounging medium, and may also directly produce photons in the near field.

I hope that this detailed answer satisfies you without overwhelming you. In my opinion mass-free charge and the non-propagating photon are perhaps the two central concepts that make Aetherometry seem alien at first. If the meaning of your question was different, I will certainly try again. Pgio 05:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

1. So according to Aetherometry, the commonly understood electromagnetic photon is a local event, a phenomenon aspect produced by the properties of this Correain "lattice" aether underlayment. A coordinately rigid lattice through which We, and our ponderable mass, travel through.

2. Mass free energy, a property of am-bipolar radiation unhindered (if so, only slightly) by local or distant mass (also a phenomenon of 'clumped' am-bipolar radiation?), is thus capable of traversing great distance through the void of space, a space void of otherwise electromagnetic conductive media.

3. As mass free energy approaches EM conductive mass, a photon is produced while simultaneously balancing the 'score card' of energy. Conservation, as this transformation was at once credited at the departure point, and redeemed from the aether underlayment at the arrival destination.

Is this consistent with that purported by "Aetherometry", however simplistic?

If so, I would then be interested in discussing the null result of the MM experiment.

1. Yes, the photon is seen as a local event, but the "lattice underlayment" is dynamic, not static. It is said to be composed of the non-electric Aether energy units that create Space, each of which can move and interpenetrate its neighbors.

Would "lattice" be more descriptive of the underlayment at a 'snap shot' moment in time when examining this structure? Such that over time however, aether units move in such a way as to offer a "ubiquitous" media? As is the nature of imponderables, individual units would be difficult to grasp even as a theoretical model in the minds eye, yet I must allow the benefit of doubt, that the authors of this theory have formulated some language for just this difficulty? Spherical, co-spherical co-orbital grouping, cubic, torodial.... is there a predominately popular geometry to "individual" units, even as this shape would have little or no bearing on neighborly interpenetration? Or, does shape play a role in charge conduction, propagation, of energy units? Energy is motivated along as a wave front from lattice unit to lattice unit , or is it carried as an individual unit from the point at which it enters the underlayment, until it reemerges at its destination as a ponderable, such as a photon?

Lattice as snap shot - exactly so, as I understand it. I do not know if the Correas have proposed a shape for non-electric Aether energy units. For the rest of the questions we must address superimposition. These non-electric Aether energy units can superimpose, taking up the same real space while increasing the energy density of said space. If units superimpose precisely they can produce an electric Aether energy unit, the mass-free charge. Also as I understand it, non-electric Aether energy units cannot change in character, so yes, their energy is carried as individual units throught their travels, while mass-free charge can change in character (speed and shape) if matter borrows a passing mass-free charge's energy as kinetic energy. In any case the mass-free charge is a characterizable unit, though it will most often be found moving in an ordered group of similar individual units -- another lattice, propagating across space. I am not sure it is right to speak of an electric or non-electric Aether energy units as emerging from the underlayment as a ponderable.Pgio 21:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

2. "Mass free energy" consists of several types of energy: non-electric Aether energy, electric Aether energy (referred to in my previous post as mass-free charge), graviton energy and photons. Ambipolar (no hyphen) radiation is composed of moving mass-free charges. Ambipolar radiation doesn't travel across a void, as there is no void; it travels across the non-electric Aether energy background, passing freely through any other waves of ambipolar radiation along the way.

"Void", only in the sense of an absence of ponderable matter, gas, dust... (The median between EM field wave peaks and valleys?) Absent all of these "things", the premiss of a ubiquitous aether (with no voids) is fully understood as the discussion at hand.

Understood.

Massfree energy (or is it said; "mass free energy") devided into three catigories; a. Non-electric Aether energy. b. Electric (however mass-free) Aether energy "charge". And c. You say graviton and photon, are related in the third category (type). Yes?

An Aether energy unit "on the move" is then referred to as ambipolar radiation. Yes, please clarify for me this aether theory's concept; Ambipolar radiation "units" move grate distance, from origin to destination, by an interpenetrating capable unit? Or, transfer along a wave front (unit to unit) through an underlayment of ubiquitous aether unit media? I'm still not clear on the Aetherometry choice in this. Is it a choice? Are there other choices remaining beyond my grasp?

Mass-free charges, those ambipolar radiation units, move great distances while interpenetrating the lattice of the non-electric Aether background as well as other ambipolar radiation units. Perhaps it is helpful to remember, as above, that ambipolar radiation fluxes consist of ordered lattices of the individual units. So what we see are orderd fluxes of mass-free charges propagating through the non-electric Aether background lattice, and passing through any other fluxes of ambipolar energy they encounter (or indeed other Aether energy configurations such as graviton fluxes.)Pgio 21:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

3. I believe you're confusing causes and effects. When ambipolar electric radiation passes by a mass particle, that particle can absorb some of the wave's energy and employ a portion as kinetic energy, either in rotation or translation. The energy not used for motion is then released as a photon, obviously of a lower energy than the total absorbed from the ambipolar electric wave.

Please forgive, I attempted to word it so as to reduce the confusion with cause and effect, but still failed. Yet you are confirming a conservation of energy by allowing an account balance in/out of the underlayment over distance, then as energy reemerges and divides into the heat motion of ponderable particles and/or a photon component (local). Yes?

Yes.Pgio 21:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The Correas have treated the MM experiment and its kind rather thoroughly; see [aetherometry.com] for some free papers as well as papers you can buy. Pgio 18:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The null result would be consistent, if not an out right prediction of this aether theory, when conducting a classic MM experiment. Yes?

Precisely. The Correas have also written a note on Dayton Miller's aether drift experiments that you might find interesting: [3]. I'd say personally that if you deduced the null result of the MM experiment from the dynamic nature of the non-electric Aether lattice, you'll probably be able to grasp Aetherometry much faster than I have. I hope I have helped you here.Pgio 21:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I was wondering, Pgio, if you are right about this explanation of the two energy spectra. It seems to me that Aetherometry claims to have discovered a spectrum of energy that is physically different from the em spectrum. I think one has to imagine something like this (with electrons for the simplest example): electrons subject to an external field acquire kinetic energy. The modal distribution of their kinetic energy peaks near the field energy. When decelerating or colliding, the electrons release that kinetic energy in the form of punctual photons. The Correas suggest that there are three distinct associated spectra of energy - the field energy, the kinetic energy and the electromagnetic energy. They also suggest that the field energy is composed of ambipolar radiation, and that the modal kinetic energy of the electrons approaches the field energy. The ambipolar spectrum is simply the field energy spectrum, and it has very different characteristics (frequency, wavelength, velocity) from the resulting electromagnetic spectrum. Monograph AS2-17A provides the equations that relate all three energy terms and their transformations. And four or five of the monographs prior to that one provide the experiments which anybody with means, patience and know-how can repeat to demonstrate the existence of this ambipolar radiation, and how it is distinct from electromagnetic radiation. Just thought I should mention this. DrHyde 22:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

