User:Natalinasmpf/aetherometry discussion/Archive1

Contents 1 The debate: the hoax defense, and the virtuous NPOV squad 1.1 Helicoid's best defense is attack 1.2 Rebuttal by Singaporean Anarchist who accuses Helicoid of being a mental-slav 2 Category

[edit] The debate: the hoax defense, and the virtuous NPOV squad

[edit] Helicoid's best defense is attack

Dear PJacobi,

I have been wondering how long it would take the Wikipedia Science Purification Squad to descend upon the Aetherometry series. I am pleased to see, once again, that the Mouse Police never sleeps - it took considerably less than 24 hours.

If you give me good reasons why a long article would be more readable than a short one, I will consider merging all the Aetherometry articles into one - but you have so far provided no cogent reasons at all. I am sorry to say that standard wisdom is rather against your suggestion, and even in Wikipedia:Long_article_layout one receives the following guideline:

"Long articles should be split into a series, if possible -- each with a useful, short title."

So I suspect that your idea that the articles should be merged is motivated purely by a desire to harass me. You're welcome to prove me wrong.

As for stylistic changes, I am sure that I, and my coworkers, will be making some over time; but for now, since this article is actually more carefully edited than a host of other Wikipedia articles I have seen, I would say that the need for stylistic changes is quite non-urgent.

You have seen fit to rush in and stamp all the Aetherometry pages with the alarm sign "The factual accuracy of this article is disputed." I would like to understand who is disputing it, and what precisely this dispute consists in. As far as I know, I have, to the contrary, reported the principles and findings of Aetherometry with painstaking accuracy. Is it you who is disputing the "factual accuracy" of these articles? If you are knowledgeable enough in the field of Aetherometry to make such claims, I will be happy to correct any factual inaccuracies concerning aetherometric research that might have crept into these articles. So please, either support your "dispute" with actual knowledge, or stop throwing your weight around in areas you know little about.

Finally, you see fit to pin on the articles the label "pseudoscientific". This label seems to be one of the numerous tools that the Wikipedia bureaucracy has developed in order to aid incompetent bullies in censoring those who are more competent. Are you a working scientist? What have you done, created, discovered, risked, defended? What are your scientific achievements? Why do you take it upon yourself to judge the scientific work of others? Why do you need to get your rocks off by acting as enforcer for a scheme in which what is "science" is decided on the basis of popular opinion, media coverage, and bean-counting? Phooey, Mr. Jacobi.

Yours,

Helicoid

It's not the choice between five short one or one long one. One very different, short one is needed. --Pjacobi

[edit] Rebuttal by Singaporean Anarchist who accuses Helicoid of being a mental-slav

Hey, Helicoid, you never have heard of [[NPOV}} and bias? Its your word against ours.

Have you given thought to the notion that this NPOV sounds like a very nice principle but is deeply flawed in that it is always a POV, a biased POV, and that no guarantee of participatory democracy can save it from its bias? Bias, you'll undoubtedly ask? Yes, the bias of accepting institutional science as a religious dogma, as if by being institutional or official it did not have its share of hoaxes, magic, dogma, religion, irrationalism, error. Hell, of fanatic zealots?

You dear sir, are completely misguided. I'm not Jacobi. And ah, you skeptics, who always think that an ideal cannot be reached. You clearly haven't read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view - to represent dominant views as dominant views and minority views as minority views. Clearly, the side advocating aetherometry as truth is a minority view, and only deserves to be represented as such.

there is no certificate of NPOVness. Aetherometry is a minoritarian science. No doubts about it.

There is no "certificate", but NPOV is to represent majority views as majority views, and thus representing them as more significant than the minority view. Therefore, if I proceed to add throughout the article how this is rejected by mainstream science, I see nothing wrong iwth it.

And the "bias of institutional science as religious dogma"? Are you kidding me? Mainstream science uses peer review and requires substantial empirical evidence and discussion. This then removes the hoaxes, magic and dogma. Fanatics? Only to the truth, and proven so by empirical evidence and peer review. -- Natalinasmpf 17:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No scientist would agree with you. Peer-review system is only an ideal system, not a fool-proof one. Scientific institutions are filled with errors, hoaxes, inexact models and concepts. Every scientist knows that. Those that don't are fanatics, no better than religious fanatics.

Tell me when has a scientist disagreed with peer review? Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow. Scientific institutions can't be filled with errors and hoaxes if they are ruled out through peer review, that is the whole concept.

Furthermore, you paint a very personal and derogatory attack and a blanket label upon the Wikipedia community. What "science purification squad"?

