User:Natalinasmpf/aetherometry discussion/Archive2

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/Archive2.

This is pseudoscientific theory with only a very limited set of supporters. It doesn't occur in peer reviewed journals or in academic research. So

• Coverage should be limited, only one article is needed.
• It must be clearly stated in the article, that this theory is fringe.
• Also some stylistic and formatting changes are to be done.

Pjacobi 18:52, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

Limited set? It only gets 4,000 google hits [1], most of which are repetitive advertising messages, reduced to 200. Looks like a commercial hoax and snake oil, to me. Get rid of it. Even if it was notable, this article does not speak in a neutral language, does not represent the scientific community, and severely undermines the professionalism of Wikipedia. Seems like a hoax for donations. -- Natalinasmpf 23:36, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Aetherometry is a controversial scientific theory and system. The statement that it is pseudoscientific itself needs to be demonstrated by those who cast it (signed Helicoid) Helicoid 04:28, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see, it is only a partial block, and for the heading. I smell corridors of power.

[edit] Notable?

Any evidence this is notable and not just crank stuff? Both of these "books" are self-published. I see no reference to anything that did not originate with these two people. It gets only 6,000 Google hits, most of which are either listserv messages or "free energy" sites linking back to it. As a point of comparison, "Zero Point Energy" get 100,000 hits -- it's clearly a notable topic within this fringe community. I'm not seeing any evidence that "aetherometry" meets notability standards. --Fastfission 22:04, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think this stuff is just rubbish/commercial spam. I've redirected the 3 subpages to here. I would support VFD'ing this stuff too. William M. Connolley 22:11, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC).

While we're here... is anyone up for a wikiproject "keep wacko psuedo-science out of wikipedia"? William M. Connolley 22:11, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC).

I'm actually also for up, "rebut and totally deconstruct pseudoscientific arguments" (ie. even if they weren't mentioned before), like the pseudoscientific, and absolutely misleading pages on "activated oxygen" for the sheer scientific quest of preventing the masses from being misled, for example. How the heck those snake oil peddlers got to the top of google is beyond me. -- Natalinasmpf 23:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I like the pseudoscience articles in general -- if they are well written, they can be a great source of sober information on wacky things. If they are just the practitioners spamming their theories and are devoid of critical content, they are of less use. --Fastfission 23:35, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ah, but at least those articles are notable, and a presentation from an NPOV point of view. Being a subscriber of both evolution and religion, at least that's presented in a philosophical manner. -- Natalinasmpf 23:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Googling "Aetherometry" gives me only 200 relevant, (the other 4000 are repetitve/irrelevant advertising messages) google hits. Looks like a commerical hoax. -- Natalinasmpf 23:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If this will be kept, we have a noble mission for mankind, to create a sober description and critique here. Note that the Google search doesn't find anything like that (if I looked right in agony), the only critical page being a Reichian researcher in Orgon energy who has some differences with the Correas. --Pjacobi 07:01, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

[edit] on Tesla radiation

I see the article has aquired the near-obligatory references to Tesla, in this case "tesla radiation", which is a new one on me, and not (AFAIK) mentioned in any of the existing Tesla pages. William M. Connolley 22:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC).

Try not to censor me again. Tesla radiation or Tesla waves is a term employed commonly to describe Tesla's claims that radiant electricity (what the Correas call ambipolar radiation) was different from conduction currents and identical to Tesla's concept of the Aether. The term is used for example by W. Reich in his "Oranur experiment".

Try not to throw around accusations of censorship. Poor Tesla deserves better than you lot. TR is a term used only by you folk. William M. Connolley 19:48, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're wrong. I just gave you a reference. Nothing can withstand your dixit. You should stick to the vagaries of weather.

[edit] PhD

Paulo Correa claims to have recieved a PhD in Cell and Molecular Biology from the University of Toronto in 1991. Given that this seems like a fairly specific and easily checked claim, I am going to remove the suggestion that it is fraud to give himself the title of doctor, pending any evidence to the contrary. Feel free to email the university to confirm. Dragons flight 22:22, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

It is obvious that Paulo Correa received his PhD, and his MSc. You can go to the horse's mouth at http://aetherometry.com/axelrad_letter.html, and dispense with this puerile red herring. Swallow dry, the guy is a bona fide scientist who has the credentials, a record of peer-reviewed publications and who has been reviewed sufficiently to pay attention to what he says.

Or why don't you email the University of Toronto, then? What's holding you up?

[edit] To those in opposition, (almost hostile) to the subject's simple title and opening:

Quantum Mechanics Theory, as well the highly respected Theory of General Relativity, are widely recognized for their accuracy at predicting subatomic events and dynamics.

This is false. The theory of General Relativity makes no predictions whatsoever about subatomic events or dynamics. You're confusing it with Special Relativity.

However even one of it's preeminent original proponents, Albert Einstein noted his frustration that the theory was incomplete and failed to unify with the theories describing large celestial events, or other large body physics. This gap, still leaves many other well recognized physicists and researchers searching for ether: a still unfound Unified Theory.

As the Correas pointed out, following G. Deleuze, their system is nontotalizing, so a better term would be Einstein's term: a unitarian theory. The term unified field has come to designate a totalizing theory, and that's why they are called TOEs.

And/or: a new language or approach able to address both large and small dimension physics simultaneously. The popularity of names and people aside, and as simply a field of study, the concept of mass-free energy is no more or less valid than any other work-to-date all striving toward a unifying theory. Aetherometry, no matter how offensive it may seem to mainstream understanding, is one of many subject titles like Condensed matter physics vs. String Theory, also working in this highly competitive field.

It may be of note that Aetherometry, as one of many competing physical models, points to a large amount of bench top experimentation, and is offered for independent verification. Equally competitive replication and independent experimental proofing is not offered by the more popular subjects like string theory, or such ideas as the nonlinear sigma model.

Would the opposition consider this a less offensive opening to a controversial subject's initial description? (no matter how poorly initiated the original attempt to describe it) If this somehow reaches to the open minded nature I'm sure you posses, please consider refraining from your string of derision. You have strongly suggested that someone is not who they claim to be, specifically a Doctor in Molecular and Cellular Biology. To claim such without proof, IS a very serious offense.

However, equally offensive is to suggest someone is not who they say they are without having called the accrediting authority. In this case, the University of Toronto, or Prof. Axelrad, the supervisor of Correa's PhD.

Please, if I may point out. The opposition demonstrating an unequal slant of POV, by initiating a strong edit conflict toward deletion of the subject matter entirely. Please consider simply containing (your valid, however slightly overbearing) counter points to the subject matter, to a rightful and necessary =="In Opposition to this Theory, and it's proponents" line item heading, within the very article itself. With all respect, TTLightningRod 16:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I hear you, lightning rod. But here is what I think - that my effort was a good one, and one that could be modified by people of good will. What I will not live with is a botchery or abortion made up by ignorant people, malicious people, or children out to have fun on serious subjects.

The main difference simply is: Aetherometry isn't present in scientific discourse. The combination of this, with the extraordinary claims, and also taking into account who the supporters are, just disqualifies the topic. O.K., nobody can outrule right now, that there is some spark of genius hidden in this theory, but by all measures, it is well hidden. --Pjacobi 19:37, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

Thank you for engaging with clarity. There are a large number of concepts NOT present in mainstream scientific discourse I'm sure you will agree. Could that be one possibility for why scientific discourse has neither a unifying theory, as well a highly fractionalized community on even general relativity. As to extraordinary claims, those can certainly be highlighted and placed squarely at odds with other extraordinary clams, such as sting theory or even Bosonic string theory. (both of which turn the stomach of many open minded people as well)

As to its supporters, if the Correas or their followers do not have some kind of criminal record, or time in jail for confidence schemes, simply "supporting a crazy idea" is hardly a proper inditement upon a crazy idea. Would you agree? If there was a criminal recored, or hoaxwatch.com listing of complaints, (I have not been able to find even one, but if I did) than the hole subject and article can turn into and VERY exiting read of a 20 year con. (there aren't too many of those, and THAT would be even more encyclopedic)

How about getting a hard on with the substance of the theory, the system, the experiments, rather than the couch fantasy of a 20 year-long fakery??

The article smacks of POV, however that is an easily fixable problem. Even if the article is simple reduced to a 100-200 word BALANCED description of a field of study. Again, would you agree? TTLightningRod 20:00, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Wikipedia has not to do its own research, what's science and what's not science. Presence in peer reviewed journals, being taught at universities, etc, pretty much makes this an easy decision, at least for mathematics and the natural sciences. Some editors judge this to be a discrimination of non mainstream theories, but it is just the way an encyclopedia works. The non-mainstream theories have to fight in the academic arena, not in the encyclopedia, for recognition.

If that is the way that an open encyclopedia should work, then you have finally stated the religious dogma of Official science as the dogma of Wikipedia (funny, eh, that I was able to provide so many quotes from established authorities and to have to correct so many wrong takes on matters like QM and General Relativity; it clearly shows who the ignorants are in this exciting discussion!)

BTW, string theory does make very few falsifiable claims, that's just the weak spot of it. But ask User:Lumidek for details.

Theories of everything are a dime a dozen, even in academic physics, but before string theory, not one attempt was successfull enough, to leave a lasting impression.

Pjacobi 20:21, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

string theory successful?? Is this the reason why your POV is not NPOV, but just that POV of the quasi-success of String Theory? Name one paper experimentally demonstrating a string, a single goddam string? maybe you wrote one when I was not looking?

This wiki, unlike journals and university curriculum selection, is not limited by such constraints as time, shelf space, nor print space. Please reconsider your argument above. It is demonstrably illustrated that this wiki contains far more headlines worthy of VfD, than a ANY number of controversial "dime a dozen" theories running contrary to mainstream science. Please also consider, that there appears to be at least a dimes worth of valid wikipedian editing under this headline. (and still no one has to buy it) Is it possible that it is more worthy of discussion, if ever so slightly, than the very hot debate over the best monkey-face to slip into the p.GWB page? Or whether the Chubaca Defense should be merged into South Park. Or expanding the limit of Pokiman horse-shit. Please reconsider the limits your suggesting for the WikiPedia. TTLightningRod 21:23, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I say Aetheromety is not a dime-a-dozen theory, but your point is well taken. It shows open mindedness, which should be the main criterion for anything that has the pretension to become a depositary of knowledge, an encyclopedia.

Yes, and for the reason given, the Wikipedia covers far more topics than a typical encyclopedia. But not all topics can pass as science, and all topics have to pass some form of relevance test. We can't just present everything everybody sometime wrote about the universe. If Aetherometry passes the relevance test and the VfD, the article will need a major re-write. --Pjacobi 06:40, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

Topics are what they are. The work of the Correas, their co-workers, etc, or that written by other scientists or technical people is what it is, not on art, but on science. The science is very controversial because they demolish so many of the notions that we take for granted. But unlike the claims and the reality of String theory, their claim is backed up by a large body of publications on experimental evidence going back to Tesla's experiments. You're out buddy. Your only corner is to accept that it is science that which an authority WITH POWER says it is science. If that is your viewpoint, it is NOT NPOV, but POV. An imPOVerished POV should not be the rule for a community effort. What you then want are not mental-slavs, but slaves in awe of POWER.

The key point is peer review, discussion in scientific journals/scientific conventions, which develops any scientific model and the more discussion in journals, the more it is revised, the more plausible it can be justified to be, etc. Aetherometry has none of this.

This point is addressed below, and has been addressed ad nauseam. If you want a list of publications I shall add them to the entry, both by the Correas and on the Correas, in peer-reviewed journals and in conferences, at Akronos Publishing (which is a legitimate book-publishing company) and in other venues. I will rename all the peers (PhD's and MD's, people with credentials - if credentials need to be woorshipped because we are unable to make up our own minds) Peer-review is not a certificate issued by any authority, nor a god-given concept. It is not democratic, nor does it claim to be. It is not even the final word in science, as the US Supreme Court concluded. It is a concept subject to diverse interpretation itself. You you guys want, I will oblige with all the needed references to substantiate these statements. Peer-review is NOT synonymous with Truth, Correctness, or Science. Only zealots and NOT SCIENTISTS, not real scientists, believe in such childish notions.

Although what I envision is "WikiResearch" or something, which is a wikifiable scientific journal, for original research, but again, with the requirement of peer review and such in order to be cited. Aetherometry qualfifies for none of this however. I'm on the verge of contacting the authorities to notify of fraud, anyone with me? The difference is this: the current state of the article, excluding the introduction, asserts its theories as truth, without considering the other theories. Its completely POV, and deletion is a possible solution. Please get the nature of Wikipedia, and stop trying to assert other things, which are elements of pop culture, into science. Bear in mind, at least those articles are POV. Pokemon and South Park - those are notable pop culture phenomena. Aetherometry? Not. Perhaps so, but it certainly needs some semblance of scientific reliability like PEER REVIEW in order to get into an encylopedia. Scientific journals are huge...as I said, its possible to get a Wiki scientific journal, but Aetherometry will probably get debunked even if that existed anyway.Natalinasmpf 21:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You have peer-review UYA, and you don't even know what it is, nor are you able to cogently articulate your arguments. Your notions of energy, black holes, inertia, QM, 'vacuum energy', etc are so ridiculous that they date your age irreversibly. Your incapacity to think for yourself, your reliance in the GOD-PEER-REVIEW, is so credulous and naive as to defy sense in putting up with it.

[edit] My ridiculous comments

About "contacting the authorities"... seems like a funny thing to say by someone who wrote on his/her user page "...and think Wikipedia is often the epitomisation for those who desire liberation from government censorship of ideas, or those who wish to put a price on constructive information." (Especially with your declared political slant.) I am removing the name calling again; nothing is proven, it is only a speculation. I trust the reader can form his/her/its own opinions.

Sorry for having you confused with the Singaporean kid.

Aetherometry itself, to me is like one of those fictional universes that Wikipedia is so full of, the Star Trek world, the South Park world, etc.

Maybe it is as it should be, for you. have you made the effort to understand it?

Its main sin is it wants to take over the cognitive space of what is official reality without having much contact with what was there before;

Another ridiculous and unsubstantiated assertion. Aetherometry is, IMHO, connected with much that you have no inkling and is happening.

which is just another way of saying what you said, REVIEW by others in the field. However it seems that it should be the responsiblity of the founders of Aetherometry, all 2 of them, to have tried to fit it into the rest of science; they don't seem to have, and Aetherometry is a vast system rivaling the baroqueness of science itself. A private fantasy world. If they could just start out demonstrating even one of their claims... GangofOne 04:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean demonstrating? They claim to have demonstrated to many private and public parties (I'll make you a list if you want), and none of these parties ever said the opposite or disclaimed the Correas' claims. Many of these parties are competent scientists: medical doctors, physicists, engineers, mathematicians. Many have openly made their statements or written about them. WHAT are you saying? That Nature and Science have not recognized Aetherometry?

To whom am I responding? I assume this is Helicoid. To sign and time stamp your comments all you need do is type four tildes. And please don't insert your comments into the middle of other's paragraphs. It would make it a lot easier to follow the conversations. GangofOne 20:14, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Let's consider http://aetherometry.com/axelrad_letter.html by Dr Axelrod of U of Toronto , Correa's PhD advisor. Here he witnesses the "Aether Motor". "The realization of what we were looking at was mind-boggling. Here before our eyes was what I was brought up to believe to be absolutely impossible! The implications were also enormous - a world of literally free energy without pollution by a 'product readily producible by available equipment and processes at a cost that allows mass marketing for multiple applications'." He also mentions others who have seen and believed. But there's something truely strange about that, that they haven't got a wider circle of scientists to look at it. Sure there is plenty of unthinking resistance , as documented in Axelrod's letter, but if they keep trying, especially with some media help, than their fortunes could be quickly made. Yet we don't hear anything about it except for a few webpages and _Infinite Energy_ and such. Why is that?GangofOne 20:14, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• In reading the record, it is hilarious to note all these questions being made to the newcomer Helicoid, now that it is muzzled. It is equally hilarious to verify how many questions made by the in-the-minortiy-put-down Helicoid were never answered by Knott, Connolley, Jacobi, Kerada.209.29.93.57 00:50, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You said: "What do you mean demonstrating? They claim to have demonstrated to many private and public parties (I'll make you a list if you want), and none of these parties ever said the opposite or disclaimed the Correas' claims."

Well, actually things , including the orgone motor, were demostrated to James DeMeo, a Reichian with his own website and orgone lab in Oregon, someone who might be the Correa's peer, at least philosophically, and he disputed it. http://www.orgonelab.org/correas.htm . Correa's response, for the record. http://www.aetherometry.com/demeo.html http://www.aetherometry.com/demeo_response2.html

Helicoid, do you know the Correas personally?GangofOne 20:14, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Come on Helico, not even a grunt?!209.29.93.57 00:50, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wow, this is fun. I went away for a day, and next thing I know the discussion around the Aetherometry article has gotten fat and bloated, while the article itself became thin like a consumptive. Has the discussion been sucking the marrow out of the article? Anyway, I now got myself a login and everything, I am about to become a seasoned Wikipedian, no? One of those people whom everybody who wants to be regarded as NPOV will have to please. But I digress. Here we have GangofOne, a pleasant fellow, no doubt, painting the picture of Aetherometry as "a private fantasy world". So I am curious what this pleasant fellow is reading. It doesn't sound like he's reading the Experimental Aetherometry monographs, which deal with endless boring experiments with very pedestrian devices such as electroscopes, faraday cages, induction coils, pulsed plasma systems, pendulums. Man, those sure arent't things I would want to populate my fantasy world with. But maybe GangofOne is weird that way? A little touch of fetishism, maybe? Likes a bit of calorimetry in the morning? OldPatrick

From one point of view we ALL are living in fantasy worlds. Nothing unusual. As far as monographs, I'm disinclined to purchase them, and don't see them in the library. I've formed an impression from the free pages and links. I encourage the experiments. But why keep the details secret? Well, the Correas want to commercialize it. Fine. But it can't be properly evaluated and replicated until sufficient details are available. I hope they are able to.