You've read a lot, that's wonderful! I thought I suggested clearly that the ambipolar spectrum was different than the EM spectrum, as well as the kinetic energy spectrum of say electrons, but that the three were related through functional transformations of energy. But I'd love a more detailed explanation of what I might have wrong. Always better to learn.Pgio 00:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I am with you, and perhaps I didn't make clear enough what I was referring to - just a couple of parts in what you wrote above (where you were very clear most of the time, I'd say), and in particular, with reference to massbound charges: "the energy not used for motion [by massbound charges] is then released as a photon, obviously of a lower energy than the total absorbed from the ambipolar electric wave." From my reading - and I could be wrong - the massbound charge, while in acceleration, gains kinetic energy from the field (please correct me if I'm wrong). So, the case where the charge decelerates despite the applied field will be different from its deceleration in the absence of a significant field. If it decelerates despite the field, as in collisions, it loses energy and some or all of it goes into photon creation. If it decelerates as its motion slows down, the photon production will be equivalent to the release of heat. Is it not only in the first case that the photon energy, wavelength and frequency will have a relationship to 'modal kinetic energy' of the massbound charges? In the second case, will the resulting photons not have a much longer wavelength? (Longer than those corresponding to the modal kinetic energy?). Just to cap what I am trying to say (what I think we are both trying to say), the important points, I think, are that (1) the field is radiative and defined by a given energy spectrum and spectral velocity, wavelength and frequency characteristics. (2) Massbound charges accelerated by the field acquire a related kinetic energy spectrum, but the latter distorts the former, mostly because of massbound charge decelerations and collisions. If you consider only the modal population, the mean kinetic energy approaches the field energy, but the spectral velocity, wavelength and frequency characteristics of the massbound charges accelerated by the field are very different from those of the accelerating field. They also vary according to the mass of the charge carriers. (3) Electromagnetic radiation, with its blackbody energy spectrum and quantum wavelength and frequency characteristics comes last, when the massbound charges discharge their kinetic energy or some of it. In an electric field composed of massfree charges, acquisition of kinetic energy by massbound charges is a form of energy conversion. If non-ionizing photons result from the discharge of the kinetic energy of massbound charges attached to carriers with variable masses, then this is a second energy conversion, and it yields the electromagnetic spectrum. So three spectra must be involved here - ambipolar, kinetic and electromagnetic. I think this is what Aetherometry is saying. DrHyde 05:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] seek, claim

A concept such as Aetherometry can neither seek nor claim anything. Human beings on the other hand can and generally do. Aetherometry proponents are those who propose concepts related to Aetherometry. It's simple English. Hackwrench 18:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Guidelines_for_controversial_articles#Be_careful_with_weaselspeak

I can't find a better article at the moment. Anyone want to help out? Hackwrench 20:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll try to help out a bit later. When I appended the bulk of the article ("Explicit Conflicts" down to the external links) I left the introduction alone, so the 'claims' language was the result of much previous editing struggle. I have no personal problem if you seek to disambiguate that introduction, unless it results in more confusion. So maybe the anon could talk with us here about this?

It seems easier to me to speak of Aetherometry as a theory or enterprise making claims or assertions. In fact the bulk of the article is a report of the claims made by Aetherometry, hopefully properly contextualized for the reader. I'm not sure replacing all the instances of "claims" with "proponents claim" will help anyone understand the subject. I mean, we all know Aetherometry as a concept can't make a claim by itself, but neither calorimetry or quantum mechanics etc.; the people employing the theory and making the claims are implicit. This is interesting though.Pgio 22:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Your version of the English language is different than mine. Another Tower of Babel incident seems to be approaching. Hackwrench 22:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Hackwrench, Aetherometry is not a concept. Aetherometry is a theory (based on a body of experimental work). It is standard English to speak of theories as making claims, or claiming, or asserting. As somebody pointed out, it is perfectly good English to speak of Quantum Mechanics as claiming things, or to speak of the claims of quantum mechanics. As opposed to speaking of, say, the concept of a quantum claiming something, or of the concept of massfree energy claiming something. Concepts don't make claims, but theories do make claims. What bug has bitten you? FrankZappo 23:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

It is not standard English, at least not as taught in United States schools up to the one College English class I took for my Associates Degree. However all my schooling has taken place in the United States. Hackwrench 01:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, I've had to tailor my English. When I said complicated, I got "It's really not that complicated." so now I say complex. English is becoming more and more of a minefield. Hackwrench 01:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

To say a theory "claims" something is anthropomorphic. Promulgators of a theory can certainly "claim" something, but theories themselves remain mute. Theories can predict, though, as far as I understand things. And my rule of thumb regarding "complex" versus "complicated" is that "complicated" = "unnecessarily complex", with maybe a hint of annoyance implied. --Calton | Talk 01:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

To clarify one point I have seen usage as in "claims of quantum mechanics" but in the sense of "claims of (type) quantum mechanics", not claims made by quantum mechanics as the agent making the claim. Also, theories and predictions can predict is known to me to be correct usage. Hackwrench 02:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

One of the meanings of "claim" given by my (American) dictionary is "hold to be true"; also "maintain", "assert". None of those require either talking or being an "agent". "Complicated", in my (American) dictionary, is defined to mean "Containing or consisting of parts or elements difficult to separate, analyze, or understand; intricate; involved". The dictionary says nothing about this intricacy being necessary or unnecessary, annoying or unannoying. FrankZappo 02:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

You have a different understanding of hold, maintain, and assert than I do. Hackwrench 03:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

All theories are concepts but not all concepts are theories.

The WordWeb program[4] lists theory as a type of belief, concept, conception, construct and explanation.

Ah, the brave new world. My old-fashioned (American) dictionary hasn't caught up with these snappy reductionisms yet. According to it, theory means: (1) A plan or scheme existing in the mind only; a speculative or conjectural view of something. (2) An integrated group of the fundamental principles underlying a science or its practical applications (e.g. the atomic theory). (3) Abstract knowledge of any art as opposed to the practice of it. (4) A closely reasoned set of propositions, derived from and supported by established evidence and intended to serve as an explanation for a group of phenomena (e.g. the quantum theory). (5) An arrangement of results, or a body of theorems, presenting a systematic view of some subject (e.g. the theory of functions). FrankZappo 04:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

If we seek the agents making the claims, it's simple in the case of Aetherometry, since the whole body of work was created by Paulo and Alexandrea Correa. So we could say that "Correa & Correa propose through the framework of Aetherometry to provide an alternative basis for much of accepted..." etc. or something like that. I'm assuming this argument is limited to this paragraph. Could Hackwrench please see if other examples of claim, say, hold, assert in the body of the page trouble him?Pgio 05:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nationality and Educational background of the Correas?

Does anybody know the nationality and educational background of the Correas. It's relevant to the article, and my interest has increased due to the perspective of the English language used by other editors to this entry. Note: I am one of the least anonymous people here, since I have posted my legal name and what city I'm located in to my user page. Hackwrench 21:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

They're Portugese, I believe, and naturalized Canadian citizens in Ontario, but I could be wrong. I've never actually asked! I don't have their credentials with me but I know this is reported somewhere in the Aetherometry:Talk archives at the top of the page. And hey, my legal name and city of residence is on my user page too!Pgio 21:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV check

I've gone this route because it's being written to sound to be the sole domain of the Correa's, in which case it isn't really science but business, and suitable for Category: Pseudoscience, but if they are the first entrants onto the field then Category: Science of Questionable Validity A less stringent category I've come under fire for creating would apply. If the latter is the case than more generic terms like proponents should be used to cover all potential entrants into the field Hackwrench 22:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, never a dull moment. So if it's two scientists doing research, it's "business", but if it's, say, a thousand workers at United Technologies doing it, it's "science"? Every day one learns something new on Wikipedia. FrankZappo 00:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

No, if it's two scientists intent on keeping themselves the sole researchers in the field, it's a business, but if the field is open to other investigators it's more likely to be "science". Hackwrench 01:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Hackwrench, your distinction is strange to me. The Correas developed this field; so far no-one has followed in their footsteps. They have business interests as well, hoping to commercialize technologies proceeding from their work, but I have seen no evidence the wish to exclude anyone else from entering the field. As I said before, they've done all the work, so it was convenient to refer to them by name to solve your concerns over claims/seeks/etc. I'm sorry but don't agree that your POV check was appropriate at all.