The proof is in the pudding. If Wikipedia sticks to these standards manipulated by the unconscionable militancy of those who do not make positive contributions but simply vandalize in the name of juvenile anarcho-communist NPOV's, then it may as well be called Wackopedia. What I see below being gratuitously written about the Correas by uninformed people (maybe in uniform...) is a vicious pogrom filled with stones cast for the hell of it. Is that what Wikipedia is about? It seems strange that an encylopedia project would not mind to underwrite so many easily demonstrable libels.

I am not the sole contributor to this encylopedia: contributing users who have made just more than 3-4 edits especially, can voice their concern if they want, and in fact, I have agreed with a few of them and made accomodations. A pogrom being full of stones? I allege this is charlantry - and presented a vfd to discuss it. There's a very good argument, that if its charlantry, the stones deserve to be cast.

Ah ah, little progromist just like the mao-maos, eh? I do not think that Pietr Kropotkin or Buenaventura Durruti would consider you other than as a neo-stalinist.

I am not suppressing my opposition. I am merely discounting the validity of my opponent's claim. Being for the freedom of speech does not stop me from attacking my opponents verbally, and through constructive criticism. A neo-stalinist? As for calling the authorities, that was said to rub salt in anyhow, considering that if this is indeed fraud, I see nothing wrong with prosecution, just as an anarchist society will ostracise liars.

Wikipedia doesn't care about the welfare of those who commit fraud. How many contributions have YOU made? I've made several thousand, but you're trying to allege your own authority over mine especially since you have cited little actual scientific evidence? -- Natalinasmpf 17:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Who is making a personal attack? Just because I am an anarcho-communist does not disqualify my edits if they are NPOV.

Your edits are Maoist-like. You don't even know what being an anarchist is. You cry for authority every move you make. You have no courage to stand on your feet, get your hands dirty and criticize my submission on Aetherometry on content and substance. I'm amazed that any community would put up with a block-Stalin like you.

Really? How are they Maoist like? Are all you going to do is take potshots? Given that yes, I am tired and do not want to have to explain too much to support what I assumed the rest of Wikipedia would support, and would rather not have to go through a lengthy debate, because its generally accepted that mainstream science is more of the auithority here. "I cry for authority"? Perhaps, scientific stauts quo - I see nothing wrong with it, I just have a problem with sociopolitical status quo - I don't see any problem with accepting mainstream science. Courage to stand on my own feet? I criticised a lot on the subject, I just do not have the time to issue a full, complete rebuttal yet, but I have already recognised a lot of its flaws, especially when I pointed out its conflict with quantum mechanics. Block-Stalin? Ironic, when you gain a few thousand edits, then perhaps you can call me that, as a respected member of the community, but as for now... -- Natalinasmpf 18:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What standards? I think my edits were in the interest of Wikipedia, as Being a "juvenile" does not disqualify my edits any further - talk about a personal attack. Furthermore, this coming from a person confusing me with jacobi.

It does. It is no the matter of your age, though that brings into question what peerdom should you be entitled to. But it is that your mentation is juvenile, that you throw around words as if they were to be swallowed dry on some obscure authority. I can see where my article is above your head. But I think that if you had a good education you should have a better sense of self.

Discrimination most certainly, as you should judge on quality of edits, (viewing my contributions for instance). Peerdom? What? I don't throw around AOLer every single sentence either. And throwing around words? I assume the concept of "peer review", which itself is a concept in anarchism, that is, to have peers check each other, rather than a higher dicatorial authority is a solid concept. Not having a good education? It's above my head? The article is certainly below standard, because it introduces so many neologisms without justifying the explanation of them. An electron for instance, is a fundamental particle. There is no such thing as a massfree/massbound electron, unless you invented some new term to describe an electron's energy level.

This is NPOV business, and furthermore, this scientific concept namely would come into conflicts with quantum mechanics, general relativity, and namely, your championed Tesla himself.

Nothing in science exists that does not come in conflict with something else. But you show little knowledge of fact when you venture that Tesla is in conflict with the concept of the Aether. Get informed and come down from your high horse. You may yet break a leg.

In conflict with such an interpretation of his work, especially considering he may have well changed his mind today, had he lived long enough to see the work of quantum mechanics. Get informed? I hardly doubt that your nonsense is "information". WMC and other contributors can vouch for me. -- Natalinasmpf 17:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vouch for you? WOW, let's have names on the table. Does your daddy have some stock in this operation? Your uncle?