"Wow, this is fun." Yes it is fun. Going through the Aetherometry site caused no end of chuckling.

Welcome to Wikipedia. GangofOne 09:13, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I ran across aetherometry at the library of Ryerson College. I'm a little puzzled by your question. What experiments have the Correas kept secret? Is that the orgone motor you're talking about? Most of their plasma work is published and in patents. Most of their experimental aetherometry work is published. Do you know which secrets they have kept? Do you know them? Is it solely because of commercialization that they have these secrets?209.29.93.57 00:58, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, commercial reasons. I'll look for specific webpages tomarrow.GangofOne 10:18, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review from the flawless wikipedia

Eugene Mallove held a B.S. and M.S. in aeronautics and astronomy from the MIT and a Ph.D in environmental health sciences from Harvard University. He had worked for technology engineering firms such as Hughes Research Laboratories, the Analytic Science Corporation, and MIT's Lincoln Laboratory, and he consulted in research and development of new energies. Mallove taught science journalism at MIT and Boston University and was chief science writer at MIT's news office, a position he left as part of a dispute with the school over cold fusion. He was a science writer and broadcaster with the Voice of America radio service and author of three science books: The Quickening Universe: Cosmic Evolution and Human Destiny (1987, St. Martin’s Press), The Starflight Handbook: A Pioneer’s Guide to Interstellar Travel (1989, John Wiley & Sons, with co-author Gregory Matloff), and Fire from Ice: Searching for the Truth Behind the Cold Fusion Furor (1991, John Wiley & Sons). He also published articles for numerous magazines and newspapers. Mallove was a member of the Aurora Biophysics Research Institute, one of the founders of the International Society of the Friends of Aetherometry, a member of its Organizing Committee, a co-inventor of the HYBORAC technology and one of the main evaluators of ABRI technologies. His alternative energy research included studying the reproduction and subsequent improvement of W. Reich's Orgone Motor by Dr. Paulo Correa and Alexandra Correa, as well as the anomalous evolution of heat in the Reich-Einstein experiment, replicated by the Correas. He was among the scientists and engineers who confirmed the output of excess electric energy from tuned pulsed plasmas in vacuum arc discharges. Mallove's combative stance against what he saw the hypocrisy of mainstream science gave him a high profile. Among other things, he was a frequent guest on the American radio program Coast-to-Coast AM because of his work with unorthodox energy sources.

Your thoughts? TTLightningRod 21:47, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That seems NPOV, it explains his stance, cites his justification for his views, and doesn't attempt to assert his ideas as truth, while giving it due credit. This Aetherometry article however, is another thing. Although I'm fairly optimistic of alternative energy ideas, I like them when they are well backed. Oh, I don't see any degerees in quantum physics or similar fields there. Aeronautics and astronomy doesn't really go too much into physics, unless it includes relativity. -- Natalinasmpf 21:58, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for being constructive Natalinasmpf. Please do not think that I do not agree with you about the POV smell of the article. At the least, can we agree that some peer review may have occurred, and that some "mainstream" PhDs are floating about? With that, I would also advocate SEVERELY editing the article of all jargon, extraordinary claims, and any POV positions. Can we begin editing the article now? Also, would you consider reducing the banner splashes down to "controversial", "contested", or "in need of strong editing". The banners suggesting "pseudo and hoax" may do a disservice to open-mindedness. Would you agree? TTLightningRod 22:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No we can't. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Aetherometry&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Search gives exactly four matches, all of marginal value. And Mallove disqualifies himself as defense witness by starting his essay with During the past 15 years, indisputable experimental evidence has built up for substantial excess heat (far beyond ordinary chemical energy) and low-energy nuclear reaction phenomena in specialized heavy hydrogen and ordinary hydrogen-containing systems.. While this is an interesting topic, it is by no means "indisputable". ---Pjacobi 06:50, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

To disqualify Mallove for supporting work confirmed in hundreds of laboratories and goping on for 16 years, and only now receiving some degree of recognition by Official Science is so malicious as to raise my original quandary re jacobi also being a mao-mao. For then, even if Mallove had been in error, we would have to throw out QM because M. Planck later made the error of embracing Nazism, or throw out Heisenberg because he strove to give the Nazis their nuclear bomb, and so on.

[edit] Google again: The measure of all that is Wikipedia-able.

Is the thermonuclear core theory of the sun wholly "indisputable" as well? This debate can end quick with an answer to that. Note: A response in the affirmative, may disqualify one from further addressing the scientific method, especially "wiki by google count". The Sun article can be torn to shreds, maybe even nominated for VfD if Google counts, or better yet, empirical data were to be considered objectively and included in a balanced edit by the contributors to that article. Time will tell, and this wiki has plenty of that.

Not really. Empirical data, like light spectrum analysis to view the elements inside the sun's core (because each element will affect the wavelength), and temperature analysis, and repeated experiments such as *gasp*, pre-existing nuclear facilities, make for empirical evidence. "Balanced edit"? This is the mainstream view, and therefore, only has to represent minority views in a minority way. This is the NPOV policy, and I believe its been done already. "Time will tell"? We don't have time for readers to either become disgusted, or be taken in, and ruin the whole larger, transcendent goal of the project: to give the world a factual encylopedia. -- Natalinasmpf 17:14, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You missed the excellent point of Lightning Rod. The point being that there is not a single empirical prood that the the sun's core is a thermonuclear one. Anymore than there is proof that fusion can be harnessed to generate energy via the thermonuclear process. Yet, both assumptions are ordinarily made by people one calls informed. If you want an ecyclopedia of facts, the PEOPLE WHO PROCESS THESE FACTS MUST KNOW THEM. They must not be trigger-happy, but balanced people. Aetherometry exists. One may not like it, but it is a fact that it exists. It even provides an alternative explanation for solar radiation, one likely to shed much light on what is agreed to remain unknown by institutional science.

The people who write things like the very article we are so "perfectly qualified" to debate, are admittedly, very difficult to understand. Maybe even highly opinionated, not unlike VfD-broad-ax swingers, both worthy of being beat down at least to neutrality. That is our goal, and not to decide the validity of theoretical constructs, nor physical models working towards better understanding.

The goal is to be NPOV. One can easily decide how one theory can fit it with pre-existing mainstream science, and how plausible it is, complete with third party references for justification...take WMC and global warming, for example. Depending on both knowledge, and NPOV views, it can be done. -- Natalinasmpf 17:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The very article sighted by Pjacobi above, the one with a disputable "indisputable" thus "disqualifying the defense witness" outright, has a reference listing of 60 items, along with a very reasonable appendix. Views of Aristotle summarized by Asimov, Faraday, Maxwell, and the brilliant, but even self-assailable, Albert Einstein....

Ah, just as Aetherometry claims to be supported by claims of Friedrich Nietzsche, Wilhelm Reich and host of other philosophers and psychologists? How is that a reference? How is it direct? I mean, you can go claim you've "referred", to their works, when all they've done is misinterpret the principles, and rather than referring to actual scientific papers, they do a subjective interpretation (summary) - which does not qualify as a reference! References always have to be explicit and direct, not summarised, page by page, line by line! -- Natalinasmpf 17:14, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And how can you claim to know that the Correas misinterpret F. Nietzsche, or N. Tesla, or W. Reich, or H. Aspden, when you have already confessed that you have read none of it, know none of it. Why should the public put up with your tantrums of like and dislike?

The concept of aether itself, has a very long and contested history. Someone has added "ometry" after it (ya'll know what that means) in an attempt to advance knowledge. The contestable aspect of aether seems to revolve around the lack of scientific measurement A field of study which if it only fails to measure, would still continue to advance science by reduction. The effort to do such, is worthy of documentation. Worthy of critical examination and edit. Wikipedia can provide a valuable service to all, by inclusion of such.

The very concept of the four humours, also has a very long and contested history. However, I doubt we should represent it as plausible (which is what its done). Its not that its the "lack of scientific measurement", for example, we "lack the scientific measurement" to map out the universe. It doesn't mean we get go, "oh I think there's a star there!", when we don't know. However, we might have the technology to possibly plot out a thermal PATTERN, or other things, but we're not qualified to do explicitly state, oh "I think that is there", and assert it as truth without evidence. That what Aetherometry is doing. The service is best, if we perhaps play the devil's advocate, just as with any other "new" scientific theories - however, it seems there are already gaping holes in it.

As to Mallove, it seems he too is hardly trying to advance a scientific concept without reference. He is hardly acting in a self-righteous, or arrogant manner, even though his opener seems to have put some off. (maybe that was the ides?) I'd say Mallove stands up.

Oh, ya... and the other articles from the 4 result Google Search...... marginal they may be, but clearly those do not lend to a banner as pseudo, hoax or con. Let the reader decide for them self, by allowing access to a NPOV, and balanced article. TTLightningRod 15:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ask other scientists about the matter (or find one on the internet), and see what they think. I highly doubt they think its not "pseudoscience", especially given the NPOV policy is to represent minority views as minority views. -- Natalinasmpf 17:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You don't really have an idea, how to find and judge academic discussions of a topic, yeah? Try for a comparison White hole, a concept of doubtfull merit, but one that is really discussed in science.

• scholar.google.com: 607 hits
• arXiv preprint server: more than 200 hits

Compare this with 4 respective 0 hits. Hey, even bell test loophole gets 676/191 hits. Perhaps I should apologize to CT, compared with the Correas, she looks absolutely sane, despite her publishing in Galilean Electrodynamics. --Pjacobi 18:53, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

So which is it? Still working the Correa as "crack-pot" angle? You loose. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Correa%2C+PN+%22&btnG=Search&hl=en&lr=

Or is it denial of the scientific method you advance? (Several contributors to this disccusion have a history of: Editing as reference in main body aether as "advertisement for fringe theory".... Removal of concept from reference to Cosmology, +History of Sciences. Delete-edit reference to Tesla in aether. This activity coincides with the appearance of this article. A revisionists POST editing of previous work by others.)

Pretty clear delete-edit and modification effort towards POV against the concept. A touch dubious. TTLightningRod 19:27, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Back to Aetherometry, http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?PaulFeyerabend http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ScientificMethod http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?MeatballWiki New Energy Foundation, Inc. www.blacklightpower.com (BlackLight Power Corporation) David Pratt http://itis.volta.alessandria.it/episteme/ep6/ep6-aeth.htm http://search.arxiv.org:8081/

And a problem with Wiki formatting, too? And what's the idea with the http://search.arxiv.org:8081/ link? Anyway, as you can easily see on the VfD page, I've voted keep for the marginal relevance as a pseudoscientific theory and as a business plan. Also, you can try Wikinfo with its sympathetic point of view or another Wiki. But the Wikipedia article, if it survives VfD will look rather different from the current one.

Regarding Correa's publication in another discipline: That doesn't proof anything about Aetherometry. Just as Anatoly Timofeevich Fomenkos publication about statistics doesn't make him a historian.

Pjacobi 19:41, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

Then let's work on the article by simply trying to define the term, "Aetherometry". Would you accept: It is a controversial physical model science of the metrics of the Aether (aethero-metry). Or, Aether (massfree energy) as held by some to have a precise metrics which they hold can be ascertained scientifically, and it is the concern of Aetherometry to pursue this. Strip all the rest.

. (forgive bad link, search under aether. Even "Critics" of aetherometry have much to say) TTLightningRod 20:14, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] LOL....

Thank you Natalinasmpf for fixing that. I had made a link and forgot that capitals can be dropped inside of brackets. ~~

[edit] A very worthy point:

Compare and contrast aether with vacuum energy. Unlike aetherometry, quantum mechanics asserts that vacuum energy on the whole is a closed system - if it contributes "matter" to the physical universe through virtual particles, stuff like black holes for example, require expenditure of energy in order to separate the virtual particle pairs. This ends up not producing any energy. It seems that aetherometry, while not explicitly being a "free energy" science, asserts that there is a source of energy easily tapped into, or far more available than it really is. -- Natalinasmpf 01:00, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) From the VfD page. TTLightningRod 01:09, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above is gibberish. Aetherometry agrees with QM re the finite or closed nature of the universe. The stuff on black holes is nonsense - it should be deleted. QM and relativity do NOT admit to production of energy. Nor do the Correas in their Aetherometry. Energy is NEVER PRODUCED. This child is in error. And there is no such thing as "free-energy" science. More bogus notions.

Also: Merge and redirect to Aether. I decided that I'd ask Tim Harwood what he thought, since he attempted to build a kind of Adams motor. He has not convinced me that Aetherometry has much standing within the community that believes in the Aether sensu H. Aspden.

Is he a spokesperson for Adams or for Aspden? From my reading of Aspden he has only supported Adams' Motor, not the crazy ideas of Adams - that the ohm changes magnitude according to voltage, etc.

But he argues the Aether is an important enough theory to merit some coverage in Wikipedia. I accept that. But we do have such an article, and it is Aether. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:30, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that it has its place in that entry and also as a separate entry.

Article "Aether", as distinct from luminiferous aether, as distinct from aether drag hypothesis as distinct from aetherometry. There is a tremendous amount of material to read on all of these. Merge? How? TTLightningRod

Please don't confuse "Aether" and "Aetherometry". Aether is a very important topic, in history of science. Also there are still quite a large number of semi-relevant speculations still using the term, even after it has fallen out of favour in mainstream physics.

But Aetherometry is only one very specific theory about Aether (and Orgon, and everything) with a very limited set of supporters.

Pjacobi 07:55, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

You're wrong, Aetherometry does not claim to be a TOE. And every theory of the Aether has been a very specific theory. So what?

[edit] what the heck is massfree energy anyway?

I find the definition of "energy devoid of inertia" a rather weasely definition: after all, most energy is not subject to inertia, if not all. What is this? I mean, photons aren't affected by inertia, and mass is basically energy in a special state, thus causing inertia, energy itself isn't subject to inertia. This really points to the fact that it seems that Aetherometry has its concepts all wrong. -- Natalinasmpf 04:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And I object to a parade of ignorance enforced by a child's tantrum. 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 all energy is inertial. There are schools of thought that treat inertia as a separable property (eg H. Puthoff), but they are what people like you call pseudoscience. Even when in Big-Bang theories energy is said to have been massless near the event, all energy is considered to carry mass and be identical to mass today. Unless in Singapore there are noninertial masses to be reported to a scientific journal, the above comment is trite and ignorant.

Its not ignorant. Energy doesn't have inertia, mass does. Mass is form of energy, but inertia is only unique to mass (including antimatter and matter). Trite and ignorant? Well I won't comment on your personal attack, but then you have a very skewed idea of what energy is. Compare energy to mass - inertia is not mentioned in energy, but certainly in mass. Unless you want to redefine key scientific concepts and the entire set of physics articles on Wikipedia? A child's tantrum, indeed! Unfortunately, you haven't heard about assuming goodfaith and civility? Maybe I'll ask Linuxbeak to give you a nice lecture. -- Natalinasmpf 22:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well then Russell is ignorant because, if mass and energy are identical, and one and the same, and all energy has mass and all mass is energy, then the inertial property is coextensive to energy. This is what deBroglie's theory of matter-waves teaches us (and Paul Dirac and the Correas and others have commented on this), that even kinetic energy adds mass, adds inertia, you should know, 14-year-old poseur - this is how light speed became the limit for the acceleration of particles, how Special Relativity found its first proof, by inference, when applied to the experiments in accelerators early in the XXth century. And this how light was first explained to bend, and how many physicists indeed claim that it is likely that photons have mass. And since all energy is electromagnetic, and all energy carries mass or inertia, ergo, syllogism of the first degree, good old logic, all electromagnetic energy carries, displays, affects, presents, inertia. What part of this lesson in accepted science still escapes you? I guess Russell, deBroglie, Dirac, our accelerator physicists are all ignorant - as proclaimed by a fake anarchist with a fake mental age.

• Sorry to but in, but as someone who wishes to learn the ways of Wikipedia I need a little instruction here. If I got my facts right, very soon after the Aetherometry article got posted, a few people descended upon it like pitbulls, declaring it a hoax, a commercial scam, crackpot science, and an attempt to soil and defame the noble body of Wikipedia. Well, I never saw anybody explainign to those people about civility and assuming good faith. Did Linuxbeak step in quietly and give them a lecture behind everybody's back? Or is there some kind of an inner-Wiki club that doesn't have to assume good faith, while everybody else is supposed to? OldPatrick

Uh, assuming good faith is about users, not articles. For articles its nearly the opposite: the devil's advocate has to be played. As for civility, I'm not sure, there's very good reason to call it a hoax, but that's not being uncivil to users, more like. -- Natalinasmpf 02:49, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am a bit slow, so bear with me. A user posts an article about Aetherometry. You cry "hoax", "fraud" and "scam". You mean you're accusing the article of committing a hoax and a fraud and a scam? I could have sworn that who you were accusing was the guy who posted the article. You're saying the guy acted in good faith, but that vile and treacherous scumbag of an article tricked him? OldPatrick

[edit] Introduction

Oh well, if http://aetherometry.com/pratt_aether_grav.html is indeed a valid presentation of Aetherometry, then it's even more out of touch with physics than I thought before. It starts with not understanding the difference between force and mechanical work and doesn't become better further down. --Pjacobi 15:31, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

Only very narrow minded people would accuse the Correas of doing this. Only classical mechanics argues that sustaining a force that holds an object immobile performs no work. I can quote textbooks if you wish. Biophysics has always argued that molecular work is involved. The Correas have proposed a theory of that molecular work. Do you want me to present it? Your lack of scientific knowledge is showing.