[edit] Pseudoscience

This category comprises articles pertaining to fields of endeavor or bodies of knowledge that are both claimed by their proponents to be supported by scientific principles and the scientific method, and alleged by their critics or the mainstream scientific community to be inconsistent with such principles and method. The term itself is contested by a number of different groups for a number of different reasons — see the main article for more information.

Whether a theory is true or not is irrelevant to whether it is pseudoscience. Ashibaka tock 00:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, actually Ashibaka, if you search you won't find anything critical of the Correas' principles and methods except for the rather shoddy critique of one paper done by DeMeo, linked in the article, and various fulminations right here on this talk page, overwhelmingly by people who haven't even read the original material. Seriously. I would like one of you people who insist on labeling Aetherometry pseudoscience to produce a peer-reviewed paper in a respectable journal saying as much, if only to protect the rest of you from having to make a "value judgement," as Guettarda put it on the CFD:pseudoscience page, when such value judgement would require reading and understanding the material -- clearly too much of a burden. Calton, you especially; why don't you find some documentation so you won't have to shout like a bully? So, you say in your edit comments that 'we' should provide proof of Aetherometry's scientific merit, but apparently an actual examination of the original papers is not enough, and I say 'you' should produce documentation of mainstream science's rejection of Aetherometry, knowing you will find none. What could we possible call it, then?

I have reached a point of real frustration with the fluidity of 'evidence' required in this argument over pseudoscience. I think it is sad that certain editors here have shown no proof that they understand anything about the science or even the article, and no proof that they understand the pseudoscience label they so love to apply.Pgio 02:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

"What could we possible call it, then?" Uhh... pseudoscience that the huge majority of scientists haven't even bothered looking at because it is so obviously wrong? Ashibaka tock 03:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I've tried putting it in a less loaded category "Science of questionable validity", but no one likes that either. Hackwrench 00:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

But Ashibaka, that's the point; you're just making an assumption - a huge assumption. And when you assume...Pgio 05:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The names for fields of scientific study which remain outside of mainstream textbook science are fringe science and protoscience, or sometimes Maverick Science. The word pseudoscience is usually used as a term of disparagement, but also is defined as "intentionally dishonest sham science." By that definition, if the researchers actually believe their own claims, and they aren't just some lying scam artists out to fleece their victims... then they cannot be called pseudoscientists. Instead they're "fringe" or "proto-" scientists. Here's another term: "cargo cult science" refers to scientists who are fooling themselves because they lack sufficient self-criticism, and they're lying to themselves by interpreting observations in ways that makes it seem that their ideas are correct and/or that they've made a great new discovery. In my own experience, "cargo cult science" occurs when researchers indulge in "backwards reasoning," selecting or rejecting the evidence in order to defend their firmly-held beliefs, rather than "forward reasoning" where we base our position upon the evidence, while striving to escape the many cognitive biases. The cure for confirmation bias is extreme self-criticism and extreme self- honesty. The cure for self-serving bias is extreme humility. While in law, politics, and most of everyday life the goal is to win the fight and defeat opponents, in science the goal is to see reality clearly and perceive connections, and attempts to "win a fight" ends up letting us fool ourselves. So, in science one goal is to halt all defensiveness, publicly attack our own work, and help our opponents attack us. After all, we want to know about all our flaws rather than fooling ourselves by hiding them. --Wjbeaty 01:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

If we are now into a general parading of opinions, yours is a bit shoddily formulated, no? If "helping our opponents attack us" is a requirement of science, one would have to conclude that Galileo and Giordano Bruno proved themselves to be practitioners of cargo-cult science by not helping the Inquisition attack the Copernican system. Doesn't one have to qualify a criterion like this by requiring that the attack itself should be on scientific grounds, proceed from actual knowledge and careful study of what it attacks, etc.? FrankZappo 01:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Burden of proof, dude man. Ashibaka tock 17:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

So are you making yourself the trier of truth? Present some proof yourself.Pgio 00:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

From the edit comments on the article: Calton said, "you have it precisely backwards -- You have no proof that Aetherometry fulfills the criteria for scientific consensus, even as a minority theory; hence, pseudoscience." Yawn. I must repeat, it's not consensus that makes a theory scientific or not, and Calton shouldn't mistake the consensus of any group of scientists with a Wikipedia consesus of mute editors. Any one of us can examine the proof for his or herself, at aetherometry.com; see the free paper discussed above. I still invite y'all to discuss it -- especially Calton, if he bothers to read this. Anyway, if we didn't have theories that disagreed with "scientific consensus" science would have ossified ages ago.Pgio 05:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I would support a movement to categorise this as a "fringe theory" or just drop the PS tag altogether. That way we can have some level of harmony and peace. "Aether theories", IMO, really describe to the reader concisely what aetherometry is. Aether theories not being mainstream science, especially. -- Natalinasmpf 03:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't like this. We're not here for peace and harmony however desirable that may be; we're here for making an encyclopedia. This isn't a fringe theory; in any meaningful respect it isn't a theory at all: its a string of words and poorly realised ideas. Try looking over at the creation/evolution stuff, where the science side stoutly (and in my view correctly) resists allowing the label "theory" to be applied to creationism or ID. Its pseudoscience, and we should call is such. William M. Connolley 15:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC).

I'm of two minds myself. Every flaming crackpot wants to type his little Tretise into WP to give it a facade of legitimacy. There'd be big problems if Correas were the WP authors. But I think you make a mistake above. Why is Creationism/ID not a theory? Because it's Politics, not science, using that "backwards reasoning" I mentioned above. ID supporters essentially say "We know that God exists, so let's find evidence that supports this (and let's suppress or reject any contrary evidence.)" ID is pseudoscience because it's fundamentally dishonest; science in name only. Yet equating this Aether stuff with ID to me appears to be a blatent straw-man argument and perhaps even a smear tactic. Or maybe you can show how it's similar to ID? In addition, your saying that it's "a string of words and poorly realised ideas" is a warning sign, since I've encountered similar assertions in the past from people who were hostile to certain ideas, regarded them with revulsion, and didn't understand them (since they regarded any careful reading about the ideas with extreme disgust.) I hope you know enough about the Aether stuff to do more than apply derogatory labels. After all, there's a big difference between far-flung exploratory protoscience with it's wrong theories and misguided experiments, versus intentionally dishonest moves by politician-types using a facade of science to promote an agenda. Fringe science as a whole might be 99.9% wrong and 0.1% right: diamonds in the sewage. Fringe science is still science because it's honest; looking at anomalous observations and experimental results and building new theories which often are at variance with mainstream science. From such a protoscientific morass we see new science emerge. Any [modern field] which once was ridiculed and rejected by the larger science community is an example of this. Fringe science can be rightly attacked as being almost entirely wrong (piles of crap, only the rare diamond, lots of sifting required to separate the two.) But to be classed instead as pseudoscience, I think its promoters need to be distorting evidence, perpetrating an intentional fraud.--Wjbeaty 01:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello Wjbeaty! I was on a nice long Wikipedia holiday or I might have responded sooner. I'd say you've precisely described the situation here. I've asked repeatedly for someone to produce some evidence of fraud or deception on the Correas' part; none has been forthcoming. WMC really doesn't know enough about Aetherometry to apply anything more than derogatory labels; even after an invitation to discuss a freely available paper concerning a fundamental physical observation related to the theory, his response was to read only enough to find something he could ridicule, without engaging the much larger issue the observed phenomenon reveals (namely, gravity as an accountable flux of energy.) The exchange is all still here on the Talk page, I think. If you choose to examine the Correas' Aetherometry monographs, I think you'll find a wealth of precise analysis, cogent argument, and unparalled application of the scientific method. Pgio 21:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reber