I meant other Wikipedians, obviously. Names, WMC would agree with me that this article is certainly not factual, and seeing the great numbers of papers he has published...my relatives could be bothered, if this piece of pseudoscience was even notable. Names on the table? Irony, considering the so called "sources" you cite aren't even verified, as I fail to see anything SPECIFIC, like a title of a PAPER, page by page, line by line citation. -- 18:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, 24 hours is a dismal time to revert vandalism, which is precisely what your article is, we tend to pride ourselves on reverting it within minutes.

I made a contribution - free from the heart - and you call it vandalism? That's unbiased for you, I guess. See my point above, those who claim to be unbiased often turn out to be the most biased of all, in denial. They cannot even assume the responsibility of bias on their shoulders. They are just NPOVs...Is there a card-carrying certificate of NPOVness? Where can I buy one?

No, because you made a contributing representing a minority view, and asserting this as truth. The majority view asserts otherwise. NPOV is to represent the views proportionally - and the minority view cannot be seen to be more right than the majority view, especially, especially as the major view comes from the scientific community. -- Natalinasmpf 17:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Have you read what Gilles Deleuze wrote about majorities, the way they are easily led by the nose and in silence? Or about minoritarian science, art, philosophy? Your proportional representation is bogus. Knowledge cannot be decided or suppressed on the basis of votes. The Nazis too, and the Mao-Maos had a majority of people on their sides. Partly because the curators of knowledge were as juvenile as you.

Oh wow, a Plato and the "philosopher-king", eh? Who is the Stalinist now? Considering that what, so the masses aren't free to make up their minds, they need someone "more-enlightened" to overrie them. Knowledge can't be decided or suppressed on the basis of votes, granted, but PEER REVIEW - resolves a conflict by attributing the status of "correct" to the theory that can stand up under rigorous plays of the devil's advocate and attacks at it from every turn.

Peer-review never claimed to be a democratic process, let alone one that does away with democratic representation of the capitalist interests behind science to replace it with direct democracy. Your context is ridiculous. Peer-review is not God or Daddy. I have given you many peers who have openly and publicly reviewed the work of the Correas. I could dumpwell over 100 references by them and to them. WHERE ARE YOURS??

If it can still stand up, with evidence, and with numerous citations, in journals, in scientific communities, then it can be called truth. Because simply, being a minority, the minority has even WAY less justification for their views as the majority does.

You simply do not know what you are talking about, neither on Aetherometry or on anarchism or science. You are ignorant and the only excuse you have is your age. NOTHING ELSE. Do you want something more minoritarian than anarcho-communism? Do you want something more fringe in thought, and more condemned to the past???

I do not advocate liberterian majoritarianism to an extent, but not to the type of Mao and the Nazis, because that wasn't particularly liberterian.

Libertarian, with an a not an e. For your continuing education: Nazism never claimed to be libertarian. It claimed fascism (the logic of progroms...). Maoism never claimed to be libertarian either. It was a self-confessed form of Stalinism. Live and learn when you're young.

This is irrelevant however. The proof of mettle is decided by peer review, which is basically democracy and rigorous evidence combined. Its not JUST votes, either, or JUST evidence, it is weighing evidence against the other, and to verify such evidence. Unfortunately, aetherometry appears to be on the losing side here. -- Natalinasmpf 18:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Broken record. Peer-review never claimed to be democracy, let alone open and direct democracy. You're confused.

"Long articles should be split into a series, if possible -- each with a useful, short title." - take a look at Singapore, for existence. That's an example of splitting articles up. However, the sheer non-notability of your scientific hoax doesn't seem to warrant that.

I have committed no hoax. I presented to the best of my abilities what I think Aetherometry is about. The article is factual. If the facts are in error or are a hoax, it's not my hoax. I demand a retraction of your statement. Moreover, you should prove that the science of aetherometry is a hoax. No freedom of speech permits you or Wikipedia to make such bold claims, easily testable in court, without the onus of proving it being on you. You are here showing the extent to which you are irresponsible.

It is a hoax. Your claims come into direct conflict with well-established scientific principles, and could well be labelled a pseudoscientific fraud to gain donations. A retraction? This is what it looks like - charlantry. I have proven the science of aetherometry is a hoax - I argued why in vfd - namely, first thing, the whole concept of "massfree energy" is nonsensical. Energy was free from mass and inertia in the first place, and doesn't have distinctions betweeen the types of energy. Furthermore, the idea of virtual particles and vacuum energy is derived from the uncertainty principle, which already explains a lot of things. Aether, on the other hand.... -- Natalinasmpf 17:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You have proven nothing, you pedantic boy. On the authority of B. Russell, p. 96 of the ABC of Relativity it reads: "At first sight mass and energy are very different things. But it has turned out that energy is the same thing as measured mass." And he goes on to explain how "energy and mass become identified". As mass is by definition inertial, ergo so must one assume that all energy is inertial. There are schools of thought that treat inertia as a separable property, but they are what people like you call pseudoscience. End of lesson.