Oh, an electroscope is a biological system? Sure? And yes, of course, sustaining a force that holds an object immobile performs no work, is a very basic fact of physics. The pillars holding the Arch of Titus immobile for 2000 years didn't need an energy source for this. --Pjacobi 20:07, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

Biophysics does not deal solely with biological systems, but with physical systems relevant to biology. The electroscope appears indeed to be relevant to biological systems. As for the Arch of Titus - why is it crumbling anyway? Will it last until the Big Crunch? Do you say?

The physical decay is independent of holding it upright. Anyway, can you give scholarly sources, doubting ? --Pjacobi 20:33, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

Are you claiming that the Correas' claim is that this formula is incorrect?? Please PROVE, by quoting reference. I KNOW YOU CANNOT AND WILL NOT. My reading of their work is that they identify the length component vector of that function in the behaviour of the electroscope, if you can read the integral you slapped here. Classical Mechanics claims that this distance cannot be computed. Biophysical theory is constantly confronted in having to compute it, or replacing the entire function by energy-equivalent ones, when calculating molecular work. Do you want a reference by physicists? Read the exchange that the Correas, Dr. Mallove and Dr. Storms had in public (a kinda peer review), and look up the references they provided. Do some work my friend. Learn the ABC of what you want to denounce. Your integral is in entire agreement with what the correas wrote on the subject of electroscopes and pendulums. You think that by just splattering this, you can pass for a scientist or mathematician?

I'm argueing against your notion of Only classical mechanics argues that sustaining a force that holds an object immobile performs no work and against this paragraph from the introductary article:

Everyone agrees that when the gold leaf is initially repelled by the stem it has to do work against gravity. Thereafter, because the leaf seems to be essentially stationary at the macroscopic level, orthodox physics maintains that it does not have to perform any further antigravitational work, no matter how long it stays deflected. Rejecting this 'implicit and underhanded recourse to perpetual motion' by classical electrostatic theory, the Correas argue that, in the presence of a gravitational field, the leaf can only remain deflected for as long as the kinetic energy it expends in doing work against gravity can be replenished in some way.

Yes? And where is your argument?? The above formula is no argument. You do not seem to understand even the above formula - the distance that an immobile object moves while being supported on something, that something and the body being in a gravitational field, only does not exist from the phenomenological viewpoint of molar or large-scale motion. It does not preclude the motion of molecular elements in the body doing the lifting, each with their work integral, nor the summation of these integrals, as every bonehead knows! The Correas make specific claims for the electroscope, so if you want to argue, go argue with their experimental and theoretical points. What you wrote above may be argueing, but ain't arguing. An equation is not an argument, specially when it is not doubted, but e,ployed by the Correas. Do you want a reference to that too, Jacobi?

The temperature vibrations of molecules will have no net effect, as in the mean they move as much up as down. Otherwise you would see a net movement. It's and not . --Pjacobi 21:33, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

No one is talking about thermal drift. It proves you have no inkling of the argument. When a material substance is under stress all sorts of electrical (have you heard of excitons?) and atomic interactions occur that are poorly understood and acknowledged as such. The Correas put forth their own theory of it. That is only laudable. How could a theory based on experiments, armed with simple equations like the one above (which proves the gratuitousness and stubborness of your POV) and which is available free to the public, be discarded A PRIORI as a hoax? Only fascists would behave that way. They too, fear knowledge above all else.

Also, in your last reply, the sentence Classical Mechanics claims that distance cannot be computed. is completely bogus. Pjacobi

You're bogus. Classical Mechanics explicitly claims that an object held immobile (in a gravitational field) is held without work being expended precisely because that distance ds is not obvious, visible, determinable, computable. In this, it is wrong. Statues with their arms lifted perform no less work than you when you raise your arm and hold it immobile. Try it, and you'll know what is meant by molecular work in biophysics, by metabolic work in biochemistry and so on. Your ignorance is showing. And that equation can no more save you than it damns the Correas. They employ it in fact. I take it you still have not found or read that reference...

[edit] On the sanctity of Peer review and the devilish nature of ad hominems

Peer review is one of the cornerstones of science. All scientists would agree with that. They woould agree that it is imperfect - a flawed system - but nonetheless a touchstone of real science. Anything non-peer reviewed is suspect. Wikipedia accepts this principle.

Long strings of personal attacks are pointless.

The history of this site shows who began malicious personal attacks devoid of SUBSTANCE. That is called cowardice and is not a spiritual attitude - but the attitude of a mob. Is the Wikipedia project well served by the demonstration of this intolerance and mob mentality? I think not.

Feeding trolls is counter productive. You do *not* need to have the last word.

William M. Connolley 19:56, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think Hannes Alfven woould disagree on the merits of "peer review". Is this last bit of the header for yourself, WMC? WMC, you have attack me personally, don't be a hypocrite. -Anon

This is fun, you guys are now deleting before I can even save. Power, power - not even the authority of knowledge or the reliance on the much taunted democracy and open debate:

Eh, by power and authority it seems that you (Mr. Connolley), Jacobi and the Singaporean child already have the last word. I'm simply debating you guys on substance in the hope that I can show you all and any other reader the wanton errors and gratuitous accusations you people have made. Now, as to peer review: it is not a god-given institution, not even a democratic one and there is not even a list of peer reviewed publications that certifies them as such. Peer-review is a concept, and its practice is mostly (BUT NOT EXCLUSIVELY) entrenched in professional and commercial societies. Peer-review as an abstract dogma does not exist other than in the acts and minds of militant fanatics. NOT SCIENTISTS. Maybe I should quote you the conclusion that the US Supreme court arrived at about Peer-review. You're asking for it weatherman.

Hmm WMC, I think the best thing is the ignore this person, because obviously he can't seem to get the concept of what science is. I don't think the rest of the Wikipedian community will be too upset if we just ignore and revert his so called "contributions" to try to assert Aetherometry as established fact, and we can continue how to NPOV this along as normal. -- Natalinasmpf 20:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Always ostracism, always fear of open discussion. Always poseurs who claim to be ready to do battle and then crumble because they intimately realize that they have no ammunition. They need a PhD, a Papa who will use the big stick and put on a stamp: approved by higher authority.

Ha ha, ostracism rather than dialogue. Ha ha, it goes with official science rather than science. It goes with calling on authorities, rather than the time-honored principle behind thought, philosoph, science and even anarchism - of thinking by oneself. It goes with FEAR OF THE UNKNOWN. You're exposed as a hoaxter anarchist. your only excuse is your adolescence. Even that seems most dubious.

Are you kidding me? Ostracism is perfectly compatible with anarchism by the way, if you didn't notice. Its the way to remove parasites and inconstructive members who don't contribute constructively. Official science? Official science has been well backed, and well reviewed. In fact, its more of the government these days steadily clamping down on it, and enforcing patents on scientific theories made by obscure companies who did little research, and companies increasingly who try to make up something that looks plausible to sell a product. Of thinking by oneself? I cite the lack of peer review - that is very strong. I don't need to cite further evidence of my own against it (not that I am in lack of it) - because it by itself lacks peer review and doesn't need the effort. Our job is not to provide peer review - that is the scientific community. Get the Correas to submit their theories to a scientific journal, and maybe we'll see. Or maybe they have, but got rejected for being ridiculous? -- Natalinasmpf 21:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, little racist and pogromist - it seems compatible with YOUR kind of anarchism, the brand of the Ego and Its Own, and how people like you grovel before authority and power. You cite nothing but what you want to believe in your head. People like you are worms, the fanatics and extremists that mostly make life miserable. You cite once more your spurious claim that Aetherometry has not been reviewed by peers or the works of the Correas not published, also, in peer reviewed journals and I WILL paste all the references in this discussion. What you are is a mental fascist. Plain to see.

Racist? Racist? Please tell me where I attacked your race. Or are you imagining things again? When I have I attacked your race? Please cite me the page history where I have done so.

Well, refrain from exercizing your delete power, I have already answered you here, but once again you guys deleted it as it was being saved. It is the anarchist power of the communards...Your very words were "putting down a minority". Ah, and you called me a mental-slav. Ah and I threatened to quote you Bakunine about the slavs, about science, and people like you that worship authority, power and money.

At most I accused your beloved Correas of fraud - but that's not discrimination, that's just scientific skepticism.

My advice to you is to withdraw publicly these slanderous accusations. I can tell that you are not a 14-year old, nor likely to be in Singapore. If you are in North-America, you should be more careful with that loose tongue of yours.

The brand of ego and its own? Oh, I suggest you really know what anarcho-communism is about, because it doesn't prevent one from rebutting a newfangled scientific theory for lack of evidence. Its not censorship - its just pointing it out. You are welcome to put theories about aetherometry here if you would represent them as a proposal, along with its opposition, but not asserting it as truth. Spurious claims? It has not been reviewed by peers. If it was, I'd see a lot of more google pages then advocacy pages with obnoxious 48 pixel fonts, and with actual citations. Please cite me the paper title, page number, and line number of your sources. Mental fascist? Yes, there is a "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it" - hence, I agree you should be able to say, but only representing it as a minority view, because of the sole purpose that this is a wiki and an encylopedia and it it forms a total representation. Putting a minority view down as a total representation isn't NPOV. However, just because I disagree with what you say, does not make me a "fascist" whatsoever, and I disagree with your attempts to try to make a minority scientific view represented as a whole. That is the problem. You obviously are trying to evade the point, because there's no reason otherwise my political views become involved in this. -- Natalinasmpf 21:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, what makes you into a fascist is every thing you have said and done and the rabid, disinformed and intolerant way you've come across. I personnally have no hesitation to get down to the mud and wrestle you. But I have to conclude that Wikipedia's structure is rather dysfunctional when it permits this kind of gratuitous name-calling, innuendo, slander, falsification and worst of all, accusations of a body of work by people who self-avowedly have not read it nor have any familiarity with the subject. That is, at the very least, stupid.

Helcoid is acting like a troll and should be treated as one until (s)he stops. N - that means stop responding... sorry. William M. Connolley 22:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC).

Hey, sounds like Connelly is Natalinasmpf's commanding officer! Does Wikipedia have a hierarchy of command? Can I join? OldPatrick

Potshot attack. I don't think I have to say more. -- Natalinasmpf 02:49, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Afraid of open discussion, eh?

Oh, just for the matter, as one last final point, criticising a fringe scientific theory, and questioning its validity and reliability isn't censorship, or clamping down on the opposition. This is a wiki - it just happens when you press "edit this page", you happen to be having access to a particular page that documents all views. Therefore, to put only one view in it, and ignoring the rest (like the scientific community's) is censorship - but to recognise all views, and to put the majority view as a majority view, is not. And to question the validity of the theory is merely healthy skepticism, not being "fascist". I am not undermining your right to say the theory, just the idea you can go around asserting it as truth, overriding everything else on a WIKI. I will not even comment on the rest of your obvious trolls. -- Natalinasmpf 22:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, there is no worst type of dictatorship than the dictatorship of majorities. And there is no better place for mental fascists that the invisible power of the purveyors of so-called information. They cat as if freedom of expression were simply freedom TO LIE. You are no more an anarchist, than I am Mozart.

There are a number of other Wikis with "sympathetic point of view" policies which you might want to edit on. Or you might want to start your own one, on your own website. On Wikipedia, you must follow the NPOV principles, which do not amount to treating all views as equally valid. At the moment, all we can really say about Aetherometry is "a tiny number of people say X, their views contradict those of mainstream science, mainstream science has treated them with total disinterest" -- Karada 23:44, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Trimmage

I have now trimmed that article right down to what I hope is an NPOV intro. Perhaps we can evolve the article from here?

Ah, ah, I am getting the hang of what you mean by NPOV. The article now consists of:

• 1 sentence about what Aetherometry is
• 3 sentences about its purported impact and inspirations
• 3 sentences about who has ignored it and where its papers have not and have appeared
• 2 sentences about what "some" might argue about it.

Now, I am trying to imagine an analogous article about, say, Relativity. It would have one sentence about what Relativity is, followed by an 8-sentence padding about what inspired Einstein, how Relativity had a huge impact, how Relativity was regarded as "Jewish science" in Nazi Germany, and what some who don't regard it as Jewish science might say about it. You know, I think if my kid asked me "Daddy, what is Relativity?" I would not send him to such an article. If an article about Relativity were to consist of 9 sentences, it should spend every single word on trying to explain what Relativity is. Is 8:1 the standard "Wikipedia apology bloat factor"? Boy, if it takes such a big bloat factor to reach NPOV, I'll go with POV. OldPatrick

But first, I'd like some answers to some questions, please:

• does Aetherometry make any predictions of physical effects that differ from those of mainstream science?
• have any experiments been performed to test those predictions?
• did the experiments confirm the Aetherometry theory's prediction, or that of mainstream science?
• have the results been published in a peer-reviewed journal?
• or at all?
• have they been replicated by a third party?
• have they been replicated by a third party, who was not previously a believer in Aetherometry?

-- Karada 23:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is going to be another kangaroo court. So I answer your questions, but you must answer back:

• 1. From my understanding Aetherometry is a theory based on experimental findings. Read the long list of titles published by the Correas and you will soon realize this. Read the publicly available abstracts, and the patents and the papers published in the 3rd international conference on new energy, or the address to 2nd Berlin conference on solar and alternative energy technologies, which is available in DVD. Do you want links? Surely you do not want me to read them for you.
• 2. Already answered. The theory outgrew from the experiments. Dr. Mallove wrote two publicly available reports on the matter of the experiments, and two open letters with his findings and observations. Dr. Aspden has written his opinion on the Correas' plasma work, and has dedicated a full scientific report to it. Raytheon has cited their work in a patent application. have you read any of these?
• 3. Experiments by others on the Correas - there have been several claims, all positive. Mr. U soudak, an engineer and CTO of IAI confirmed their measurements. Dr. Mallove confirmed their verification of the Reich-Einstein experiment. Prof. Sapogin in Russia claimed to have done the same with the PAGD. Pirelli researchers and Dr. G. Egely have claimed to have observed the PAGD regime. M. Carrell, previous RCA engineer confirmed their results. I can cite you more if you want.
• 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. Hell even J. Demeo confirmed their rediscovery of the orgone motor (the correspondence is publicly available at aetherometry.com).
• 5. None of those that confirmed replication were either prior friends of the Correas or believers in Aetherometry. The question is well taken, even if it shows the POV of the questioner

All pioneering science is controversial, above all because of the insecurity it raises. But you cannot claim that no peers reviewed work by the Correas.

Thanks for that! I'd be delighted to answer back. No, I don't need you to read it to me: but a citation list for these publications would be very useful: both standard citation format, and a Web link, if available, please. What's "IE"; is that the magazine Infinite Energy? -- Karada 01:30, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can direct you to http://aetherometry.com/publications.html and to http://aetherometry.com/cat-authors.html. From my own investigation, I know that there are some other 30 titles missing. If what you see is not enough, I'll try to put those also together.Helicoid 05:53, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that: from what I can see, almost all of the cited publications are either:

• published by Akronos Publications, which appears to be their own vanity press
• published in the magazine Infinite Energy, which seems dedicated to extremely alternative theories
• published in peer-reviewed Journals, but completely unrelated to Aetherometry
• patents (you can patent more or less anything; the patent inspection process does not in any way check if your invention is real, or even meaningful)
• press coverage (hey, even I've had press coverage; it's not difficult to get)

Could you possibly give me the cites which do not come under any of the categories above? -- Karada 12:29, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Why does admin Karada make these questions to Helicoid, if he knew that Helicoid was already zapped or in the process of being zapped?209.29.93.57 01:18, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Regarding J DeMeo who you are citing above Please could you clarify something? Was the confirmed rediscovery of the orgone motor before or after this open letter "I have every right to change my mind about my offers of support, which I did after obtaining negative results on one of your experimental claims, after reading your published papers in detail, and especially after having my concerns about these matters being treated dismissively." from [2] Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 16:37, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• And why does admin Knott do the same, even after Helicoid was zapped? Odd, very odd. One can only sigh for someone who can give answers.Can't bring back those jews after you murder them.209.29.93.57 01:18, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Prof. A. Axelrad who you refer to above. He states here that "I am not trained in this field" Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 16:42, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Should you doubt the word of Prof. Axelrad? Maybe his credentials? Maybe his observations since he is so honest about his qualifications? How about all the other doctors that someone (was it Hellicoid?) quoted you? Dr. this because of that, dr. that because of this. have you done the stats on the number of physicists, engineers, and so on?209.29.93.57 01:26, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kuhn and paradigms

Hehe, GangofOne, that wasn't such a bad edit, especially in comparison, but I have nevertheless to nitpick. Mainstream science is mainstream science, not only because of fascist dictatorship etc., but because it produces usefull (sort of) results, like refrigerators and nuclear bombs. So there must be something for it. A new paradigm, will more often than not, extend our knowledge, not replace it. Whereas the theoretical underpinning may totally change and the old paradigm may look ridiculous viewed from the new one, the results and predictions of the new and the old one will be very near together for an important class of experiments. Special relativity's predictions are very near to Galilean for v << c. Quantum mechanical predictions are very near classical ones, for large enough systems, etc.

But Aetherometry boldly claims, that the current state of physics is all wrong and can't even explain very simple things like electroscopes or why arms of statues eventually fall down.

Pjacobi 23:57, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

Indeed, if you want examples of paradigm shifts, try reading a good primer on differential geometry, gauge theories in subatomic physics etc. like The Geometry of Physics by Theodore Frankel. The maths used is mind-bending stuff that out-wackys Aetherometry by several orders of magnitude. However, theories based on that stuff have one crucial difference: they make testable predictions about the real world that end up agreeing rather accurately with experiments.