To the Anome etc.: the Correas didn't know about Reber's result until this year. For all intents and purposes it was lost.Pgio 00:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removed material

Removed by Joke137. From an anon, and in summary: "If you want to say Aetherometry is a fraud, WMC, prove it. I (the anon) assert your own scientific work is biased and of suspect relation to reality, but that you're so convinced you know what the answer is, you can't even ask the right questions. Oh, and you too, Salsb." But like they say, the rest is in the edit history.Pgio 23:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I will happily grant that it may have said that amongst all the vitriolic personal attacks. –Joke 01:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

I feel like sharing my perspective on when I decided Aetherometry was just plain silly. It happened when reading [5] and finding the aetherometry claim that gravitational acceleration ought to be π² m/s². This is an obvious bit of numerology made all the more absurd by the fact that both the meter and the second were defined by what are essentially historical artifacts. But of course acceleration really ought to be π² * (1/40000000 the circumference of the Earth)/(1/86400 of a day)^2, makes perfect sense. Dragons flight 02:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It just gets better... reading on Assuming that g = π2 m/s2, and taking account of the centrifugal reaction, the value of g at the equator should be 9.83568 m/s2, whereas the measured value is far lower: 9.780524 m/s2. How do the Correas explain the difference between these values? Their answer, which they intend to expand upon in future publications, is briefly as follows. Modern technology permits more exact determinations of the measured values of net g at the poles and the equator, along with better determinations of the polar and equatorial radii. This makes it possible to accurately determine the angular velocity function (Ω) that is a constituent of the gravitational field intensity. They point out that if we employ the values for net g at the poles (where no centrifugal reaction exists) along with the polar radii to determine the value of Ω, and then use this value together with the known equatorial radius to determine the gravitational field intensity at the equator, this will be found to be exactly π2 m/s2, to the fourth digit! This rules out geometric explanations for the actual value of net g at the equator, as the differences in terrestrial geometry are already taken into account. So something besides the centrifugal force or geometry must account for the counteraction of gravity at the equator by Δ = (π2 - 0.03392) - 9.780524 = 0.05516 m/s2. They contend that this antigravity effect is not due to geometry or uneven distributions of mass inside the Earth, but to a massfree energy effect whose nature they have not yet disclosed. So... having decided in advance that you know what g must be, by numerology, you can then find a place for your pet mass-free-energy-anti-gravity theories in the difference between your arbitrary value and the true measured value! William M. Connolley 10:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC).

Wow. –Joke 14:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

In fact the rough equality of π² m/s² and g is no incident, as part of the rationale of choosing the length of the meter was the pendulum length. Exact equality is of course worth a considerable amount of wacko-points. --Pjacobi 16:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

How many wacko-points per how much "exactness"? For example, "exact to the fourth digit" would generate exactly how many wacko-points? Inquiring minds want to know. FrankZappo 18:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out, gentlemen, that while you are perfectly in your right, on the basis of perusing, for example, Pratt's article, to form the opinion that Aetherometry is just plain silly, this opinion is precisely that - an opinion. It does not entitle you to authoritatively label Aetherometry as "pseudoscience" or "pseudophysics", i.e. as an endeavour that has been found to not follow the method and principles of science. First of all, you have not read the primary literature, and you have no idea what principles and methods were followed in the research. Secondly, although you may think that the conclusions you quoted have got to be numerological, you have in fact not examined the basis for them and you have no idea if they really are. The fact that it seems to you highly unlikely that gravitational acceleration is π² m/s² with four-decimal-digit accuracy does not permit you to pronounce authoritatively that it isn't, or even that Aetherometry is being unscientific (and by the way, one can be scientific and wrong, as you well know) when it concludes this. You have no business letting your knee-jerk reactions dictate the pronouncements you make in an encyclopedia entry. Moreover, you have no business pretending, in an encyclopedia entry, that Aetherometry as a whole has been evaluated and found unscientific, on the basis of something you found in the Pratt article. I thought you gentlemen, as scientists, would in fact make a rigorous distinction between opinion and scientific inquiry, and between venting private opinions and how you conduct yourselves as editors of an encyclopedia. FrankZappo 18:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the qualification of pseudo-

I've just ended here by accident :), and would like to throw my opinion in, about the qualification of pseudo-. In my opinion, for something to be scientific, it should first be able to make predictions (of course String theory might be an exception :) ), it should be falsifiable. I don't know much about Aetherometry, then it contains the term 'aether' which I have read about. I don't have much time reading about that exactly Aetherometry is, since the article doesn't really bring anything which could be used for me to know what is or is not Aetherometry. Is eather biology, Aetherometry? There was an article published in the Experimental and Molecular Pathology, Volume 78, Issue 3, June 2005 about Aetheric biology. Is Dirac-type aether part of Aetherometry, or vacuum-aether, or Dirac's random aether? Is Isaac Newton's electrical aether hypotheses of nervous transmission, part of Aetherometry? An article has been published about it in Brain and Cognition Volume 51, Issue 1). What part of Superluminal radiation, is called Aetherometry? Are the overal Aether theories and take on fine structure constant, Aetherometry? Are the interpretation of an aether drift said experiments based on Mössbauer effect, Aetherometry?

Now about pseudophysic qualification. I don't think the existance of cathegories with the term 'pseudo' are Wiki, if there are people who opposes of the qualification pseudo. But if most in the academia consider it pseudophysic, it should be mentioned in the article, but I find the existance of cathegories with terms like 'pseudo' partisan and unwiki. Fad (ix) 21:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Fadix, Aetherometry is certainly "falsifiable" - it is based on experiments, it draws conclusions from those experiments, it proposes hypotheses, it makes predictions. It may be in error in some ways, and correct in others. There is nothing mystical about it - it follows the scientific method, and can be tested, argued and challenged in accordance with the scientific method.

As for your other questions, I am not familiar enough with the theories and articles you mention to answer them in any depth, and neither would this be the proper place. Aetherometry is a very specific conceptual framework for understanding and studying the Aether. Not all theories of the Aether are Aetherometry. Aetherometry has its own "aether biology", i.e. its own understanding of the role of massfree energy, as Aetherometry understands it, in biological processes. But I am sure not all "aether biology" is aetherometric. And "Aetherometry" is not a term that encompasses diverse theories of the Aether, such as Dirac's or Newtons. It is, as I said, a very specific science which proposes its own very specific framework. I do hope this helps. FrankZappo 16:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Read the wikinfo article in the references, which is written by one of the authors of the pseudotheory. This seems like a clear case of pseudophysics. Note the following features of that article:

• Absurd claims:
  • "has generated entirely new, algebraic expressions that provide exact formulations for a wide variety of fundamental constants, laws and processes of physics", especially "the total energy of a system" (believing that exact physical measurements of such a quantity can be made is nonsensical, to say the least)

"Exact formulations" is the same as "exact physical measurements"? Tsk tsk. FrankZappo 15:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• • Exact calculations of "all nonfictional conventional constants and units" (calculation of units doesn't even make much sense - I assume they mean the conversions between units).

You skipped the phrase "in the exclusively aetherometric meter-second system". The theory provides exact calculations of the values of units of mass, capacitance, voltage, charge, and others, in terms of meters and seconds. Conversions are also calculations, you know. FrankZappo 15:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• • Claims of measurements made in violation of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle - note that the author calls this something else, an example of her use of rather needlessly confusing and jargon-filled nomenclature. This alone, without the theory, would be quickly accepted by a peer reviewed journal if done properly.