So I suspect that your idea that the articles should be merged is motivated purely by a desire to harass me. You're welcome to prove me wrong.

We don't even know you. Why would we want to harass you? Most notably oh wait, you're not a mindless slav - oh, I mean "employee" of the Correas are you, here to spread their corporate propaganda?

I can certainly tell you that I am not an employee of the Correas. Are you an employee of Wikipedia?

I am a contributor. Most notably, you are a "follower", who seems to want to push your own POV with little evidence, and assert it as truth. -- Natalinasmpf 17:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you're so dismissive of Wikipedia in its resistance to non-mainstream scientific ideas, then why do you contribute? You are welcome to contribute actual fact and NPOV statements, not advertising, not hoaxes, not pseudoscience in itself, but rather an empirical view on it.

I would like to understand who is disputing it, and what precisely this dispute consists in.

Have you ever seen the article consensus decision-making? Other members do not have to be at the exact time to be represented, if things like vandalism and hoaxes are to be called, and that's what vfd's are for, and that's why I'm calling for one on this article. Furthermore, if it is indeed a misrepresentation, they will come with time.

As far as I know, I have, to the contrary, reported the principles and findings of Aetherometry with painstaking accuracy.

Really? But how do we know that is truly accurate?

I've now sent a copy of the article to the Correas, in the hope they can confirm the factual accuracy or inaccuracy of same.

No. They are not the arbitrators to judge what is accurate or not. It must be submitted through peer review. To judge whether its accurate, more than just the creators must come to look at it. You cannot create something, and call it "accurate" by your own authority - others must look at it, namely, other scientists within the scientific community, passed around in scientific journals, and brought up over coffee with other scientists, and in scientific publications. Books don't exactly count.

Where are your sources?

I have read all of the Correas work, all of Dr, Mallove's work on Aetherometry, all of the books and papers of H. Aspden, including those he has written on the Correas' work, every book and paper by W. Reich and N. Tesla, everything that has been written on the subject by Prof. Em. A. Axelrad, Prof. Em. W. Tiller, Tom Bearden, David Pratt, and so on. It's clear to me that you have read none. So I conclude, as every intelligent human being will, that you are spouting gratuitously. What are your sources?

Spouting gratuitously? You don't get my point. You can't cite the Correas work as a source, because I am disputing THEIR work, which this article is merely a copy of their work (and shouldn't even be so, in the first place, as they should represent their work as their work and not the view of the encylopedia). Furthermore, the Correas work "citing every book and every paper" is not a source. The sources must be cited directly. As in, book by book, page by page, line by line, with clear quotes and elaboration of Tesla's, etc. ideas. And furthermore, citing their work as a source doesn't make it a good source, the source itself must have gone through tons of peer review, and verified, and re-verified again, talked about, the devil's advocate been played, and a whole host of other things to rigorously identify it as truth.

Where is your empirical evidence? Where is the documentation of this empirical evidence?

I only have sources. The Correas, Dr.s Mallove and Aspden, Prof.s Axelrad and Tiller, etc, have presented evidence, plenty of it. Get informed - all the references to the papers, titles, pages, etc, etc, are in the web; and chill out!

That is not evidence, because its not directly cited, page by page, line by line, quote by quote, such that its clearly elaborated, and rigorously sent through peer review. The Correas work, again doesn't count, because a work cannot cite itself as a source, and the sources must be reliable. Unfortunately it seems those sources will be prone to bias as well, and the way to make sure it isn't, is to send it through peer review. As soon as this theory gets into a copy of Nature, or something similar, then tell me that it has a source.

Why doesn't this article represent all views, and in proportion? Furthermore, how do we discount bias? This is stuff you prove with say, notability and external sources, and if God forbid, other users. Stuff that has not provided, making this commercial spam.

If we publish NASA's science at Wikipedia aren't we advertizing NASA and is that not a commercial...spam? Is the point of the NPOV to certify only some commercial operations in science and technology and not others?

THe difference between making it commercial spam and not, is that NASA's work is notable. Spam is when a commercial site represents its work as worthy of the reader's attention in that context of an encylopedia, when its not.