Now, the maths used, is, as I say, truly mind-bending stuff: most traditional physicists had to throw their mental toolkits away several times in order to accomodate it. Yet they did so, because experiments confirmed the wacky predictions of these modern theories. Hardly the response of a scientific community unwilling to change. -- Karada 00:09, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also in your examples, the new theories not only made testable predictions differing from previous models, but made identical predictions for most old fashioned experiments. Also, I wouldn't consider them that much wacky, but that's a matter of personal taste. --Pjacobi 00:14, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

A good point; they do indeed make the same predictions as the old theories for most simple experiments; the predictions of the old and new theories only become different at the outer limits of high/low pressure/energy/velocity/mass/size etc. (By the way, I'm impressed by your mathematical prowess; attempting to think about orbifolds makes me bleed from the ears: must stop trying to visualize them). -- Karada 00:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think Kuhn is the last word in philosophy of science. (Like the Aetherometricians, I'm partial to Feyerabend.) Maybe when I said "paradigm" I am thinking "self-reinforcing closed conceptual system" (I almost said "delusional system", but that would be POV, and show a lack of Feyerabend enlightenment.) Although numerically continous experimentally, paradigms don't develop into others in a continuous fashtion, but are discontinous revolutions (following Kuhn). Discontinous conceptually. As far as I can see Aeth..ry doesn't have any numerically predictions that overlap the old ones. So I don't think Aeth..ry will mix well with Mainstream Science. I don't think we have any disagreement. But it's still a separate paradigm. GangofOne 08:01, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• GangOfOne (used to be gang of four, but times-are-a-shrinking): in that library book I came across there are so many examples of predictions that overlap accepted values, but give higher precision at levels where existing computations do not match experiments, and theirs does, that it boggles the simple mind. Your talk betrays familiarity to the subject, so you astonish me when you write what you did.209.29.93.57 01:36, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See that's your problem. You keep making personal attacks. It turns Wikipedians off from working with you. -- Natalinasmpf 01:42, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• 209.29.93.57 , I look forward to seeing them. Specific references are helpful. They've published so many monographs. GangofOne 10:00, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted Helicoid, but not the Anon "clarification": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aetherometry&curid=2075610&diff=0&oldid=0 - after some re-phrasing it would provide one vital fact: That the Aetherometry fans claim a conspiray at work against them. --Pjacobi 00:55, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

We do? Where do we do this? You guys know so much about us - and this after only having heard about Aetherometry, for the first time, 4 days ago! Wow. OldPatrick , Aetherometry fan

[edit] Alternative science journals

The article states:

A number of papers on it have appeared in peer-reviewed publications dedicated to "alternative science".

Cites, please? -- Karada 00:48, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by Helicoid

Not one person in this discussion has presented one shred of evidence against my exposition on Aetherometry, that it is not factual, nor against Aetherometry itself - that it is not factual or based on fact or is a pseudoscience. Your minds were made up a priori, and the record shows it. Signed Helicoid.

Even User:Theresa Knott, and many other admins have voiced contempt for the subject, and I think the onus is on you to cite actual verified evidence, not us. Logical fallacy. -- Natalinasmpf 01:25, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Whilst I don't want to prejudge, the usual convention of debate is that extraordinary claims generally require extraordinary evidence. That's why I'm so interested to see the publications you refer to. -- Karada 01:35, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

HA ha and now the administration of Wikipedia uses fake anarchists to ban legitimate scientific content? How old did you say you were? The onus is on you to CITE A SINGLE CREDENTIALED PERSON WHO HAS WRITTEN A SCIENTIFIC DEBUNKING OF AETHEROMETRY. I'm done with answering or teaching you. Helicoid. I'm unblocked again, eh.

You asre mistaken I am afraid. As a new thoery that isn't yet accepted by the scientific community I am afraid it is you who need to come up with some references. Also you are not unblocked as you were not blocked in the first place. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 02:01, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm 3 second old bacterium, with absolutely no brains whatsoever. AETHEROMETRY ROCKS!!11!1!! :-D Now that you've fulfilled your childish sense of "winning", let us go back to making a professional encylopedia. Oh, as for the onus, if its not notable, then obviously it doesn't even deserve a scientific debunking. What, do you suppose scientists write a critique every time some obscure person writes up a new pseudoscientific proposal?" Answering or "teaching me"? The point isn't to "teach me", in the very least, its to make a community encylopedia, and learn in the process, but you don't have the authority as a sole teacher for me, I'm afraid. The onus is on you to provide a valid substantial empirical piece of evidence in order to deserve scientific debunking. So far, given how I have yet to see empirical proof of "excitons" and the like, I hardly think the onus has shifted. As for false anarchists, well, think what you like, but I maintain that calling a scientific theory unreliable for lack of peer review doesn't really count as fascism. If I question the theory's validity, it does not make me fascist. Much more, questioning is needed to dissolve fascism, and prevent ignorance. Something that the Correas doesn't appear to be doing. -- Natalinasmpf 02:06, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, Ms. Knott, I've provided my references and offered to provide more. Not one of your Wikipedians took me up on it. Now, you're Admin and per force responsible.Cite then the references you should provide for the detractors of Aetherometry? Who are they? What have they written? And in which peer-reviewed journals. The only detractors is this group of galivanting fat-bodies. now, they are not peers of anybody in science, are they? Are you? Where are the detractors? One single name or publication source will do.

Peers of anybody in science? Your elitist attitude again is showing, talk about the irony about calling somebody fascist. You have not provided any "references", and you "offered to provide more", but all you did was provide links to the aetherometry website, and their books. Unfortunately, such a link doesn't really qualify as evidence that "it was inspired by Tesla"....just because you discovered something about Tesla Coils (never mind it wasn't verified), doesn't mean "it was inspired by Tesla". The onus is on you, to provide the presence of aetheromtry in peer reviewed journals - not us. If its not even present in peer review journals, why should a a rebuttal be posted in a peer reviewed journal as well? One single naem and publication source? You haven't provided a verified source either, only an advocacy website.

The detractors, Ms. Knott, should be named. Otherwise the entry as it stands is irresponsible and gratuitous (besides being an abortion and sheer vandalism). WHERE ARE THESE DETRACTORS?? The onus it seems is on you. And what degree on Physics do you have? And what publications have you authored on that subject, if I may ask?

The detractors, are named. Maybe you're accusing of weasel words - but then again, you hardly name any other supporters too - you claim engineers and medical scientists among other things have looked at it - but I have hardly seen any reliable sources (ie. not within the aetherometry website). Furthermore, even if I didn't have a degree, (a lot of Wikipedians do), that doesn't disqualify me any further. But if the Correas don't (and I'm questioning their degrees as frauds), then it makes AN ARTICLE BEING WRITTEN about their theories less notable. -- Natalinasmpf 02:49, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Where are they named, name one besides these Wikipedians here who admit to their ignorance of Aether physics.

I have a BSc Hons degree in physics from University College London. I removed the line about detractors. You are right, there aren't any detractors, the "theory" is completely unknown. No one in the scientific community has taken any notice of it whatsoever as far as I can tell. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 02:36, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A BSc...hmm. I think I'm playing out of my league. No wonder I thought the 14-year old was a 14-year old at first. However, let me correct you Ms. Knott (and not Dr. Knott, by the way, the title of Dr. signifying that one has been approved by a scientific community as a bona fide PhD, or MD, or MSc): many people in the scientific community have taken notice of it. I gave you a list that you did not read: 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. Do you want me to add to it some more: Dr. V. Bard, Dr. A. Microwski, Dr. I. Sapogin. Dr. G. Egely. I'm tired of reciting PhD members, Ms Assistant teacher in a Prep School who makes such a bold and rotten claim as the one you made. You could have just been simple and said that no paper on Aetherometry has been published in mainstream publications. You know what, I've just about had it with this charade of third rate people behaving like Catholic Inquisition. I demand you retract your statement that "No one in the scientific community has taken any notice of it whatsoever". My proof rests, your onus is to get informed. Otherwise what are you doing there as Admin?

If you want to go so far as doubt my age, its entirely your decision. Has it ever mattered? Its merely for me to establish orientation with the Singaporean Wikipedian community who I edit with. AS for those "PhD members", let me remind you, that doesn't represent the "scientific community". Citing PAPERS, that have passed through thousands of scientists' hands, is something different. I think you'd find many Wikipedians one of the most tolerant people out there concerning information, and certainly not being members of a "Catholic Inquisition" as you so claim. But who am I to digress? You come on here, going rambo with your personal attacks and criticising the concept of NPOV, and alienating yourself from the community from the first hand, why would you expect the community to work with you? As for your snide personal attacks, so much for assuming good faith about users, eh. I won't comment any further. As for "retracting the statement", what are you going to do, call your lawyer? Talk about censorship and behaving like the inquisition. It appears it is you, who happents to be the fascist, and the hypocrite who can't take the plank out of his own eye before he goes around complaing about the sawdust in other people's eyes. -- Natalinasmpf 04:21, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

yes, who are you to digress? I put up an excellent defence of your policial, malicious and frankly stupid attacks. You are not interested in studying the subject matter, so you cannot by definition have a valid opinion. Otherwise, by definition, if you have an opinion it will be a biased one, so biased as to be ignorant. Moreover you have shown behavior totally at odds with the behavior of any anarchist I have ever encountered, save the fanatic bombists. Your behavior is repugnant to me and in profound error. You have no fairplay or sense of justice either. Just these poses. This faith in representation, in authority, in institutional science. Good faith would have been to address the matter constructively and not indulge in sucking up to the authorities. That's your lesson, if you are really an adolescent.Helicoid 04:33, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

People you have to stop making personal attacks. It's not on. Stick to the arguments in question and not the people behind them. This is not usenet, and you can't behave as if it is. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 09:19, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] To Natalinasmpf, about Thomas Kuhn

Dearest Natalinasmpf,

Thomas Kuhn was the person who invented the term "scientific paradigm" and who wrote about the mechanism whereby paradigm shifts occur in science. He was not a person who had any opinion about Aetherometry. Your obsession with altering this particular sentence of the article, always from correct to nonsensical, must be one of those Mysteries of the Soul that one sometimes hears awed whispers about. OldPatrick

[edit] Interesting abstract

Doing a quick web search I came across this abstract is it of any use? It's not a proper citation but it's better than anything we have so far isn't it? Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 16:26, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] the full material

I suppose we could start NPOV'ing the original material at Aetherometry/temp - although I'd expect it to be very much cut in half, quartered, or something, but at least mentioning the theories. Although it depends how notable it is. I guess if its not so notable, we don't need to mention as much. -- Natalinasmpf 16:43, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why not do it straight onto the article page? Why have a temp page? I'd say if it's notable enough for an article (and vfd will decide that) then it should be as detailed as possible. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 16:54, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd rather the NPOV issues be worked out in the material, then copied it over to the article page. It just disturbs me if the (likely pseudoscientific) full fledged aetherometry material finds its way and presents itself as the "legitimate" version of the page. -- Natalinasmpf 16:58, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

An alternative - which probably gets closer to what you have in mind - would be to dissect it, bit by bit, here on the talk page. That is what Talk pages are for (though it may not be obvious from this page). Guettarda 17:01, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd say that that is a good idea. We should take one paragraph at a time. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 17:02, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Archive this hideous display of child-like behavior, and begine. Contain all material to either article or talk pages. Casting away to other pages is extremely wasteful. TTLightningRod 17:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kuhnian paradigm shifts

New paradigms replace, rather than modify, existing theory. The statement is misleading, so if proponents suggest that this "new paradigm' will be incorportated into the existing paradigm, then they are not talking about Kuhnian paradigm shifts. Simple enough. Guettarda 17:23, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Read before you write. The article says nothing about incorporating a new paradigm into the old one. It talks about incorporating the new insights into the body of science. 209.183.19.5

And this also has nothing to do with paradigms. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:38, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It says: Some regard it as an alternative "scientific paradigm", and hope aetherometry may have some new and valid content which may be integrated into the body of science in the future.

Assuming that these unnamed "some" are both the same, then material from the new paradigm will (they hope) be incorporated into the existing paradigm. If you can do this, you aren't talking about separate paradigms. Thus, as the line said, it betrays ignorance of what a (Kuhnian) paradigm is. Read (about) Kuhn before you revert. Guettarda 17:45, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is moot now, thank heavens, but how could they possibly have been the same? The first "some" refers to people (as in "some people regard [Aetherometry] as...") and the second refers to "new and valid content" (as in "at least a tad of new and valid content"). Am I losing my mind? Is my mind losing me? Cheers, OldPatrick 19:26, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Back to work... please help

Proposed headlines under aetherometry.....

[edit] Aetherometry and mainstream science

Interested students may yet find a potential future convergence between experimental aetherometry, and the emerging field of Plasma cosmology. (also highly controversial) "Mainstream science, for the most part, still looks on the universe as electrically neutral and purely mechanical; a place where the weak force of gravity holds fort. Plasma Cosmology, by contrast, acknowledges the electrodynamic nature of the universe. Gravity and inertia are NOT the only forces at work ".[3]

that's cool... TTLightningRod

Here, a few examples of mainstream models which run counter to aetherometry. (yes, there are plenty. However only two, maybe three of the big ones should suffice for now.

[edit] The Language of Aetherometry

An important linguistic aspect to consider during an introduction to Aetherometry, as in any discussion of a controversial subject, may involve the difficulties encountered by a shared cultural interplay around group think, or more naturally, concepts of acceptable language.

Many words, concepts and mathematical components of atherometry, demand a high degree of precision and strict adherence to the scientific method. Virtually no room is allowed in this controversial field for metaphor, poetic illustration, nor bending, fixing, or conformism, to otherwise sloppy science.

This paragraph is vague. It doesn't convey any info. If the words have a precise meaning why not have a section which lists important words and defines them in the context of Aetherometry? Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 23:30, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Experimental Results

...that have so far been established.

(Please help retrieve from main page history)

[edit] Comments on building a Table of Contents

Thoughts? TTLightningRod 18:32, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As I explained on your Talk page and in the edit summary, I removed all this because, first, it's original research; secondly, it's too vague to say anything very clearly; thirdly, it's special pleading; fourthly, it's poor style in that it addresses the readers, albeit obliquely; fifthly, it embeds Wikilinks in headers; sixthly, the first header is obscure at best, and the second header inaccurate (for example, there's nothing in the text about linguistics). I don't honestly see that there's anything here to be salvaged or worked on, but perhaps other editors will disagree. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:48, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Do you find these edits to be more ballanced and productive? TTLightningRod

Thank you for your words Mel. The placement below was not intentional, other than a suggestion for others interested in building a very new article to help expand the interrelation is see by observation of the busy talk and VfD pages. Much effort has gone into the very aspects I tried to introduce as TOC sections (irrespective of the final placement). My hope was that others more versed, like yourself, would cut/past those integrated components of the main article itself. Although no longer visible, the original article, and after much reading upon the topic, I would suggest that a balanced NPOV approach to the controversy (clearly a dynamic of aetherometry. No?), would benefit both participants and novice readers alike. TTLightningRod

• Original article that was botched up and suppressed can be found at http://www.driftline.org/wikipediafascism/Aetherometry.html

Why not just help me right now, right here? TTLightningRod

Where in the paragraphs do you need aid? Sorry, I haven't been keeping track in the last 2 hours. I know the article needs aid, but where are you currently focussing on? -- Natalinasmpf 19:26, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is meant to be science right? So experimental results should be the main focus of the article IMO. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 23:02, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Natalinasmpf's proposal to go elsewhere....

[edit] Wikisource?

I'm wondering, why don't we put the original POV essay into Wikisource where we can begin this article anew, while the article can link to the POV essay from there? We could recognise it as "from the Correas" by proxy, since the original posters of the material were so eager to point out their correlation? -- Natalinasmpf 19:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Like I said before you cut yourself down here..... Why not just help me right now, right above? TTLightningRod

[edit] bibliographic formatting

This is perhaps a minor issue, but I'm asking Alterego why he feels the bibliographic formatting should be there. Bibliographic formatting goes under a "references" section (none yet), whereas external links to things like advocacy websites do not (necessarily) need date of retrieval, author, etc. especially if it messes up the aesthetics somewhat. I mean, even the most controversial topics like communism (or take a look at the FAC'ed Libertarianism for instance), don't need such formatting in their external links EXCEPT references (none yet in this article). -- Natalinasmpf 20:34, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Will you Natalinasmpf, permit a reference heading to be created or persist in asserting "no such reference exist"? TTLightningRod

The problem is that I've yet to see any references, because advocacy websites don't really count as references. Scientific papers do, however. The Correas' books, perhaps, but only if something NPOV can be gained from it. -- Natalinasmpf 20:44, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gems from http://www.aetherometry.com/pratt_aether_grav.html

• the mathematician Jacobi below misquotes the text and does not even mark it with quotes! Here is the Pratt text:

"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."

By truncating the text, this admin removes the central part of the argument. Prejudice? Stubborness? Genuine mental deficiency? Jacobi figures he will sound bright and get away without making a computation that a child can perform to verify that value or the scientifically accepted nonexplained residue. (clue: does the earth near the poles rotate with an angular velocity different than that of the equator? try that for size.) Jacobi: check the Handbook of Physics entry on Gravitation, y'a know, doncha?209.29.93.65 05:31, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"g = π2 m/s2". How does this work in countries that don't use the metric system? GangofOne 07:05, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Does the meter change as you cross borders? Helicoid.

According to the Correas, the gravitational field intensity at the equator, [...] will be found to be exactly π² m/s² (About 9.86960 m/s²). Hail to to the French Revolution! They faresightedly defined the meter, so that combined with the second (of Babylonian origin), and the eternal Pi, radius and mass of the earth perfectly matched above formula. Of course the gravitational field intensity at the equator isn't what mere physicists are measuring (9.780524 m/s²), that's only the net resultant acceleration, and the difference is not only the centrifugal force (0.03392 m/s²), but an additional 0.05516 m/s² due to an antigravity effect. --Pjacobi 20:45, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

"According to Pratt's interpretation of Dr. Correa" you ment to say. Right? TTLightningRod

Probably. It could have been directly though, because unlike Nikola Tesla for instance, the Correas are alive and well and are also probably the administrators of the website and thus would have endorsed it as their view. -- Natalinasmpf 20:55, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's directly linked and advertised as Introduction to Aetherometry and Gravity from http://www.aetherometry.com/. --Pjacobi 20:58, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

So among the other authors under that publisher, a publisher collecting the critiques by a number of individuals on a tight topic otherwise remote ... Pray tell, how many of them allow their names to be tossed around willy-nilly by this "all powerful" Correa? Would they not go after such an "abusive" .com? Please, offer your POV right here.