Yes, Aetherometry conflicts with the Heisenberg principle. Whether or not this is a matter for jeering would depend very much on the reasons, grounds, methods, and so on, that lead to this conflict, no? That is, if the evaluator is a real scientist, rather than a hack. FrankZappo 15:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Completely jargon filled writing style, that sounds like a press release for a new computing technology, and seems to use terms in a somewhat random manner. The density of jargon-like terms here is higher than that of any advanced math book I have ever read, and hardly any of the terms are explained, leading me to believe the reason behind the jargon is the same as the reason for jargon in press releases. The text actually looks like it is from a Markov chain.

It's a new conceptual framework, and uses a new language. The language and the concepts and the way of thinking take getting used to and it take an effort to understand them. Like with all new conceptual frameworks. FrankZappo 15:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Complete misunderstanding of basic concepts in various current theories. In the paragraph about vacuum energy, the author refers to the Cosmic Microwave Background as vacuum energy. This is completely wrong. The CMB consists of photons from decoupling in the early universe, and is very well explained by current theories. The vacuum energy which the author equates to the CMB has very different properties.

You misread, as per Pgio. FrankZappo 15:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Claims of absurd technologies in development: an "antigravity" "lift technology" (theories like this always have antigravity), "table-top nuclear fusion reactor" (despite fusion not really making sense without relativity and various QFTs), and best of all, a "leukemia early-detection kit"! The author claims that at least some of these are "fully developed".

The concept of nuclear fusion does not make sense without relativity and QFTs? Come come. And what proof do you have that the technological claims are indeed "absurd", and that those technologies that are claimed to be fully developed, are not in fact fully developed? These are all just your opinionsFrankZappo 15:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

From these, I think that the claim that this is a pseudotheory can hardly be contradicted by a knowledgeable, rational person. I am sure that many murderers maintain that they are innocent - does this mean that Category:Murderers is POV and unwiki? Note also that one must agree to not publish materials "injurious" to the authors in order to read their papers, from my understanding of their EULA for their papers. --Philosophus 07:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but the "objections" you raise are neither a manifestation of rationality nor of knowledge. They seem to me a manifestation of bias, shoddy understanding, knee-jerk reactions, and replacing badly-digested received "wisdom" for thought. And where, pray, in the two passages you quote below from the Akronos EULA is there any demand that the reader must not publish material injurious to the authors??? FrankZappo 15:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

From the EULA:

8. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY: In no event will AKRONOS Publishing or the Authors 
be liable for any consequential, indirect, incidental, punitive or special damages, 
including any expenses, lost profits or lost savings arising out of the use or loss 
of use of any AKRONOS publications, or of any of the devices described in any of 
the offered publications.

9. INDEMNITY: AKRONOS Publishing, as well as the authors, shall have full indemnity
from each customer against any illegal or injurious activities by such customer,
including any illegal and injurious material placed on the World Wide Web by such
customer.

Now, was that misinformation or disinformation? Pgio 09:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Note: I apologise for the comparison with murderers, but it is the best comparison I could find quickly. In addition, please excuse my previous edit - I am not sure how to link to categories without adding them to the page. --Philosophus 07:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

precede them with semicolon. viz. Category:Merderors --GangofOne 07:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Merderors! I love it! Pgio 09:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

As you may not know, the entry at wikinfo, this one , not the other one, [6] is actually the very first version of the wikipedia page, that got copied to wikiinfo by its author, User:Helicoid, and that over the previous 8 months or so has been twisted and tortured in debate to the version seen today. And yet you provide us with an example of a person who read the original text, and was not harmed by it, actually using your native intelligence instead of expecting to be told what to believe. "... the claim that this is a pseudotheory can hardly be contradicted by a knowledgeable, rational person." Maybe the last 7 months of tortured debate on the issue was unnecessary. --GangofOne 08:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Waitaminute, new-user-to-protect-your-privacy Philosophus and singer of songs GangofOne. First, Askanas is not an author of the theory. Second, as I have stated before, the language is not jargon; the terms are precise but non-obvious unless one studies the analytical process that produced them. Third, your assertion about units is silly; of course they're talking about interconversion of units; that's the whole point of a system of units! Fourth, the article doesn't equate the CMB with vacuum energy; the CMB remains the same ol' photons. That paragraph is referring to the properties of a 'vacuum' energy that they assert produces the CMB. And, at last with the first, if you believe talking about the exact energy of a system is nonsensical, perhaps it is only because of the imprecision of mainstream physics with regard to the properties and nature of energy. The claims you call absurd make plenty of sense when you've stepped through the sources and consequences of this imprecision.

So in short, you've misread and mis-thought in your rush to judgement, a rush that included comparing, it seems, the proponents of Aetherometry with murderers. Apologize, sure, but let's hope you're never on a jury. GangOfOne, I don't think you've got the ringing endorsement you want, and I will note as well that the bulk of the page, which I authored, has not changed since I introduced it. No-one's been messing with the actual material on Aetherometry, merely inserting objections in introductory material (and in one case adding more introductory material from the Wikinfo article.) So the seven months of tortured debate have apparently been between people who understand what they're talking about and people who don't; if they did, they might have something a bit more rational to say about the science of the article. Pgio 09:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nomenclature cleanup

I am trying to clean up the rather bizarre nomenclature on this page, and would like suggestions about these changes:

• 'conventional or Lorentz electrodynamics and photon theory' to 'Classical and Quantum electrodynamics'
• 'relativity and the equivalence principle' to 'the equivalence principle, and thus special and general relativity'

Furthermore, I have questions about the following:

• 'blackbody spectral background' in Conflicts as conflicting with a variety of things. Was this actually supposed to be about the CMB? How does a change in the cause of blackbody radiation create these conflicts?
• 'dark massfree energy': the conflicts section states that Aetherometry conflicts with dark energy in general.
• Is the signed wikinfo source a credible source for adding claims here? If so, the article indirectly states that Aetherometry is incompatible with Quantum Mechanics in general, as it purports that measurements may be made in violation of the uncertainty principle. If this is a credible source, I would like to add this statement.
• The wikinfo article and the Correas' website least a variety of "technologies" "in development". Why are some of these not given as examples on this page? If the Correas make these claims, I would think that supporters of Aetherometry could not object, while I believe that they would add support to the psuedophysics categorisation.

No, the mere fact that people claim to have a variety of technologies in development, however outlandish these technologies may sound, is not support for the label "pseudophysics" or "pseudoscience". The only support from such a label would come from examining the grounds on which the claim was based. The fact that they sound outlandish is not a scientific or encyclopedic argument. FrankZappo 15:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• How does "massfree energy" differ from potential energy?

You think potential energy is what creates space, time and matter? Good for you, good for you. FrankZappo 15:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice if someone who knows about the subject would add something about how particles exist in the theory if it conflicts with QM, and if I am incorrect in believing this, add something, maybe an action, to explain how electrons and photons are explained without QED, and how QM is formulated without the uncertainty principle. --Philosophus 09:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Jeez Philosphus, please try to understand the nomenclature before you change it. Changing 'photon theory' to 'QED' is not correct or equivalent, but if you'd like to add QED to the list, that would be accurate. I've answered tons of questions on this talk page already and would really appreciate it if you could read through the material here first. Pgio 09:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] time to move the edit war

If you want to dispute whether aetherometry classifies as pseudophysics, please take this edit war to. Because you don't categorise an article under a particular category if it's already categorised as a subcategory under that category. Therefore, the qualifiers for pseudophysics/pseudoscience shoudl be disputed at this category instead. Not that I support edit warring of course. Elle _{vécu heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 14:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I have decided to read about it

And I had to conclude that whater or not it is pseudo- is a non-issue, since this article in my opinion should be deleted. We can not start creating articles about the theory of each scientist that has unconventional ideas. Maybe a little section in an article about aether would be OK, but Wikipedia is not a host for whomever want to make public their theories.