Finally, you see fit to pin on the articles the label "pseudoscientific". This label seems to be one of the numerous tools that the Wikipedia bureaucracy has developed in order to aid incompetent bullies in censoring those who are more competent.

This is ironic, considering that Wikipedia takes pride on itself not to censor, and to be NPOV.

You say this as if its statement and the notion of a NPOV were sufficient guarantors...of what? The truth? What is science and what is not? Of the bias and reactionary nature of mechanisms that put consensus ahead of factual knowledge?

Yes, because mainstream science has methods which are accepted ways of gaining truth, and the NPOV will represent mainstream science as a majority view, and exceptional minority views in their own right, because of course, there are different theories. However, the most rigorously proven theory, heavy emphasis on rigorous, is then the one to be represented as MOST likely.

Bureaucracy? You mean things like vfd's, and WikiProjects? You're calling that bureaucracy? We're generally quite efficient compared to say....Encyclopedia Britannica, its quite ironic isn't it? Its way for a community to come to consensus. "Incompetent bullies"? Tell me, are people like WMC, who also opposes your "scientific concepts", "incompetent"? So wait, I bet all those articles on quantum teleportation, which has sourcs are "incompetent" now huh? I think this is only sour grapes.

What have you done, created, discovered, risked, defended?

What are your scientific achievements? Why do you take it upon yourself to judge the scientific work of others? Why do you need to get your rocks off by acting as enforcer for a scheme in which what is "science" is decided on the basis of popular opinion, media coverage, and bean-counting? Phooey, Mr. Jacobi.

Very ironic, have you? I bet WMC could answer that for you, who has published numerous publications, who have been checked with scientific peer review (*gasp* which you don't have!), and personally your attitude is very unbecoming of a peer contributor in a peer community. I bet open source doesn't fit you huh, little petit bourgeois?

Here, Jacobi or Singaporean-juvenile-Anarcho-Communist, I think that your pinko bias is showing. I challenged your factual ignorance, and you answer by brandishing the POWER of the Wikipedia Commune? Tss, tss, not the mature peer attitude that you parade...Do they cane people in Singapore for this?

Ad hominem again, I see. Pinko bias? Rather, I am more of an extremist, but that is not my point.

Yes, now you speak the truth - an extremist for his zealotry and irresponsible libelling of others who will not agree with you and your poorly founded beliefs.

You challenged my factual ignorance, and I responded by citing the concept of peer review, and by discounting YOUR sources. I allege your sources do not prove my ignorance, or the superiority of your view, because these sources have not been checked, verified, rigorously reviewe and made a valid source. Your snide remarks does not disqualify my statements, unfortunately.

You have failed to provide a single source challenging Aethrometry. You're out buddy.

Popular opinion? This is ironic: are you considering the mainstream scientific community "popular opinion"? Do you really want to consider quantum mechanics and proper candidates for grand unified models non-empirical and popular opinion?

You know what? I think this is nothing but a hoax and a fraud to gain false donations. I'm on the stage of reporting you people to the authorities immediately, good luck as with the same people who tried to scam people off the 2004 Indian Ocean Earthquake. Natalinasmpf 00:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I, for my part, can only think that our Singaporean juvenile is only acting consistently with his anarchist views when he reports Helicoid to the higher authorities.

Not only do you address me wrongly, but you think that my political views, being a Singaporean citizen, and my age makes me any less qualified to defend my edits. Indeed, how ironic, that who is the bigot now? -- Natalinasmpf 17:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are in no position to teach ethics, etiquette or accuse me of ad hominems. Your entire participation has been a series of overt or covert ad hominems. You are a young Mr. State Prosecutor. It sounds like your model of utopia is Singapore - the anarcho-communist paradise. No wonder that the peoples of this world care little for the likes of your vanguardist type. But, eh, yes your 14 years disqualify you - you just do not play violin as well as mozart did at 7 years. But I do not think that mozart's father was very libertarian or anti-authoritarian. Maybe you have just a little familialist problem. Guess what. Have some shame and keep it at home. It is not called the dirty little secret for nothing, you know.

[edit] Category

This cannot be in Category:Applied sciences as no peer-reviewed journal on Applied Sciences has or will accept a paper on this stuff. The question of philosophy is a little bit less clear. Can you you give a reference of a philosopher or a philosophical journal discussing Aetherometry? --Pjacobi 21:42, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

How do you know whether this has been tried or not? What is peer-reviewed? Is Dr. Mallove's publication peer-reviewed by its Scientific Board or not? Is Nature alone peer reviewed?