Darn, the number of interesting names published there (a few with wikipedia bios, and loads of linked words) raises the question of whether such a unique and interesting place deserves a wiki article of its own? When that happens, will you include Simon & Schuster in you hunt for every link to a .com? TTLightningRod

[edit] Many thanks to...

Ms. Knott

[edit] Relevance of link to plasmacosmology.net website

A Google search for "aetherometry site:plasmacosmology.net" does not seem to show any mention of the word "aetherometry" on the plasmacosmology.net website. Does anyone know if this link is relevant to this article, please? -- Karada 23:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Maybe you should ask Helicoid for help? It seemed to have offered far more help than anyone wanted to take. So it got zapped. Such is the fate of non-notable fleas.209.29.93.57

I wrote an short little para as to why main stream an others might be interested in the "interrelation". Seems a very interesting aspect, and NPOV. TTLightningRod 15:06, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] allegations of suppression/fascism etc.

Many of the aetherometry proponents/fanatics are coming over, accusing Wikipedians of being fascist, suppression, and abuse of power...how are we supposed to react to this? Should we ignore it? Should we post a full rebuttal? What? I mean, what I'm afraid is we'll get a situation like Sollog where the followers of a subject they seemed to be fanatical about ends up eternally hating Wikipedia and forming a pro-vandalism organisation against it. -- Natalinasmpf 23:30, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bloody hell that's a bit extreme. You shouldn't be so pessimistic. Welcome new users, point out personal attacks as not allowed, (best to teach by example) Work with the newcomers. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 23:42, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's right. This is by no means an unprecedented sitution: we've encountered many, many groups of POV warriors before. NPOV,the verifiability principle and WP:NOT are your friend. Be polite, follow policy, be fair, be patient. These things have a way of working themselves out. -- Karada 00:25, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

By the way, the best possible rebuttal of accusations that we are power-mad censors is that (a) the accusers are still editing here (b) the article continues to exist, and to be edited, and (c) that this whole discussion (including the accusations) is being carried out here, in plain view. -- Karada 00:43, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oy. "Work with the newcomers"? "Welcome new users"? One thing this newcomer has learned from this particular case (and I would say she has learned plenty) it is that new users and newcomers who offer articles on non-mainstream subjects can expect to be met with ridicule, disrespect, rabidity, and vandalism; they can expect to be accused of being brainwashed, doing corporate advertising, perpetrating a hoax, peddling snake oil, and using Wikipedia as a soapbox. All of this completely gratuitously and with no base. And all of it in the name of "community" and under the guise of "professionalism" and "NPOV". All of it not just allowed, but sanctioned - while, at the same time, any attempt to respond to it the way it deserves is branded a "personal attack". 165.154.24.194 00:29, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please, please, read the NPOV article again, and then read WP:NOT, in particular the part about verifiability. We have lots of articles on fringe beliefs, unconventional scientific theories, and alternative views in practically every sphere of human activity. Wikipedians are renowned for working with newcomers, and with people with opposing viewpoints, to create good articles. Instead of fighting the Wikipedia community, please ask yourself, "why is this not working in this case? How can I best address their requests to follow Wikipedia policies, and to work together to make this article better?" -- Karada 00:43, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fighting the Wikipedia community? Who me? Nah; I'm just telling it like I see it. If Helicoid was a newcomer - which I assume, from the exchanges, she was - I don't see how she has been, or is being, "worked with". Read the record. And perhaps it is you - you, the seasoned Wikipedians who are so renowned for working with newcomers - that should ask yourselves "why is it not working in this case?" How in the world should I know why it's not working? All I see is a handful of people who have taken it upon themselves to "improve" an article on a subject they know nothing about, are contemptuous about, and every time they make an "improvement" they falsify the subject, screw up the grammar so that the sentences don't make sense, introduce their own bias, etc. So I would say to you: The reason it is not working is that you have never, for even a second, treated the original author or her contribution with any kind of respect - respect for the person's thought, respect for her subject matter, respect for her language, respect for her motivations. And respect is the prerequisite of "working together", no? 165.154.24.194 01:03, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's what working on a Wiki is like, until you are used to it, and learn Wikiquette and the other social mores needed to interact with other users. You are certainly right that working together requires some minimal mutual respect -- can we have some too, please?

Sorry, you (as in your "we") are not going to get any from me. It's a bit late for that. But neither do you need any from me; I have no desire, and you have no need, for us to "work together". What are we supposed to work together on? As for Wikiquette, I have seen plenty of examples in action in you-all's treatment of Helicoid. Let's see... There's the "Please do not bite the newcomers" rule ("Understand that newcomers are both needed by and of value to the community. By empowering newcomers, we improve the diversity of knowledge, opinions and ideals on Wikipedia, enhance its value and preserve its neutrality and integrity as a resource.") Has Helicoid been empowered? Did I miss the big Empowerment Event? Then there is the "Assume Good Faith" rule ("Assume good faith is a fundamental principle on any wiki, including Wikipedia. ") Would you say that screaming "hoax", "brainwashing", "crank", "fanatic", "snake oil", is a manifestation of assuming good faith? If not, then when did this famous assuming take place? Then there is the "No legal threats" rule, in which one reads: "Similarly, slander, libel, or defamation of character is not to be tolerated on Wikipedia." Wouldn't you say that calling a person's life's work "a hoax", insinuating that the person is lying about the scientific degrees she has, claiming that the person is a "snake oil vendor" - all without any basis, without any provocation, and on a very public forum - wouldn't you say that these are libel, slander and defamation of character? And you are calling on me to learn Wikiquette? - 165.154.24.194

What? Unless I wasn't informed, the Correas are not a contributor to Wikipedia. Therefore to bash them on a TALK PAGE (not an article) is hardly slander. It is my personal opinion. I used it to call for a votes on deletion. I do not have to justify its allegation for its existence on a talk page. Funny who is fascist here. Others can contest this statement if they want, but that's not being "short of Wikiquette". Unlike Helicoid, I did not make a personal attack on another contributor. However, the Correas are not contributors, so why should it matter if I make an allegation on them? Furthermore, calling them cranks is not a personal attack: its simply a dose of healthy skepticism. And if you don't want to work with us, don't edit. However, if you do want to get your aetherometry theory fairly represented, then do work with us, and we'll work with you. Helicoid - he was blocked, and will be shortly unblocked, for violating the three revert rule - excessive reversions violate other editor's rights - mind you, even administrators cannot violate this rule, unless it was vandalism. However, he reverted edits that simply validly showed there it was not rigorously accepted by the scientific community and a valid statement of why it can't be called "proven", and that is not reverting vandalism. I have to assume good faith about users: I do not have to assume good faith about a theory - that is my point of view. I am not pushing this POV anywhere, except that this is Wikipedia and its justifiable to show that people are opposing it (reasonably), not because "they haven't understood the material". If you are alleging that the article should try to defend the opposition to the theory because such opposition isn't reasonable, that is a form of POV, which contradicts the NPOV policy. Once again, assuming good faith applies to contributors only. If I call a theory, or the Correas snake oil and snake oil vendors respectively, that's hardly not assuming good faith. Accusing us of libel? Slander? Defamation of character? Such accusations are all pro-fascist and undemocratic things. My government suppresses the opposition by accusing it of slander, and you're doing the same...is it being impolite when I accuse aetherometry of being snake oil on a talk page? No, because that isn't apppearing on the official version of the article. Its only for discussion. Therefore, I think its perfectly justified for us to ask for Wikiquette from contributors, as I don't see how I have violated it all along. Are you going to prosecute us for libel and slander now? Talk about fascism. -- Natalinasmpf 01:57, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is it possible that you are really that stupid, or are you just pretending? Accusing anybody publicly, without any proof, of perpetrating a hoax, of lying about their credentials, is slander and libel and defamation of character and a legally actionable offense. There is nothing in the libel law, at least of any country I have ever lived in, that says that this law only applies if the victim of the libel is a contributor to Wikipedia. And no, it is not pro-fascist to prosecute people who are trying to defame one's good name and tarnish one's reputation. And don't give me the crap about how you only did it on "Talk" pages and the "Votes for Deletion" pages; these are all public media outlets, just as public as the New York Times or the National Enquirer. So no, you cannot just blithely make slanderous allegations about somebody and then pretend that holding you responsible for them is "fascism".

As for Helicoid, you have repeatedly violated the "Assume Good Faith" policy. Examples abound, but here is just one random example: "You originally wanted this for a niche to publish your views, well guess what, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Maybe you can go to Wikicities or something, instead." Claiming, without any basis, that Helicoid just wanted a soapbox, is not "assuming good faith". And after you talk to her like this, you suggest that she "work with you"? What baloney. 165.154.24.194

Legal threats won't do you any good on wikipedia. Please see No legal threats for more information. Also check WP:Civility --Phroziac (talk) 03:04, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Where did you, User Phroziac, suddenly appear from? Do you guys have an automatic alarm system that pages the admin on duty when certain words are used, upon which the admin hurriedly quits her dinner table, or matrimonial bed, and rushes to the computer to squash the fire? I am curious how extensive the vocabulary recognized by the alarm system is. Can I test it? Just how extensive is it, you teratocarcinomatous bulb?

As for legal threats, the document No legal threats which you cite, and which I just quoted a few hours ago (but will now quote again to the utter boredom of all involved), says: "Similarly, slander, libel, or defamation of character is not to be tolerated on Wikipedia; true instances of such writing, that might legitimately expose Wikipedia to legal sanction, should immediately be called to the attention of an administrator and/or the community at large." See, you phycomycetous ectoplasm? 165.154.24.83 06:34, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• A little parano no?209.29.93.57 03:17, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A question: you refer to Helicoid as "she" throughout. You don't know my sex, nor do I know yours. Yet you appear to know Helicoid's sex. How? Unless there's a textual clue, I can't see how you could know. Could you let me know, please? -- Karada 01:19, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Heh heh, if I referred to Helicoid as "he", you wouldn't conclude that I "appeared to know Helicoid's sex", but if I refer to it as "she", then you think you caught me. No go, Karada. 165.154.24.194 01:45, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• A NPOV admin when it comes to sex? Just see backroom talk, where Helicoid is sexuated as a he! It would be a riot if it turns out to be a she, the way she was put down in this here thing, like a live theater play (no conspiracy here):"I see you've encountered Helicoid. I don't know how to proceed with him, because he's engaging in trolling behaviour, personal attacks, violation of the NPOV policy, rejection of the concept of peer review, and a whole host of other things. Seeing as you just came upon it, what is your view?" Asks Natalina at 23:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC). Answers Karada or Karada and Karada (two entries) - hint, hint, nudge, nudge: "Well, if he goes on escalating in this way, he's likely to get banned by an admin. However, I must recuse myself from doing it, because I'm involved in editing the article, and by extension, in the controversy. If he just treads water, a Request for Comments might be appropriate. If he really won't stop being abusive, shout for an admin, and one will generally magically appear. If not, let me know, and I'll see how I can help." 23:52, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC). Good power play!209.29.93.57 01:59, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Power play? He was being abusive - and he was violating the three revert rule, and was therefore blocked. He will be released shortly. I am not an admin. I have as much power as you. Oh by the way. Power play? You realise administrators have the right to block abusive users? -- Natalinasmpf 02:03, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Must be difficult for admins to find a factotum this pliable to do their misguided dirty work upfront. Excess of power. Gratuitous allegations. Repeated over and over without substance. All on public record. Remarkable as a free exercize in gratuitous aggression. The public thing in the hands of barbarians.209.29.93.57 02:15, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

When these admins have a conspicuously clean record elsewhere in maintaining other scientific articles' (ie. tens of thousands), versus one little article here, I'm thinking the bias is not on them. Especially considering that As for "repeated over and over again without substance" - the Correas work has little substance (we've asked for actual verifiable proof for days, ie. not a listing of phD's, but a scientific references with title of scientific papers, page number and line number), so you've just comitted a logical fallacy with a circular argument. You can't dismiss our allegations that there is little substance to the theory with the idea that such an allegation has little substance because there was little proof to disprove in the first place. Have you checked the article on falsifiability? As for a "public thing" in the hands of barbarians, would you prefer Wikipedia not exist? The very processes you criticise are the foundation of Wikipedia, so lets see you get the subpoena to shut this website down on "gratuitous allegations". Lets see you call your lawyer. Do you want to make a legal threat? Which is quite ironic, again, users have every right to criticise the theory if they want. In fact, you obviously don't know that a lot of such "gratuitous slander" goes into Wikipedia Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense". There is nothing wrong with me making such allegations - because I have yet to see anything substantial supporting aetherometry. You can tell me you "found these references in a book", but until you cite me the book number, ISDN, page and line number, it doesn't count - this is to account to readers. In order to be a responsible encylopedia in fact, we can't assert the minority view over the majority view, either, (and we're not ignoring either view), to so do would actually be slandering mainsteam science. -- Natalinasmpf 02:24, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• And to repeat the sacred text of an ankle-biter:"When these admins have a conspicuously clean record elsewhere in maintaining other scientific articles' (ie. tens of thousands), versus one little article here, I'm thinking the bias is not on them." So the factotum does speak for the admins. Kinda quaint ventriloquism.209.29.93.57 03:14, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Then: "Especially considering that As for "repeated over and over again without substance" - the Correas work has little substance (we've asked for actual verifiable proof for days, ie. not a listing of phD's, but a scientific references with title of scientific papers, page number and line number), so you've just comitted a logical fallacy with a circular argument." Natalinas you're talking to the wrong person. I am not going to provide you with anythinig. But did you read above? There was somewhere a link to two list of publications. I forgot:you only listen to yourself and the admins. Voice of the master.209.29.93.57 03:14, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delirious next:"As for a "public thing" in the hands of barbarians, would you prefer Wikipedia not exist? The very processes you criticise are the foundation of Wikipedia, so lets see you get the subpoena to shut this website down on "gratuitous allegations". Lets see you call your lawyer. Do you want to make a legal threat?" About what? I'm not the Correas, I'm not Helicoid, I'm not notable, I have no beef with you. You're a disturbed, very disturbed kid. One who hangs on to this malice as if it were a salvation board. Those of age above you should put a stop to you. Maybe ban you indefinitely. (I cannot give you legal advice, but I would if I were your legal guardian.)209.29.93.57 03:14, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Then, more of the same underage stuff: "Which is quite ironic, again, users have every right to criticise the theory if they want." Natalinas confuses the right to criticize with an imagined right to gratuitously demean without substance. For this infant, it is the same.209.29.93.57 03:14, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Really an @#$&* who cannot even navigate through a profusion of material at aetherometry.com and massfree.com and so on: "There is nothing wrong with me making such allegations - because I have yet to see anything substantial supporting aetherometry." Helicoid come back!209.29.93.57 03:14, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Phenomenal: Wants me to recite ISBNs (the Correas must have hundreds). Wants a servant to clean up his mess and educate him: "You can tell me you "found these references in a book", but until you cite me the book number, ISDN, page and line number, it doesn't count." ISBN, not ISDN. I'm reciting nothing to you. have another tantrum.209.29.93.57 03:14, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Natalinas: all you have is raw and out-of-control power on your side. Shameful for an anarchist. What does Hans Botho say? You cannot arrogate for yourself any representation of a majority. Not even Wikipedia, But even if your majority were real (otherwise why are the defenders of aetherometry now voting to delete?), what would it matter, when it is an ill-informed majority, one that puts down minorities, one that gloats in asserting lies about many things, not just aetherometry. It suffices to look at some entries. People like you is what is wrong in this project. You use the excuse of a majority that does not even exist to destroy contributions from members of the public who know their subject matter, while you don't. You are a shameless exhibitionist. And you cannot humbly admit that you don't know what you don't know, and to have a POV on what one does not know is surely dumb, to say the least. I like how you end this choice contribution: "In order to be a responsible encylopedia in fact, we can't assert the minority view over the majority view, either, (and we're not ignoring either view), to so do would actually be slandering mainsteam science." Should I be afraid that 'mainsteam Science' will sue me? She steams a lot no? 209.29.93.57 03:14, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] On Admins couching someone not of age to help with suppression

• Oh yeah, suppression as if it were a boxing match for life and death of these new dictators of knowledge, these majoritarian reps. here is the backroom talk on the Natalinasmpf: Subject is Helicoid:

Hi N. You (correctly I think) said don't respond to Helcoid but then got caught up again. Don't worry, no-one is taking her seriously, there is no point responding, and certainly not at length. IMHO. William M. Connolley 22:03, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC).

You can always raise the issue of "personal attacks" at WP:AN/I or WP:RFC, especially if they persist or get especially vicious. No personal attacks is Wikipedia policy. Good job keeping cool in the face of provocation. Keep cool, do your best to ignore them and prove (as you have done quite well) that age is not the best indicator of maturity. Guettarda 22:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Be careful - you are at risk of breaking the 3RR. Guettarda 01:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Duly noted. What he did was insert spiteful comments like changing "dectractors" into "detractors who have not read the material", so I assumed that could be called vandalism, and not violating the 3RR. -- Natalinasmpf 01:23, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Removing the personal attacks aren't covered by the 3rr, feel free to remove them. However, you also reverted other material. The matter has been raised by pjacobi on WP:AN/I - other people will get involved. It isn't the end of the world if things stand for a few minutes. I don't want you to get yourself blocked. Be patient. Guettarda 01:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Muzzle Helicoid, but provide cover for their cover in the opposition to an article that was informative. A remarkable power play, sort of a manipulation of the under-age.