That aetherometry is the truth, or a better interpretation of things doesn't make it a wiki article, I am quite open to new theories, but that doesn't mean that a subject of physic ignored by the very large majority in the field of physique should have its article. Fad (ix) 18:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry if this is inappropriately intervening, but I am new to Wikipedia, although interested in more knowledge about it. I must agree with Fad(ix). To me it is shocking that Wikipedia editors would keep in Wikipedia such a controversial entry about so little known subject and spend so much time on it, when it is impossible to tell who is right. This is only bad blood and bad public relations for Wikipedia. It is bad from mainstream science view, because it looks that Wikipedia allows unverified science, and it is bad from alternative science view, because it looks that Wikipedia treats other ways of thinking badly. And to me it looks like it is against strict Wikipedia rules, too, to have such entry. Am I wrong? Please forgive my bad English. I am named Janusz Karpinski. It is now 21:27, 12 January 2006.

Janusz, you should look at my somewhat rambling and poorly worded response on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pseudoscience. Also, you should sign up for an account: it is easy to do, and will make it much easier for us to communicate with you. See WP:WHY for more reasons to do so. --Philosophus 06:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Philosophus, I came back here to answer your questions after reading the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pseudoscience bit, but I first must ask: why do you think quantization is impossible in Aetherometry? The whole thing as about combinations of energy quanta. I trust you are separating the concept of quantization from later conclusions and interpretations of Quantum Mechanics (especially metaphysical questions) as quantization can exist quite happily without the ghostly quantum world. Pgio 07:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heliciod: undeclared interest?

According to Knucmo2, User:Helicoid is Malgosia Askanas, a friend of the Correas [7]. K seems to think this might be generally known; I certainly didnt know it (and other than K's word still don't). I don't know who Askanas is, either. But if he *is* a friend of the Correas, he has an undeclared interest which is dodgy. William M. Connolley 14:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC).

I've found evidence from here: Wikipedia: A Techno-Cult of Ignorance

Malgosia Askanas here is credited as a co-author of "Wikipedia: A Techno-Cult of Ignorance" along with Paulo Correa and Alexandra Correa, proponents of the theory: Aetherometry. On page two of this polemic I found this:

Dr. M. Askanas (under the User name "Helicoid") submitted to Wikipedia, 
in good faith, an entry on the topic of Aetherometry.

This led me to conclude that Helicoid is actually Askanas, who has also helped the Correas co-author:

• Correa, P, Correa, A & Askanas, M (2002) "Atmospheric electricity, latent heat, and ambipolar radiation: a new view of geophysics and meteorology, challenging the primacy of ionization theory"

Has wrote articles on aetherometry such as:

• Askanas, M (2004) "The Making of the Difference: A review of Dr. Paulo and Alexandra Correa's Experimental Aetherometry", Akronos Publishing, Concord, ON, Canada.

That's about it.--Knucmo2 15:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

That was my suspicion too, based on analysing their writings...but then again, I didn't mention this until now because I didn't want to do any original research (a la Sigmund Freud ;-)). Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 15:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

first mention of Askanas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aetherometry/Archive2#Trimmage 25 Jun 2005

"4. The results have been reviewed by peers, including OH engineers, have been published in IE (which has a scientific board) or published by Akronos Publishing. Please remark that all peers who have reviewed their work have made public their views. They are all positive: Dr. E. Mallove, Dr. H. Aspden, Mr. U. Soudak, Prof. A. Axelrad, dr. M. Askanas, Prof. W. Tiller, Dr.L. Balula, Dr. H. Brinton, D. Pratt, T. Bearden, M. Carrell."

ok that's hint she's in the inner circle.

later that same page:

Talk:Aetherometry/Archive2#To Guettarda, concerning Correa's degree "Helicoid, or should I say Dr. Askanas? .... GangofOne 29 June 2005 03:02 (UTC)"

Weren't you paying attention?

This was immediately after this page was created: http://wikinfo.org/wiki.php?title=User:Malgosia_Askanas June 28, 2005. {Wikinfo allows signed articles, if the author will confirm true identity, not subject to edits by others.} This is the exact page that was originally posted to wikipedia by Helicoid. The link is in External sites all this time.

I thought everybody (who bothers to read T:Aeth) knew this since June.

What's "dodgy" about the fact that Helicoid/Askanas is an associate of the Correas? (By the way, she has her own websites and maillists, just google around if you care. or see http://wikinfo.org/wiki.php?title=User:Malgosia_Askanas ) I think of it as failure of scholarship on your part, not dodginess on hers. ~~ GangofOne 17:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

copied from User_talk:Knucmo2#Aetherometry : "I didn't know that. I couldn't find Helicoids identity in the polemic either, though perhaps I didn't search hard enough. I suspect that most other eath editors don't know, and I think it makes Helicoids fervent support there against wiki policy. I've added a note at t:ae [1]. William M. Connolley 14:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)."

which wiki policy is that? --GangofOne 18:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I very much doubt that many people here were aware that Helicoid had a direct personal interest in aetherometry. I wasn't. Expecting people to remember 6 months old talk is wrong. As to the policy: Wikipedia:Autobiography sez: You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved.... I agree this doesn't forbid involvement; I think it does forbid the heavy POV pushing Helicoid has done. William M. Connolley 18:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC).

Are you involved in Climate change ? --GangofOne 19:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll explain what I'm getting at. I don't see the applicability of Wikipedia:Autobiography. The article is not about a group of people and their activites. Aeth..ry proports to be the study of phenomena of nature, just as meteorology is the study of nature, and this article is about (their concept of) those phenomena, just as your research papers are about the weather. Now if the topic were the History of the Study of Aether/Weather, then both parties would be involved autobiographically, and your warnings would apply. Of course, maybe I'm missing something, feel free to disagree. --GangofOne 19:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, hypothetically speaking, lets say an article for the theory of evolution doesn't exist. Suppose Charles Darwin (lets say he's alive), comes along to Wikipedia. Suppose it's still quite new and controversial (think pre-Scopes), just that we have Wikipedia then. He's not alone as well - there are all these competing theories of evolution. It is recommended he should refrain from creating an article about the entire nature of evolution, but he can get involved in the article after its created (and its sub-articles, after that, ie. different articles dealing with case studies, subconcepts, etc.) Ideally, this would work out because if it was that significant, notable, and such, this would get resolved very quickly. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 01:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current state of article

I have read the old AfD (June, 2005) and perused the original page history, the latest history and some discussions here and in the (extensive) archives. I will first summarize what I see as the state this article is in, and then ask some questions.

[edit] State of article

• The current text gives a lengthy overview of the main features of Aetherometry, using careful selected words to show that these are claims made by the authors (of the theory). This seems needed to keep in line with WP:NPOV.
• There are (small) sections that describe this theory as
  • ...aetherometry is not supported by scientific consensus, being in conflict with established theories...
  • Some Aetherometry theories are in direct conflict with several well-established scientific theories, most notably...
• Then we have two large sections called Theory and Experiments following the same idea of creating NPOV by using words equivalent to claim.
  