Helicoid's legal threats break another Wikipedia policy, but taunting him/her only lowers you to his/her level. Having the last word isn't the same as winning an argument. Sometimes the best way to win a fight is simply to say nothing and show you are the bigger person. Guettarda 02:07, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Advice to shut up, which went unheeded.

I've got to go to bed (should have done so hours ago) Looks like he's gone for the moment, I'll chack on things in the morning. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 03:02, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're being unreasonable. I can't contribute because I'm "underage"? The talk was never "backroom", by the way, what, if I make a request for arbitration and RFC, that would be backroom too? Apparently you haven't seen the administrator's noticeboard. They are all avenues for discussion, not "backroom" talk. -- Natalinasmpf 02:42, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Ain't a copper here Natalinas. I will not report you or sue you. You're an infant, and I have no beef with you (can't you read?). It suffices that your cop-admin is present here and reading this record and doing nothing. They know what they should do and should have done and not have done. Isn't the police there to serve and protect all citizens equally?209.29.93.57 03:24, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] On my latest factual changes

• Natalinas, you wrote: "sentence structure - basically, you can post all the theory you want, as long as the language makes it sound that its a CLAIM, not asserting it as fact, if you can do that for us it would be great". But that's as far as I'm willing to go. I did not write the original article, nor have I done anything other than correct a terrible wrong you and others committed. So, even though I feel somewhat sorry for your predicament, I can't do no more. But I will give you my advice: personnally, I think that you should withdraw all the scurrilous allegations you made in the heat of the moment, let's say; in terms of being a positive Wikipedian member, you should request admin to lift Helicoid's penalty; and at the same time restore the original article (it was a good one!) and work with Helicoid and others to transform it into something valuable. As for what has gone down the river, I haven't the faintest. From my knowledge of the Correas and their associates, I do not think they will take very kindly to what has gone on. It appears that your lesson wasn't over. I can only hope for you that the vote to delete will be victorious. What I showed you is that to make meaningful alterations you gotta know your stuff. A balanced person can be firm, but should never be caught saying he or she knows something that he or she don't.Good luck!209.29.93.65 06:38, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi Anon user. I am an admin here. A couple of points to note.

• The original article needs work. Obviously you think it was a good one, but others disagree. The way we sort that out is by collectivly editing the article. Some people never take to this process, but it's the way we do things around here. You need to understand that the original article will not be restored, so it's best to work on the current one.
• Helicoid has only been temp blocked. He can can back after 24 hours no problem. He was blocked for excessive reverting. Revert warring is pointless and bad and makes it difficult for editors to edit the article. It's not allowed.
• Warring over an article is bad. Being rude to people is bad. Being patronising is bad. I urge everyone (not just you) to start being polite, calm down, and work together to produce a decent article. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 09:09, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Hello knott/ask the rotten:it's been an education to see you and other admins work, believe me. I'm no Helicoid and have already performed my contributions. Roughly, but sometimes it is necessary, unlike the extreme indulgence of modern educators. However, blocking Helicoid was an act of extreme desperation, specially when admins and a certain minor were allowed to change other people's texts, get away with multiple infractions, delete records, a merry-go-round of most uncivil and most disrespecting behavior, a free-for-the-hell-of-it aggression. By the way, admitting to one's errors even in one's ways is still a virtue, no? Maybe in collective 'things' the blame can be so much more equitably distributed that no one needs to assume responsibility anymore and say "I was wrong" ("we were wrong" definitely does not sound right, does it?), "I apologize". I think for my part that there's much that you and other people have to apologize for. So, it is difficult to withstand moral lessons from those who have morally become disqualified. Only naked power remains. On being rude: it suffices to read the wikipages of people who dribbled in and out of this discussion, to see that rude is in: badass, and other stuff like that is now seen as a notable description of oneself in public. From where I come from, you call a spade a spade, and treat as rude those that are rude, and badasses as badasses. My pleasure to confide in you. I just wish Helicoid could have been there for you, to answer your burning questions and help you out with an entry that, frankly, makes me smile like the Gioconda.209.29.93.65 10:11, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Helaciod will be back in a few hours. What in particular do you want me to apologise for? (I am very happy to apologise for anything I have done wrong) I don't believe I have been rude to anyone, if I have then let me state right now that I never intended to Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 10:59, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ms Knott. I do not want you to apologize for anything. Better ask that from that User. I only request that you do your job, beginning with stop-playing casino-wins. The only determined opposition to my entry has come from administrators. I am now coming to the view that there is indeed an undemocratic little-chapel conspiracy at work to refuse a legitimate entry that could have been worked on. You, Gerarda, Karada, Jacobi, weatherman, this Mel Etitits and so on, have shown great bias, taken liberty with everything (from people's reputations to the accuracy of facts), have MUTILATED records, texts and EVEN USER's INTERVENTIONS. So go play the Mother Theresa elsewhere, alright? Come clean and advise your fellow-travellers to abide by the very rules they are so proud to quote me and apply to newcomers like myself.Helicoid not Hellacid.

[edit] Personal civility

A note to the anons editing this article: Please refrain from calling other editors stupid, moron, etc. It is unbecoming and besides which, it is against Wikipedia's policies (see Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility). Disagree with peoples' editing if you must, but please do not insult people. You can be penalized for repeated violations of these policies. Thanks. · Katefan0^(scribble) 07:08, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Last warning Katefan0:Play all the cop you want, lady. You came out of the blue, changed the meaning of a sentence by removing parentheses gratuitously to make the sentence meaningless and put back an 'is' when any good reporter would check the value of that 'is' in a statement about a person (Dr. Mallove) who has been murdered. A dead person cannot currently be a supporter of anything. get that? Or is it too hard a concept for you? That 'is' is a falsity that I had already corrected Natalinas on. You learn manners before earning my respect, instead of making dumb corrections. You have just earned my disrespect for pretending to be proper when you are nonfactual and don't bother to check the facts. What a journalist! To top it all, you deleted my previous warning to you. Another vandal!209.29.93.65 07:27, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Again, please stop making personal attacks. I'm glad to hear your arguments for what you would like to change inside the article, but the rest needs to stop. It's not useful to improving the article. Thanks · Katefan0^(scribble) 07:28, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Beyond issues of civility, your edits covered vastly more ground than simply an is->was change. I'd like to hear your case for the rest of your edits. · Katefan0^(scribble) 07:45, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Read the record of my edits and compare. Check the language and compare. Figure out why you keep removing the qualifier 'minor scientific' from "investigation", you're a big girl, no? And 'improvise the failures of controversial theories"...what kinda nonsense is that, female reporter from Washington? People like you people just are not worth the bother. you'd like to hear my case...gimme a break. Stop making nonsense edits, that's all!209.29.93.65 07:54, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In case you have not noticed, I have a problem with trigger-happy people that make spurious corrections. for a Washington reporter you should know better. Be better informed. As for the repeat corrections of Natalinas, it is more embarassing harassment or maybe the kid really does not understand grammatical construction: "I didn't see a problem with the rest of my edits, parantheses aren't professional nor formal, and as for "improvise", you were supposed to clarify, I specifically asked you to revise on that". If you think that "explanations improvise the failures of controversial theories or controversial fields of investigation" means anything, I may as well leave you all to it. You manage to mangle even a short text. improvise the failures...wow. I'll make one last correction and then you analphabetic morons can go back to mangling it. Frigging jerks!209.29.93.65 07:54, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, report me, abolish me, suspend me, quarter me - and above all screw the text!!Vote delete, and delete all!!209.29.93.65 07:54, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Katefan0: I do not have to explain nothin' to you:you just arrived and already managed to mangle somethin'209.29.93.65 08:00, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're undermining your own case. You're attacking us for trying to improve the sense of how your claims sound? For grammatical construction - parantheses are not supposed to be excessively used in an encylopedia. If you think it sounds funny, make appropriate changes, not revert the entire revision! I did ask you to clarify. As for grammar, the irony, you just used a double negative in the last sentence, if you really want an eye for an eye tactic in response to your nitpicking. It was awkward before, so I changed it. Talk about assuming good faith, I made that edit with no hostility towards you. As for "just arrived and mangled a text", apparently you don't get what a wiki is. An editor passes by, notices something and changes it, and shouldn't be prevented from doing so, and deserves to have things discussed with just like every other editor, because it is a peer encylopedia. If she ever arrived, she arrived a long time ago, in terms of being on an encylopedia. -- Natalinasmpf 08:08, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

yeah, an editor passes by with a belly full of beer and pronto, the dead now become alive, past tenses become present, "explanations improvise the failures of controversial theories", blah blah, and I'm supposed to put with this? You've had lesson enough Natalinas. Now you can go back and vandalize again.209.29.93.65 08:35, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's not vandalism. It is at most, being clueless, (which I was not as I justified my changes). I did not know he was dead, and you can clearly see I accomodated that. As for the parantheses, it doesn't fit the manual of style as they are excessive, so I made it into non parantheses form. Talk about assuming good faith. -- Natalinasmpf 08:39, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Natalinas: I ran out of patience with you; stop making grammatically wrong changes, meaningless additions and other forms of vandalism. Or I will formally report you, which up until now I've refrained from doing. Last warning and good night.209.29.93.65 08:14, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You apparently don't know what "vandalism" is. Grammatical mistakes are not vandalism, never mind how I don't see how making changes conforming to the manual of style are grammatical changes anyway. As for formally reporting, you're already up for report:

When they are introduced on purpose, as a systematic hindrance, yes they are. you people are good at quoting the rules and explaining how they only work for yourselves and your admin commune with its irresponsible agents.Kafkian fascists!209.29.93.65 08:35, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kind of funny, it seems you only want to resort to it as a personal attack. If I'm a moron for not knowing grammar, then I couldn't have inserted in on purpose. If I inserted in on purpose, I can't be a moron for not knowing grammar, because then I would have to know I'm knowingly obfuscating the article. It seems you have contradicted yourelf. Choose one or the other. At the rate of your indecisiveness, maybe it is that *gasp* I am neither. -- Natalinasmpf 08:52, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, you people are mental bureaucrats:kinda of a spiritual police that is only happy when things are done one way, and only too happy to throw rules, power, authority and other BS around. When it comes to knowledge, care in editing, good will , you're a bunch of face-saving arses. Expell me then. You expel all that is good and keep all that is $#@%^&$#.08:42, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're only going to be blocked if you continue editing that way, not because we are suppressing your theories. We've become quite tolerant of you, mind. Note that whether your theory is notable or not is still in question: for example, its hardly suppression if we delete vanity pages like say, an article about you. In terms of spiritual police, you mean, like how we ruthlessly removed unsubstantiated material from Sollog, and the fanatics who worshipped him then tried to accuse Wikipedia of being part of the conspiracy? -- Natalinasmpf 08:52, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Natalinasmpf, give it a rest. Let's see what he comes up with. In the meantime why not work on your homework? May I suggest you start with Mau Mau (Helicoid wrote Mao Mao), Thomas Kuhn , and while you're at it, Paul Feyerabend. GangofOne 09:37, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Helicoid was blocked for twenty-four hours by Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:50, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC) . It will be over in less that 3 hours. I am looking forward to Helicoid's answers to some questions I posed above. I made a header there, "My Ridiculous Comments" for ease of reference. GangofOne 10:23, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm back Gang of One. Who was it that needed the seventh as rest? But I remark what others in my absence have noticed - the disputes over my sex, accompanied by questions that I made to participants that nearly all turn out to be administrators, questions that have gone unanswered; 'abuses of power' (someone called them) including the latest deletions by the Mel Etitis powerhouse (the new shift of administrators in the relay race) that Lightning Rod has been sparring with. It's irrational, gratuitous...er, it's fascism, ain't it? No, Gang of One, you too have not answered my questions, so we go around in circles making questions and not answering the other guy's questions. Meanwhile, this Melititis and the Jacobi are already involved in a mao-mao purification. The environment is toxic, and those who recite the rules, worst bureaucrats of the mind than believers in the any sacred book. REPRESSING ME when others got away with so much worse shows a very brutal exercise in power. Maybe Google should be notified of this entire process, of how UNDEMOCRATIC it has been.Helicoid.

You forgot to compare us to Hitler and Stalin (and I'm a bit surprised that only three words were in block capitals). Nevertheless, supply the diffs showing that others violated the 3RR after being warned, and the cases can be considered. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:29, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fascism had not yet become so molecular and discrete and well camouflaged, with Hitler and Stalin. You guys are far more insidious in some respects. Yeah you don't burn bodies, you only immolate thought for entertainment. What was it that Deleuze said of Thought? That it is Desire. I guess you'd call that GOD and an INTERPRETATION. Please explain who would desire to interact with collectives that display such bigotry and zealotry towards FACTS (know what that is??), entrust loudmouth juveniles to do their (shall I dare?) conspiratorial and ignorant sap job, and now come on to me to ask me to play the cop?? I play no cop here. You're the cop who arrested me, no? Do your own work, I'm not doing it for you. Clean-up hearsay, unfounded charges of hoaxes, clean up those who abused their power and position by mucking with the entry, with the Talk, with user's interventions. Do your job, or you want me to tell you what your job is? Then, come and teach a seasoned antifascist how to cook eggs and respect you. Helicoid.

• I just noticed on my User page that Mel Etitits has threatened to arrest me again. It seems that the suppression will continue. Helicoid may soon be no more. Helicoid

If you had your own forums, and I went in there attacking you left and right, would you tolerate it? Hardly. You would "block me". Is that "suppression"? No, because I did not voice legitimate opposition. Same applies to you here. As for "arrest", please don't be misleading. Its a block from editing. And it was only temporary. Unlike you, he has made no legal threats. -- Natalinasmpf 20:28, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clean-up

I've just removed a lot of rather messy material, made up of section-headers without sections, sections with just a few notes, and this:

==Language of Aetherometry==

(proposed list of important words in the context of Aetherometry)

*massfree energy — either in the form of latent heat or in the form of massfree charge, or what they
refer to as "ambipolar electricity". [4]

If the article suvives VfD, and if this can be writen properly, it could be replaced, but as it stands it's a proposal (which has no place in an article), with one obscure (to be kind) entry. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:51, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That was a collabrative work by a number of people. A begining. An attempt to build something in a constructive way, ballanced, and NPOV. A way for any number of people to add a word here, change the order of something there. YOU DELETE ALL. TTLightningRod 14:40, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Many articles begin as a simple layout of headings, ideas and notes for what should be placed where, and an option for people to re-order the TOC before discussion moves on. In a way, what you seem to have suggested, is that some-kind of complete, fully formed article should have appeared all at once, (impossible). A collaboration was taking place..... your total deletion of the entire TOC, was not necessary. Please consider commenting in the talk page about what you thought of as worthy of such action. Or return the calm work of other people. Thank you. TTLightningRod

I can only repeat that it was a mess, not suitable for public display to Wikipedia readers. This article is part of an on-line encyclopædia, publicly readable; it shouldn't be treated as if it were the sandbox. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:08, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The build up of an article by a number of people..... missspellings, baDgramer, rong order of thinngs. Your not serrious abOUt really feeliing Thant you cna protects all dhem maassses form avry mistatke hererr.... you must be kidding right. Mel, you seem to suggest your protecting people. People who may read something. Where exactly do people see your "all the wiki has been cleaned by Mel to be publicly readable". Pray tell. TTLightningRod

I'm afraid that I understood very little of that, though you seem to be talking about a whole lot of things that I didn't mention and with which I'm not concerned here. You've obviously getting rather overwrought about all this; I usually find that going off and doing something else for a while (on or off Wikipedia) helps to put things in perspective. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:27, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Silly-Willy ... : ) " I think we understand each other quite well. Have a nice day at the office Mel. I'll go punch kittens. TTLightningRod

Incidentally, I've added chunks of text to this article which were immediately removed; I didn't notice your outraged protests when that happened... Nor did I make a fuss about it myself. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:33, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The difference is.... what you most recently did, was totally remove the simple work of a number of people. Why didn't you try to take the lead, and and add a few words of your own..... again. TTLightningRod 15:42, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How about this for a nugget of inspiration

==Signing~~ Remember to always sign all of your posts on talk pages. Typing four tildes after your comment ( ~~~~ ) will insert a signature showing your username and a date/time stamp, which is very helpful. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:09, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"oops" TTLightningRod 15:22, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] metric!

And another gem from http://www.aetherometry.com/pratt_aether_grav.html

The Correas write: 'He never formally divulged the functional equivalence between mass and length. However, from careful analysis of the results of his pendulum experiments, one can enunciate the earth-shattering discovery of the equivalence between molecular mass and wavelength ...' The equation is: mass-equivalent wavelength (in metres) = mass (in grams) x Avogadro's number x 10-2.

By definition the mass of one atom C12 is 12/NA gram, so its mass-equivalent wavelength is exactly 12 centimetres! Isn't this amazing? The very atom which defines organic life can be expressed as exactly 0.12 times the base unit of the Metric system! Shouldn't god's own country immediately switch to metric?

Pjacobi 16:35, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)

Should you be this ignorant of the existence of gravitational resonance in pendulums? Should you be so atavic as to claim that Aetherometry invokes a creator? Should you read so badly as to not understand that no system of measurement is privileged exactly because measurement units are not Platonic ideas (nor are concepts for that matter)? Should you be so blind as to not realize that some units are more convenient than others? Should you know so little of the history of science as to imagine that the best units, like the worst ones, do not arise from empirical data and sense-perception? Why did the Babylonians arrive near the second? Why did Galileo feel compelled to invent punti and tempi? Should you not admit to the scientific necessity of the best units of measurement being the simplest and the most elegant - those that best account for facts? What do you do of Ockham's razor now? Who needs the phenomenological unit of mass? You, binary-state programmer trying to pass yourself for a critic of that which you are now fast digesting? careful with the ingestion.Helicoid (just after the sabbath, no?)

But if it's based on 12 doesn't that mean that God wants you to use the Imperial system? Guettarda 18:37, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Should you be told that Aetherometrists are not Pythagorean? No, what the hell, you must first run through the inventory of all standard apriori objections. maybe at the end you will look at the material and ralize that, eh, number 12 plays no magical role...Guettarda, mouse-cliker, go vote to delete and be quiet, eh? Helicoid.(oh i forgot that concepts, says Deleuze, are now the property of commercial promoters...)

Should you be this ignorant of the existence of gravitational resonance in pendulums? Should you be so atavic as to claim that Aetherometry invokes a creator? Should you read so badly as to not understand that no system of measurement is privileged exactly because measurement units are not Platonic ideas (nor are concepts for that matter)? Should you be so blind as to not realize that some units are more convenient than others? Should you know so little of the history of science as to imagine that the best units, like the worst ones, do not arise from empirical data and sense-perception? Why did the Babylonians arrive near the second? Why did Galileo feel compelled to invent punti and tempi? Should you not admit to the scientific necessity of the best units of measurement being the simplest and the most elegant - those that best account for facts? What do you do of Ockham's razor now? Who needs the phenomenological unit of mass? You, binary-state programmer trying to pass yourself for a critic of that which you are now fast digesting? careful with the ingestion.Helicoid (just after the sabbath, no?)

Sorry, but more reading of Aetherometry pages made me think, that by application of Ockham's razor, the whole theory can only be joke. So I reacted in line with this.

Pjacobi's advice to authors of ground-shaking new phyical theories:

• Never ever make your physical constants equal to or simple multiples of man-made units of measurement.

Pjacobi 18:42, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)

This is a bit sweeping, no? Doesn't it depend on how exactly those man-made units were made? If I define a man-made unit of acceleration called "piffle", and I define it to be 1/13th of the gravitational acceleration on Earth, then the gravitational acceleration will be exactly 13 piffles. Carramba! 165.154.24.44 20:59, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The meter once was defined to be make g equal to π²m/s². But that is not true anymore. And to balance this change of meter with the assumption of antigravity masking the true value of g, is somewhat original.

And for the mass/length conversion coincidence, no such argument can be made, for obvious reasons.

June 28, 2005 16:37 (UTC)

[edit] Reich-Einstein experiment

Can please anybody provide references for the existence of a "Reich-Einstein experiment" experiment? Otherwise I'd prefer to leave Einstein's good name out of this article. --Pjacobi 18:03, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)

Oy vey Jacobi, you could find references by at least 3 different authors in the link that I gave above. Ah, I forgot - if it is an infomrative list of publications in other venues or on its own, it's advocacy. You guys (like this melititis who is now doing his bureaucratic shift and was the fellow who shut me up) are amazing. This is how it goes: a fellow (W. Reich) makes a discovery; another fellow (A. Einstein) CONFIRMS it; guys like you two, Jacobi and Melititis, make 'peer-pressure'; that fellow (A. Einstein) still CONFIRMS the finding but clams up; everybody like you two come to believe that this is PROOF that the effect is not REAL; years later some other guys confirm the effect (Correas, E. Mallove); it is published (not in your beloved Nature or whatever consumption of nerdiness you elect as your GOD); yet, it continues to be taboo, because the impression remains, because masses of people like you DESIRE oppression as they desire IGNORANCE. Facts are facts: Einstein performed a week long experiment with Reich and they found what they found. Jacobi and Melititis are showing their deep ignorance of FACTS once again. Helicoid.

Indeed, I was just about to add the same comment: I Googled for it, and could not find any references to a "Reich-Einstein experiment" outside of the world of Aetherometry/free-energy websites. According to [5], the "Reich-Einstein experiment" involves orgone accumulators and temperature variations, so presumably the "Reich" involved would have been Wilhelm Reich.

Which led to this: [6]. According to this account, Reich and Einstein did indeed meet, and Reich did indeed demonstrate a temperature effect -- and Einstein showed Reich that the temperature effect was completely explained by conventional high-school physics. And the page linked above provides cites to Reich's The Cancer Biopathy etc. for the details of the experiment. And, according to the article, Einstein was lent an accumulator, and had his assistant perform his own experiment. However, labeling this experiment of Reich's the "Reich-Einstein" experiment seems to be an attempt to enlist Einstein's name in support of an effect that Einstein seems, according to the account above, to have explicitly debunked.

Quoted from the linked article above:

"In 1941, Reich gave an orgone accumulator box (with thermometers set up in strategic places) to Albert Einstein. Einstein quickly discovered that, yes, the temperature inside the box did indeed tend to be higher than the temperature outside the box. However, an assistant pointed out that convection currents between the air over the table and the air in the room as a whole could explain the temperature difference. Einstein then took pains to measure the air temperature above the table — without the orgone accumulator being present — and the air temperature below the table, and found that the air above the table was warmer than the air below the table by 0.68 degrees Celsius. As far as Einstein was concerned, this completely explained the temperature difference inside and outside the accumulator. In his private notes and in a lengthy letter of reply to Einstein, Reich, in an all-too-characteristic manner, levelled a thinly-veiled accusation of incompetence at Einstein's assistant."

-- Karada 18:27, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So now Roger Wilcox is supposed to be an NPOV authority on orgonomy? Tsk tsk. If you guys are going to make yourselves the judges of information having to do with Orgonomy, Reich, or any other scientific endeavour not accepted by the mainstream, then you need to learn how to distinguish wheat from chaff. You cannot elevate someone to the position of an "authority" simply because he or she comes from the same aprioristic knee-jerk preconceptions as you. And if you cannot do that, then be honest enough to disqualify yourselves from "editing" articles on such topics. 165.154.24.70 18:56, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, now we know how Wikipedian machinations work, the kind of kangaroo court of knowledge that Wikipedia has become, the kind of administrator 'research' by the fastest mouse click possible: to become a peer of anything you read the web; anything will do, Roger Wilcox and Demeo (sheer pseudo-science and pseudo-Reichianism) do not need to have published their attacks on W. Reich and the Correas in any peer-review publication, let alone a mainstream one. A simple search and some dirt turns up, presto! Then that dirt can be used to impugn those that HAVE LEGITIMATE DEGREES, UNTARNISHED REPUTATIONS and DO LEGITIMATE WORK EVEN IF THEIR PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT MAINSTREAM BUT MINORITARY. I think that Wikipedia needs to be denounced loud and clear. I suspect it will. Helicoid.

No, I'm not regarding Wilcox as more or less expert or reliable than the Correas: there's nothing in that page to draw a conclusion from on that matter. I'm just saying that "Wilcox says Reich says Einstein denied Reich's interpretation of the results". Now, that's only an opinon, twice removed. However, Wilcox is kind enough to give us cites to Reich's work, and to say that Reich's notes mentioned Einstein's conclusions. Now, given that Reich's writings are widely published, it is possible for a third party to check whether or not Wilcox's account fairly reports Reich's own account of this matter. (Quote from Wilcox: "In his private notes and in a lengthy letter of reply to Einstein, Reich, in an all-too-characteristic manner, levelled a thinly-veiled accusation of incompetence at Einstein's assistant.") Now, those notes and that correspondence either exist or don't. It they don't, then Wilcox's account is suspect. One, the other hand, if they do, being debunked by experiment by Einstein is big hit to the credibility of Reich's interpretation of the temperature differences he observed in his experiment. So, do you want to do the literature research to check on Wilcox's account? -- Karada 19:42, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A quick Googling shows that the Wilhelm Reich Museum will sell you a copy of Reich's notes regarding this: [7]. Even better, Oregon State University appear to have copies of the correspondence [8]. -- Karada 19:51, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You do as you want, Karada. It is YOUR article entry, if you think Wilcox is what peer-review is about, then go for it, you're the master of the googling and the gurgling. The man who settles issues with mickey mouse clicks. I have already voted to delete, and am now threatened by Mel Etitis again (who's been busy destroying what lightning Rod was doing, etc), so do not expect me to do work for you. Helicoid.

• Just wondered why someone seems to have taken it upon themselves to delete my earlier reference to the Reich-Einstein experiment link, catalogued at the Wilhelm Reich Museum. The protocol for the experiment did not involve orgone accumulators (as Karada's previous google reference asserts) but Faraday cages - nor does the rest of the Wilcox text do any justice whatsoever to the historical record. The references to the correspondence are now up, so I won't repeat them. I would add however, that since Mr.s Jacobi and Karada seem so eager to expose facts, it would help if they bothered, to not only locate a few - but then actually read them. Let the factual and historical references speak for themselves. 4.231.175.111

• Knott, here are the references: first the link already supplied by Karada and which you dismissed [9]. Then:

Correa, P & Correa, A (1998, 2001) "The thermal anomaly in ORACs and the Reich-Einstein experiment: implications for blackbody theory", Akronos Publishing, Concord, ON, Canada, ABRI monograph AS2-05.

Correa PN & Correa AN (2001) "The reproducible thermal anomaly of the Reich-Einstein experiment under limit conditions", Infinite Energy, 37:12.

Mallove, E (2001) "Breaking Through: A Bombshell in Science", Infinite Energy, 37:6.

Mallove, E (2001) "Breaking Through: Aether Science and Technology", Infinite Energy, 39:6.

Aspden, H (2001) "Gravity and its thermal anomaly: was the Reich-Einstein experiment evidence of energy inflow from the aether?", Infinite Energy, 41:61.

Bearden, T (2002) "Energy from the vacuum", Cheniere Press, Santa Barbara, CA, pp. 333-337.

A total of 7 publications, but you will find more if you search. Satisfied? Leave the "1941 Reich-Einstein experiment" in. Facts are facts, you should not toy with them because some unpeer-unreview on the web says so. And Demeo - that is plain pseudo-science and plain pseudo-reichianism. Yes, it befits what appears to be your degree of understanding of the subject matter. Helicoid (with sense of humor running very short indeed)

Why Knott do you keep putting in italics on the "1941 Reich-Einstein experiment"? It knotts my head. Helicoid.

Very, very thin evidence for an experiment Einstein is supposedly involved in. --Pjacobi June 28, 2005 16:40 (UTC)

Peter Jacobi: have you read the correspondence between Reich and Einstein published in "The Einstein Affair"? I guess the answer is NO, you have not. Have you read any of the above 7 references? I guess you have not, since you were unaware of them. So, how can you dispute facts? The Reich-Einstein experiment does not need to have been published by Einstein in a mainstream journal or magazine in order to exist and be or have been a fact. In his last letter on the subject, Einstein confirmed the existence of the temperature difference. So, his verification of Reich's finding was positive. Einstein could not come up with an explanation for the finding. That's when Infeld (one of those peers...) came up with the interpretation that permitted Einstein to dismiss the finding. That interpretation of Infeld's has now been shown by the Correas to be experimentally wrong, as they employed further controls that neither Reich, Einstein or Infeld thought about employing. This is exactly a case study of what that reference on peer review (by Horrobin, who has been a scholar on the subject for 3 decades, and published in a peer-reviewed journal Trends Pharmacol Sci For all you peer-review worshippers) described as "antagonism to openness and evaluation". Since facts are facts and the experiment took place, your argument that the evidence for its existence is tenuous only reflects your self-assumed ignorance. That willful and zealot-like ignorance cannot be the guiding criterion for any encyclopedia. It betrays a narrow-minded and obscurantist POV. Which means that from the beginning you have sought only pernicious distortions of the facts in order to argue against my submission and Aetherometry itself. That you have no shame in putting it forth is an interesting feature of this entire Talk, but of interest only to psychiatry. Helicoid

Fine, if there is now a new, repeatable experiment, which will proof the effect, we can sureley wait a little until it is reproduced at any faculty of physics. Or like the bubble fusion crowd, you may get BBC interested to try a reproduction. --Pjacobi June 28, 2005 20:39 (UTC)

[edit] To Guettarda, concerning Correa's degree

It was you guys who made a big deal out of questioning Correa's PhD and insinuating that he does not have scientific qualifications. So obviously stating his scientific qualifications must be an important piece of information. If you want, we can elaborate upon them in the article - provide the exact details of his doctoral work, a list of his publications in notable peer-reviewed journals, etc. - so the reader has all the requisite information. And if you honestly want to claim that a degree in molecular physics is irrelevant to biophysics, then you must be under some serious misconceptions. Do you know much about either field? 165.154.24.70 19:19, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please do, it's important info. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 19:23, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Dr. Correa also has a Master's in Biophysics. Grotesquely funny. Helicoid.

I don't see anything particulaly funny.So I'll ask for a few details. Where did he get the PhD from? what subject was the thesis in? What subject is the masters degree in, what university, what was the name of the supervisor? What batchelors degree does he have? Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 19:37, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He obtained a Master's Degree in Biophysics in 1987 and a Doctoral Degree in Cellular and Molecular Biology in 1991, both from the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Toronto. His doctoral advisor was Dr. Arthur Axelrad. Together with Dr. Axelrad, he has published extensively in the fields of oncology and hematopoiesis - in Blood, and International Journal of Cell Cloning. They also authored two seminal patents on a novel serum-free, chemically-defined medium methodology, and its application to the study of marrow proliferative disorders, which has permitted new insight into the causation of Polycythemia vera, a pre-neoplastic disease.

I don't know about his batchelor's, his achievements in highschool, his sports trophies, or his triumphs as a boy scout. You will have to write to him and ask, I am afraid. 165.154.24.70 20:05, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just curious then, not to question his credentials, but just to get the perception of him: any papers on apoptosis, or similar? Just cite papers to me, thanks, not his credentials/books, etc. just scientific papers. While we're at it, I just wanted to see a scientific paper, not a general book, on aetherometry. -- Natalinasmpf 20:09, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea if he has written any papers on apoptosis.

As for papers on Aetherometry, go to the Aetherometry web page and check out the catalogs and abstracts. But since you must have already gone there and seen this, you must be asking something else. So perhaps when you say "scientific paper" you mean a paper in a mainstream-sanctioned scientific journals? I think we have already established, and nobody ever claimed otherwise, that Aetherometry is not a mainstream-sanctioned scientific discipline, and you won't find papers about it in Nature or Science or any other mainstream journal. So I am not sure what exactly you meant by your question. 165.154.24.44 20:56, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I meant specific references, page number, line number, title of paper. You people keep citing me web pages with 20 other books or papers in there, which is not really a good way to cite a source. And then preferably, who has looked at it, and then also, who has seen it and criticised it, and any answer to the criticism, and direct citing of experiments (rather than saying, such and such experiment proves it so, describe the experiment, make a section about it). Part of the problem with the original article: it was in point form, not paragraph form. It wasn't really elaborated. 2) It unnecessarily obfuscates. It should try to use mainstream vocabulary as possible, or correlate it to that. 3) You can go at length about how massfree electrons or excitons have such and such property, but only with specific sources, not a generalised "go look at the web page". For example: If I claim that when x particle is excited, and y particle is present, they interact and give three z particles (which is of course, completely fictional and only for the sake of explanation), I would cite a specific scientific paper (title, author, date of publishing, reference number, page and line number), preferably several, and even more elaboration and evidence and proof. Not just, "go look at the website" as a source that this is true. If you're going to quote experiments, elaborate and reference it. Oh, if you people will edit other articles in here OTHER than aetherometry, or better, if the Correas decide to directly correspond here, then my respect for them will increase substantially. -- Natalinasmpf 21:15, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Page and line numbers for what? Or do you mean just a random list of page and line numbers? Here is one: Page 5, line14; page 345, line 30. Hope this helps. 165.154.24.44 22:38, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The page and line numbers for the scientific papers. Exact quotes, on what findings were found, and how the experiment went. Into this article. Directly. You know what I mean, and you've been evading it all along. -- Natalinasmpf 22:45, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All along since when? And no, I have no idea what you mean. I am not the author of the original article, but the one you have in there now doesn't refer to any experiments or findings. It consists of 3 paragraphs. Are you suggesting the article should be longer, and I should be doing the work? Good luck.

BTW, I just looked at the Wikipedia article about Faraday, and I don't see a single page and line number in it. Is this some new rule you guys have introduced since then? 165.154.24.119 23:25, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See climate change. Yes, there are references with page and number cited, when they are broad. And yes, there are page numbers: "Faraday's Diary, ¶ 7718, 30 Sept. 1845 and ¶ 7504, 13 Sept. 1845" - and various other topics, because it has entered mainstream science. When it becomes fringe science, a direct citation must be established. Of course the article doesn't refer to experiments and findings: you are supposed to include it in. Stop being lazy. Since you are such a fervent zealot for aetherometry (or at least Helicoid is), insert it in! Just remember to make it NPOV, concise and relevant. The original text had heavy neutrality problems. It can be inserted back in - if you manage to neutralise the tone, verify its facts, add in references for NEW claims....-- Natalinasmpf 23:36, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're talking to me? You must be kidding. I voted for deleting the article. If you want to keep it, get to work. Make yourself knowledgeable on the subject. Become capable of producing information about it, not just destroying the information others have produced. Git! Git! 165.154.24.119 23:54, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I referred to the original aetherometrical proponents who voted "Keep" in this article. If I want to keep it, its only because its notable for people to know about it, both the dubiousness and possible hope of it (which is very unlikely). Knowledgable? What is there to know? Another crackpot theory? I have better chance going into quantum physics, not some field made up by fascist proponents. As for calling me "git" - its kind if ironic who's childish now, is it? -- Natalinasmpf 00:08, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't really care what academic qualifications he has, to be honest; that tells us (and the reader) nothing either way. Details of his degrees shouldn't go into the article (that would be relevant to an article on him). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:40, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am asking so as to be sure he has a degree. If he does then the title Dr is in order. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 19:43, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, Karada seems to disagree with you and took it out again. You guys should get your act together and not waste people's time. the question of Correa's degree was much harped upon during those past 6 days, so I think putting it into the article is indeed in order. 165.154.24.44 21:18, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Everyone works as individuals here. I don't know any of the other editors here, I doub't if they know each other. There is no way we can get our "act together" in the way that you suggest. Wikipedia articles are always work in progress. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 21:27, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, of course; I'm not objectinbg to your question. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:48, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• My main point was, in articles like this, we don't usually use "Dr. X" and "Dr. Y", so removing it conforms with normal style.
• I was going by: Correa, PN (1991) "An improved serum-free medium for the growth of normal human circulating erythroid progenitor cells and its application to the study of erythropoiesis in Polycythemia vera", Ph.D. Thesis, University of Toronto, Canada.[10] Listed under haematology and oncology. But you say it's molecular physics? I see. Obviously you know more about it than the Correas. Maybe I should take my PhD issued by a department of "Plant Biology" and claim to be a medical expert. After all, it's "almost the same", just like haematology is "infinite energy". Guettarda 19:50, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Ha ha, now Knott puts up a reference to Demeo as criticism of the Correas. This fits well with you guys! from ignorance to a criticism by a pseudo-scientists who has no credentials on physics or biology or medicine! And who spoke of 'molecular physics'? Helicoid.