Previously, at the conclusion of the AfD, this article contained a few paragraphs describing the main ideas of Aetherometry and an essay about its status in current science. As such is was voted to be kept, with what I see as the main argument that it is notable enough as a "non-mainstream theory" (to be quoting politely) and to be kept, but some cleanup was requested. The follow up work changed its structure to the described version as we have now.

[edit] Question

• Why does this article contain this extensive coverage of novel concepts and ideas without reputable source references, when this clearly goes against WP:NOR, section What is excluded?
• If the AfD concluded that this theory is notable as "non-mainstream", why is the focus of the article so skewed to the minutiea of its internal workings, instead of its place in current scientific discourse? If this is the encyclopedic core of Aetherometry in WP, doesn't this need more prominence?
• Is it possible that a small set of insistent contributors are driving this article with little regard to WP:V, WP:NOR, and maybe even WP:CIVIL?
  

Awaiting feedback below... Awolf002 18:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

You make some excellent points, and your last question deserves the answer Yes (sadly). I would suggest that the article be considerably shortened, and some caveats at the beginning be strengthened. I'm sorry to say I hadn't realised quite how much this stuff had lengthened out. William M. Connolley 19:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC).

I think there are several issues being raised here.

• First, if it is agreed that what is wanted is a shorter article, I would propose that Pgio and myself, as the people most familiar with aetherometry, work out a shorter article, along the lines of (but not identical to) the article that was there at the end of the AfD. I say "not identical to", because the stresses in that article were somewhat weirdly placed (e.g. a lot about influences instead of what aetherometry actually purports to be), and some of it was hasty and outright ungrammatical. This new short version could then be discussed here, and modified as needed.
• Second, I am not quite sure (and never was) what was meant by "notable" in that AfD. It seemed to be based mainly on a count of Google hits. I am not sure Google is any measure of true scientific notability. The fact is, as far as I know, aetherometry does not figure in mainstream scientific discourse at all. Can it still be called "notable"?
• Third, is it possible to settle the issue of categorization to some kind of general satisfaction, please? It is really true, you know, that in an encyclopedia, the claim that something is regarded by the scientific community as not following the scienitific method, i.e. is "pseudocience", cannot be based simply on the fact that one thinks it sounds wacko. It is my personal belief - and I've said this so many times that I have to apologize for saying it again - that if Wikipedia wants to have articles on very minoritarian scientific views, it needs a new category whose application does not involve making unsubstantiated claims like "pseudoscience". I am not saying that nothing can, in good scientific conscience, be claimed to be "pseudoscience". If there is reputable evidence that the scientific community thinks the given field does not follow the scientific method, then the label "pseudoscience" can honestly be applied. But not otherwise. FrankZappo 19:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Hold on a second, FrankZappo, maybe I was not clear enough, but I started this discussion to find consensus, first. It would not help much to re-write the article in large section, if there is on consensus, what it should convey. Please, be patient with this discussion thread for a bit, or we will just re-start all the "shouting."

Your second and third point goes to the underlying issue of the last edit war about the category. This "fight" is a proxy for the outcome of this discussion about what the "thrust" of this article should be:

• 1. Aetherometry is a non-mainstream "protoscience" with "scientific notability," of which details need to be described using reputable secondary sources (as of WP:NOR and WP:V) and some detail about why it is not "mainstream" (yet).
• 2. It is notable instance of "pseudoscience", of which mainly its reason(s) for notability is described and some overview of its main claims are given, with reasonably fair outlines of its problems with current science.

I also want to give you heads-up regarding your question in your third point, as on what grounds I would "decide" what to do, at the end of this discussion:

• Scientific notability IMO comes from the scientific community noting that theory. There seems to me no other way. Maybe I can use an example from your profession (that I'm ignorant of, sure) of Innocent until proven guilty. This concept is not applicable to work using the scientific method. The originator of a scientific theory has the onus to convience its related scientific community of its value! This is done by publishing in the community-wide read, mostly peer-reviewed journals. A theory is not notable until it can "prove" it is (Science is what science does). Like it or not, this is also the way we as non-specialists can trust that this notability is well earned. Someone argueing that Aetherometry has scientific notability needs to show this, I think, following again WP:NOR and WP:V. This would then IMO make it a protoscience.
• Notability (for a pseudoscience) is not based on its scientific merits, but its noted place in common culture or history. The consensus from the AfD was that this holds. A "google test" can be one input to this evaluation, yes, but it is not the only one.

To summarize, let's find consensus on whether to follow path 1) or 2) and then change or re-write this article. (Sorry for rambling a bit) Awolf002 22:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

AWolf002, I am sorry, but your dichotomy is incorrect. You write above as if a theory that was not scientifically notable was therefore a pseudoscience. This is not a legitimate conclusion. A pseudoscience is something that has been submitted to rigorous scientific review and found to be in violation of the scientific method. I could be doing science on a desert island or in a cloister, in most rigorous obedience to the scientific method, and never have it reviewed by, or even known by, the scientific community. It would not thereby become "pseudoscience". I think the first step must be to move away from this illegitimate and antiscientific dichotomy. FrankZappo 00:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Barring a major change in the situation or a significant Wikipedia policy shift (SPOV, Troika, a different kind of NPOV), I do not believe that consensus on one of those two paths is possible at the current time. One group will continually rant about how the field is not a pseudoscience, and the other will continually rant about how it is. The two groups can't even agree on what a pseudoscience is!

That said, I have a proposal. We could make this article very short - possibly four or five paragraphs:

• A paragraph of introduction and history, with the note that the field is rejected by the general scientific community (I think we can agree on that), but that supporters of the theory believe this to be because of problems in that community.
• Two paragraphs about the basic concepts and applications of the field, with use of "claim", etc. instead of statements of fact, but probably written mostly by supporters.
• A paragraph with three or four of the largest conflicts with mainstream theories, and short responses to these claims. But Wikipedia shouldn't be used to debate theories, in my opinion.

Then, we could link to a highly supportive article and highly critical article on wikinfo, so that both sides could fight as much as they want elsewhere, in a manner that would not be a detriment to information access and stability here. I don't really think that discussions of this theory's validity belong on Wikipedia - it is an encyclopedia, and neither the place to extoll the wonders of theories nor to hack away at them.

As for the Pseudoscience category, perhaps we could add a Claimed/Alleged Pseudoscience category for cases such as this article, and use the Pseudoscience category for historical cases and obvious pseudoscience, like Numerology, Intelligent design, and others. This would keep the pseudoscience term, which I believe many will refuse to give up, but remove the judgement-passing part of the categorization, where I believe the primary objection to the categorization lies.

I hope I am being reasonable here, I am trying to be as neutral as possible. I do have a strong bias, but am trying to find a situation which will keep this pointless fighting out of Wikipedia. --Philosophus 03:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

What in the world is wrong with "non-mainstream science"? That's precisely what Aetherometry is. Or, how about "Not Mainstream Science". Perfect. Doesn't say it's science, doesn't say it's not. Complete neutrality. "Claimed/Alleged Pseudoscience" is ridiculous. It means that "it is claimed or alleged that the scientific community alleges that the endeavour does not follow the scientific method". What sense does it make to claim or allege that the scientific community alleges something? And who presumably claims or alleges this? Wikipedia? Then, if it's not a verifiable claim, it is POV, no? FrankZappo 04:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

To FrankZappo:

You might have a point in general, but not for the case of Aetherometry. This theory is not on an island or just in the head of somebody. It is actually in the public realm and claims to have scientific value and notability, right? It has a website and proponents publish their books on it. Then only the two options listed above are left, I think. For this attempt to get to consensus on the "classification" of this article, we need to know if this theory has been evaluated by the science community and what the outcome of that evaluation was. In this "decision", I myself would classify Aetherometry as pseudoscience, if the current situation after all these years of work (at least since 2001, right?) on this theory is one of these cases: (a) It was found in "violation" of the scientific method, or (b) It was rejected outright (e.g. no papers accepted) as having "no merit," or (c) the proponents never seriously tried to have it evaluated.

But that's just me, let us see what the rest of the WP contributors think. Awolf002 03:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, if you are serious about "consensus", rather than staging yet another cover-up for pushing a pre-determined agenda through, then you will have to be a bit less cavalier with words. You throw about the term "notability", without giving it any meaning, and then you briskly pull out of a hat a claim that Aetherometry claims "notability". I don't think Aetherometry is particularly concerned with "notability", and I cannot recall it ever making any such claim about itself. May I ask where you got this from? Then, equally briskly, you inform us that if a theory has never been evaluated by the scientific community, then it is "pseudoscience" - a term which is defined as pertaining to endeavours that have been evaluated by the scientific community and found in violation of the scientific method. Gimme a break. Always the same old tricks, the same condescension, the same shoddiness - only the usernames change. FrankZappo 04:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Awolf, you really are making a leap there, considering you're basing your conclusions on theories a, b and c which you don't attempt to verify. But to your courses of action above, what if there simply is no reference literature on Aetherometry? In other words, is Aetherometry a protoscience still too new to garner attention and review in the scientific literature? I think you'll find that's the case. You certainly won't find any literature declaring it a pseudoscience, unless there's something in the new Skeptic or whatever. The only people calling it a pseudosciene are the critics on this talk page, acting on what I would call self-imposed ignorance and bias. So, without those references, perhaps we can only conclude that Aetherometry doesn't meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and therefore we have a third option: AFD. Pgio 08:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

To Pgio: There already was an AfD, about six months ago. It concluded with the consensus to keep, right? I see no reason to re-open a new AfD so close after the last one.

As to my three criteria for a "pseudoscience" label for Aetherometry, I'm just telling you what I think is a good way to approach any theory with that status and history. In the light of its lengthy history of published books, I would not think it is "too new to garner attention." Awolf002 13:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

"I would not think" is an opinion. And if you were more familiar with how "scientific attention" works, with respect to new theories generated outside the institutional framework and conflicting with "accepted" ways of thinking, you would most likely hold a very different opinion. FrankZappo 15:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

To FrankZappo: I think you have formulated your stance on this discussion pretty concise by now, thank you. Awolf002 13:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

To all: I would like to hear the opinion of other WP contributors, as well, since that would move this discussion closer to a consensus conclusion. Don't be shy. :-) Awolf002 13:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

To Philosophus:

Why give up so soon?? This discussion just started a few hours ago. Do you really think we can not come to a consensus? Awolf002 03:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

You might want to contribute to the debate here

[edit] Question from Janusz Karpinski about peer-reviewed journals

Hi, this is Janusz Karpinski. User Psychologesetz, in aetherometry Articles for Deletion page, voted to keep aetherometry entry because aetherometry appears in peer-reviewed journals. If it appears, maybe then I am in error that claims about aetherometry are not verifiable. Does Dr. Connolley know about these journals? Could you please say what they are and who writes in them about aetherometry? Why are there no references to them in Wikipedia aetherometry entry? Are they reputable sources of majority and minority opinions? Sincerely, Janusz. Januszkarp 16:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like an unlikely claim; the pro-ae people would have listed them by now. William M. Connolley 17:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC).

That's right, I agree with WMC that this seems like an unlikely claim. Surely the pro-ae contributors would have listed such information by now. TTLightningRod 17:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, your reasoning seems correct, and I think it holds the same way for other side. If you, Dr. Connolley, or any of many other people who do so much work to keep label "pseudoscience" or "pseudophysics" in article, could support this label with reputable peer-reviewed sources, these sources would be listed by now. Sincerely, Janusz. Januszkarp 18:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if our purpose is complete accuracy, then the truth is that the "pro-ae" people have repeatedly listed references to peer-reviewed journals that have published articles about Aetherometry, and references to peers who have perfromed reviews of aetherometric publications or technologies and made the results of their reviews public. But these references have always been rejected as not coming from reputable sources, by the somewhet circular logic that if these journals publish, or these individuals favorably review, such things as Aetherometry, then they cannot be regareded as reputable. These vicious-circle discussions repeat again and again on the Aetherometry Talk pages. But I think, Janusz, that they do substantiate your point that the situation is unresolvable and that Wikipedia is simply not the place for such topics. I feel you're right - whatever the individuals involved in the conflict may think of each other, the bottom line is that both sides are put in an impossible situation. FrankZappo 19:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Sadly you said all those words, and notably failed ot provide even a single refernce; when just a ref would solve the discussion. Come on then: whats your best ref? Non-vanity press, must be in ISI citation index. William M. Connolley 20:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC).

Oh, here we go again. Round and round. Just shows that Janusz is right. FrankZappo 21:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, you can't think of one right now. How about a diff to one of those oh-so-many times you listed them? William M. Connolley 21:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC).

In the closing of Colin Steele's, "Let's dumb-up (journal citation) impact factors", we find this little gem: ...."It was quite clear from Sir Gareth Roberts's presentation in Australia to the NSCF Roundtable that for the UK RAE, that in certain science disciplines the existing citation data, ie the ISI data, could be taken at face value. This reaffirms the power of the ISI citation indexes because to the administrators it is a ready made tool for measurement, although they are often unaware of the problems in the use of the data, eg the need for bibliographical cleansing, the differences between different disciplines, the lack of coverage of certain subjects, author self-citation patterns, etc."

She also offered this link which I think paints the picture of how Scientist like WMC get, and keep getting funded. http://books.guardian.co.uk/posysimmonds/page/0,12694,1334031,00.html

No matter, I'm still interested in going with WMC's demand that the material should show up in his ISI before we can solve the citation question. No citation, no debate. No citation in ISI, no wiki article on original research. TTLightningRod 22:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

May I ask you what point you are trying to make? There are ample refs to peer-reviewed publications on the subject of Aetherometry at [8]. This webpage, and the items in it, have been cited again and again. Nobody ever made any claims that these were mainstream publications, and you have made it clear that they do not fulfill your requirements as references. However, as far as I can see, Psychologesetz's claim did not mention anything about ISI, it only said "peer-reviewed". That means precisely and only: reviewed by peers - which a number of the publications listed on the webpage I cited, are. Probably Psychologesetz's standards are not the same as yours. I have seen your description of your standards many times now, and you have seen, and rejected, the publication list many times now. So what is the point of doing this schtick again? FrankZappo 22:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Your link [9] is a pile of vanity publishing. There may be some real papers in there, but the vanity is so deep its just not worth the sifting. If you think there is a single genuine peer-reviewed paper in the whole lot that is actually about aetherometry, please point it out. I couldn't see one. William M. Connolley 22:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC).

I could not find anything useful there. Nearly every article is directly self-published or in "Infinite Energy". The medical papers look better, but I don't know enough about the field to really judge (and anyways, they are off-topic).--Stephan Schulz 23:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] http://www.encyclopedianomadica.org/bin/view/AethMetry/Aetherometry

If we ever need it, the official page appears to be http://www.encyclopedianomadica.org/bin/view/AethMetry/Aetherometry

(ps: User:Mel Etitis deleted the talk page; I'm just off to ask him why; I've just undeleted it)

William M. Connolley 22:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Categories: Main pages with misplaced talk page templates | Wikipedia controversial topics | Aether theories