• • I just came across it in a web search so added it in. I'll check out his credentials. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 20:38, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • • He claims to have a PhD from University of Kansas Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 20:46, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • • He also claims to have obtained negative results when repeating the correas experiments. This is kinda important don't you think? Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 20:50, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To tell you the truth, I don't. DeMeo's PhD is in geography, he is a self-styled "Reichian authority", and he has a very strong agenda of his own. "Critics" with agendas are a dime a dozen. To glorify them by referring to them is not my idea of "encyclopedic information". But if DeMeo must for some reason be cited, then the debunking of his "critique" should be cited too. 165.154.24.44

Then cite it. Nothing's stopping you. The point is to be succint, and to keep NPOV, but you could mention it. The idea is, we can rebuild this article to quite a lengthy one if its relevant and stays to the point throughout. Which the original version sadly, did not do, it did elaborate heavily on its desired model, but an extensive explanation requires extensive sources. If however, you can provide extensive sources.... -- Natalinasmpf 21:15, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A very recent PhD on geography - is that how peer review works in Wikipedia? By the way, did you know that Demeo distributed his critique without warning the Correas and in violation of the legal obligations he had contracted with them? No? Check the rebuttals written up by the Correas and their entire correspondence. Now notice, people of this planet, that physicists, engineers, medical doctors, biologists are disqualified if they publish at Akronos Publishing, or if they write positive words about Aetherometry. But the first come droopy-cat found by googling and definitely pseudo-scientific (certifiable even) can pose as critic of a biophysicist and a molecular and cellular biologist. Your minds, Karada, Knott, juvenile delinquent, etc, sure run in mysterious and ridiculous ways. Helicoid (not banned yet)

So now I'm a "juvenile delinquent"? You obviously want to discriminate against users who you find their personal characteristics such as age unacceptable, which is just as relevant as anything else as colour of skin, nationality and race, you bigot. such I suppose posting on Wikipedia makes me a delinquent? Go check the proper definition. What legal obligations? Anyone can reserve the right to criticise whoever and whatever they want. He is not obligated to withhold his comments just because it would be detrimental for the Correas. As for "physicists, medical doctors", et al. I would like to see each of their contributions/reviews on the subject, so that it may be cited as well, rather than just claiming "they have looked at it". As for alleging HE is pseudoscientific, then I reserve the right to call aetherometry snake oil without being accused of slander. Ridiculous ways? Do you know how a wiki works? -- Natalinasmpf 21:41, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • • • As I said above, the orgone motor was demostrated by the Correas to James DeMeo, DeMeo's comments: http://www.orgonelab.org/correas.htm . Correa's response, for the record. http://www.aetherometry.com/demeo.html http://www.aetherometry.com/demeo_response2.html GangofOne 21:21, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • • • I asked this earlier, but it seems to have got lost, so I ask again. Let's consider http://aetherometry.com/axelrad_letter.html by Dr Axelrod of U of Toronto , Correa's PhD advisor. Here he witnesses the "Aether Motor". "The realization of what we were looking at was mind-boggling. Here before our eyes was what I was brought up to believe to be absolutely impossible! The implications were also enormous - a world of literally free energy without pollution by a 'product readily producible by available equipment and processes at a cost that allows mass marketing for multiple applications'." He also mentions others who have seen and believed. But there's something truely strange about that, that they haven't got a wider circle of scientists to look at it. Sure there is plenty of unthinking resistance , as documented in Axelrod's letter, but if they keep trying, especially with some media help, than their fortunes could be quickly made. Yet we don't hear anything about it except for a few webpages and _Infinite Energy_ and such. Why is that?GangofOne 21:25, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I'm not privy to their business interests, though if you go to massfree.com you can see for yourself that certain technologies are under commercialization. Maybe they are waiting for patents, maybe they are negotiating, maybe they are fishing, maybe they are convinced that knowledge in the hands of people like the Wikipedians we have seen here at work is dangerous, or that they don't deserve it because of their inferior mental caliber, or maybe they are afraid for their lives, or maybe what-have-you. Since you seem to have some knowledge of them, why don't you explain it yourself? Helicoid.
  • My knowledge of their business is only what I read on their site. I do not know the Correas. Do you?GangofOne 22:20, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My dear GangofOne, the idea of "fortunes quickly being made" by inventors in the way you suggest is another one of your Star Trek phantasies. What answer can one give, in this world, to a question that comes from a phanasy world? One can only marvel. 165.154.24.44

Many people have made fortunes, why can't the Correas be among them?GangofOne 22:20, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why, does one now have to have made a fortune in order to make it into the Wikipedia? Which Wikipedia policy states that? 165.154.24.44 22:38, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

True scientists do not patent their findings, as it is contrary to the very principles of peer review, although perhaps for protection purposes against counter-patents to prevent other companies from taking away the right for it to be in the public domain. -- Natalinasmpf 21:46, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Is there no end to these childish idiocies? If true scientists did not patent, then Einstein, Szilard, and a pillion others would not be scientists. I guess scientists are prep school educators with a BSc in physics...Helicoid

Let me remnind you that Einstein did not submit patents for his theory of relativity, nor did he copyright his theory..."childish idiocies"? Patents undermine science. Patents, patents on information especially (ie. software patents) destroy the free flow of information, by placing a price on information, preventing communication between scientists, and is only suitable for capitalists who want to make money off hoarding information. It does not provide an incentive to contribute to science in any way. Taking credit for research is one thing. Patenting information is another. -- Natalinasmpf 22:14, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Huh? There is no such thing as a patent or copyright for a theory. What are you taking about? 165.154.24.44 22:27, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Of course not. Copyrighting and patenting scientific discoveries isn't the behaviour of a true scientist - but you can patent and copyright scientific concepts, akinly you haven't heard of software patents (which is in the realm of computer science) - or the corporations who patent genes...of course, your friend Helicoid asserts that Einstein and a whole host of other scientists wouldn't be scientists without patents.

You don't know that Helicoid is the anon's friend. Don't tar with the same brush. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 22:49, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All these anonymous edits have the same editing styles and sentence structure flaws: seems rather suspicious. I in fact think they are roughly the same person. Of course, I am not accusing sockpuppetry yet, but I think they are closely acquainted, but "friend" was more sarcastic than anything else. -- Natalinasmpf 22:56, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • I've never claimed to be a scientist. I do however know a little physics. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 22:04, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well they do, especially nowadays. But the thing to remember is - a patent proves nothing. Free energy machines are a dime a dozen. None of them have ever worked. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 21:50, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Little wonder since unlike what you and the juvenile delinquent here suppose energy cannot be produced. Helicoid, still here.

Energy can't be produced. It can only be converted. Of course, I am nitpicking, and out of spite, just to show you how irrational your statements are. -- Natalinasmpf 22:14, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What's more if energy could be produced out of nothing then the fact that you and I didn't believe it wouldn't stop a free energy machine from working. Yet no such machine has ever worked, no "inventor" or "scientist" has ever become fantastically wealthy. (Which they certainly would do as they could undercut all competition) Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 22:21, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Calling Natalinasmpf a juvenile deliquent is a completely unacceptable personal attack. You have been asked repeatedly not to make personal attacks. Yet you persist. Stop now or you will be blocked for disruption. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 22:04, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Good to see cop action without complaint. But why are you not impartial in these threats? And why only I answer your questions and you don't answer mine? And why is it calling him a delinquent more offensive than he calling others hoaxes or frauds? You cannot contain the power that you wield, eh? Deleuze used to say it gives people a hard on. But maybe Natalinasmpf's daddy is a donor to this Wikipedia project of gratuitous vilification. Who knows? Right? Maybe the Singapore government? Muzzle me again, or get on with the program. I will not put up with fascists, and I know fascists don't put up with me. Helicoid.

Impartial? Oh firstly, you still address my persona worngly. Of course, I doubt you'd notice. The people I criticise, namely Correas et al, have yet to be contributors to Wikipedia, so its hardly a personal attack: I'm not doing business with them. I'm not debating with them. I am criticising them, and doubting their credibility. Power to wield? As for "muzzling", you were blocked for your revert warring, and you know it - not because of your support of aetherometry. -- Natalinasmpf 22:48, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • You are more than a bit strange.If only you weren't so deliberately unpleasent to people you'd be quite funny Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 22:31, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • • Thank you. but I'm most funny when being unpleasant to biased fanatics, wouldn't you say? Now answer: why are the italics again back on the main entry? Helicoid

• • • • To point out to the reader that this wasn't a published collaborative experiment. (By published I mean in a proper journal) Einstein didn't collaborate at all. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 22:41, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can see that you and I, Knott, have a bourgeoning relationship here. My turn to teach once more (I luv that stuff!, with and without cane; old school, you know): Einstein agreed to perform the experiment with Reich. That's a fact. He also confirmed the results. Another fact. He also did not object or make any legal threats to Reich, when the latter's private research institute published the correspondence and the facts. These are facts. Now, who are you to judge what is a proper venue for publication? Or whether the name of an experiment that has been published in 7 or 8 references written by people with far more qualifications than yourself, is right or not? It is cynical to want to accept only as facts that which are already accepted as facts. It is circular. Discovery in science would die if you did that. Facts must fight for acceptance within a system loaded by power, money interests, technological advantages. Most facts that are accepted today by institutional science began humbly, without peer-support and peer-review. They are the repressed of a properly Oedipal Science, as Guattari and Deleuze concluded a few decades back. Helicoid.

No, but peer-review and peer-support is a major factor in establishing credibility. Anyhow, that's not the problem: paste the outline of the experiment into the article, give its references - ie. paper title, page numbers and line numbers to the 7-8 of them you speak of. One does not judge because of where its published, but how many times it has been reviewed. Einstein's work was ruthlessly dissected, scrutinised and reviewed over and over again before it became accepted. -- Natalinasmpf 23:04, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A proper venue would be any one of the journals that Einstein had previously published in. And the paper should have einstein as one of the authors. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 23:06, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For Einstein, it was a null result. Nothing to publish. Temperature differences due to convection. Reich interpreted it differently; to him it confirmed his orgone ideas. (Einstein's great; invite him over his house, and do experiment together. Einstein saw enough to see there was no point in further collaboration.)GangofOne 00:17, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That would be an interesting tidbit to insert in the article though. Einstein worked with him, but later broke off. -- Natalinasmpf 00:28, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Natalinasmpf, don't yor realize this article is going to go away soon? You're the one who put up the VfD.GangofOne 00:35, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

GangOfOne, you have good "inside info"?Shhbrrr? but you got it wrong once again. Einstein never considered the result null. On the contrary, and it proves you never read Reich's "The Einstein Affair". Einstein confirmed the result, and then fell silent. the reasons for that has been the subject of speculation. Yes, recently released FBI FOIA files on Reich and Einstein tell a lot. What good is it for you people to have all this information age and then do nothing with it like...get informed? 209.29.97.147

I have not read "The Einstein Affair", thanks for the reference. I do have Ronald Clark Einstein: The Life and TImes in front of me; Reich is discussed on pages 689-90 paperback ed. "Reich called on E. in his Mercer St home on Jan 13,1941. 'He told me,' his [Reich's] wife wrote later, ' that the conversation w. E. had been extremely friendly and cordial, that E. was easy to talk to , that their conversation had lasted almost five hours. E was willing to investigate the phenomena that R. had described to him , and a special little accumulator would have to be build and taken to him.' Certainly there was a further visit , and certainly E. tested the apparatus. ... E found a commonplace explanation of the phenomenon which R had noted, and said so in polite terms. The postscript -- contained in _the Einstein Affair_ a privately printed booklet from R's own press was spread across the following 3 yr of their correspondence. Reich disputed E's findings and E was dismayed that his name might be wrongly used to support R's theory" Sorry , I'm all out of Shhbrrr. GangofOne 03:35, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gang Of One: there were two meetings and a host of letters (do get informed). There was an experiment that went on for 7 days. You're not factual when you say that Einstein found a commonplace explanation. He did not. In fact, Einstein had no explanation: that is ANOTHER fact. Infeld did. His explanation was never tested, until the Correas employed new controls and verified the FINDINGS OF BOTH REICH AND EINSTEIN. And of course, proved Reich's explanation as being nearer to the truth of the facts, than Infeld's. Helicoid.

Helicoid, or should I say Dr. Askanas? I only reported what one source said. They may have it wrong, as they have wrong the claim that is was an accumulator, instead of a Faraday cage. Which monograph contains the Correas report of the experimental replication? GangofOne 29 June 2005 03:02 (UTC) Never mind, I found it: AS2-05. $20.00 See also http://www.aetherometry.com/kooistra_response.html GangofOne 29 June 2005 05:01 (UTC)

An abridged version of AS2-05 was also published in Infinite Energy #37. I thought helicoid already listed all those refs two days ago or so. DrHyde 29 June 2005 06:10 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, she did. I lost track of it in the tsunami.GangofOne 29 June 2005 07:14 (UTC)

209.29.97.147, you said, "What good is it for you people to have all this information age and then do nothing with it like...get informed?" I can hardly agree more. GangofOne 05:05, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your snide comments about "getting informed" aren't constructive. The onus is on you to explain your evidence to us, we don't have to search for evidence for aetherometry for you. If Einstein never released a paper on it, then that says something. If its coercion by the FBI, then you have something more complex, and more controversial, then that should be mentioned in the article. Oh, you haven't said anything about the experiment in the article yet. Since you know so much, and you proudly pomp yourself as more knowledgable on the subject (if its a subject at all), then please give the outline of the experiment in the article.

A proper venue would have been for Einstein to stand by his word and his findings and not listen to L. Infeld (a Stalinist who defected) nor the FBI. Did you consider that? After that, nothing else can be said to be proper, Ms Knott. Helicoid.

Helicoid, what are you refering to, "for Einstein to stand by his word and his findings"? Did he not? Did he change something due to Infeld and FBI? What is this new story that you're referring to?GangofOne 00:17, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Besides, even if he retracted any findings in the first place, then obviously he does not want to be associated with such findings.

I can't stand your writing. "L. Infeld"? Will you please stop abbreviating people's names? Its obnoxious. I bet we should go "A. Einstein", "F. Nietszche" and everything else, now should we? If Einstein retracted his findings, and did not publish them, sad to say, it cannot be credited to Einstein. -- Natalinasmpf 23:38, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

They write the same way on aetherometry.com and massfree.com. Probably an affectation Helicoid picked up from reading those sites. GangofOne 00:17, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To me, its an obfuscation to try to alienate its readers so that the entire thing sounds credible but the layman reader will be confused at what they actually mean. -- Natalinasmpf 00:29, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Disturbing, they write in a certain way inaccessible to the people in code. It's like reading a manual of engineering or friedrich hegel. opaque like the morning dew. we throw equations at them and nothing. we conspire to keep pure our institutional science and nothing. as if we do not share an affectation - shh, shh, we believe in science with the big S. shhhbrrr. first we would not read the jargon. Then we had to read some. Now we know we wouldn't have understood anyway even if we had tried - so we were right to beinn with. (we're always right, no?) (that's why it is admin, no?)00:57, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, with your low standard of spelling, you don't even make a scrap of sense. If anything, purposely obfuscating scientists' names isn't a good practice. -- Natalinasmpf 01:01, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Happy Birthday Natalinasmpf, I see you are now 15. I hope you got that copy of "The ABC of Relativity" by Bertand Russell that you asked for. FYI, in science journals the convention is to write just the first initial eg B. Russell, although I agree with you it's a bad convention on wikipedia.GangofOne 03:41, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just created http://wikinfo.org/wiki.php?title=Aetherometry . I invite you all to not come and edit it. This way it will be where someone who wants it can find it. (It includes the text of the original page). I see that Votes of Deletion will probably end this page in the next day. FYI wikinfo.org ALLOWS articles with POV. That's its main distinguishing feature. Hey it's been fun guys. GangofOne 03:08, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The way vfd is going at the moment the article is likely to be kept. I'm sorry to dissapoint all the anon voters but votes by non logged in users are usually ignored. As are votes by logged in users who's account was creared after the vfd debate started. (This is to deal with sockpuppets trying to vote multiple times). Once those are removed there is approximately a 50:50 split which is not enough to delete the article. (Of course a number of regular editors may vote on the last day and swing the vote. It aint over until the fat lady sings) Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 04:38, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's democracy for you, eh? from license to demean to license to kill. kill the vote and ressurrect aetherometry! hilarious. like a nose tickle. did you know that I. Langmuir (let's have that again I. Langmuir) defined "pathological science" by 50:50 votes. of course, he was talking about official reviewers, not a band of sickle brandishing mau-maus, or at any rate lesser persons than irving himself. A 50:50 vote should be one for rejection, not approval, that's what the man says, the paragon of your Official Science. Instead you're more democratic: suppress content, but approve entry through sort of a democracy of the Equals (the admins). a little cabalistic miracle. the police cabal of science at wiki. this is how the inside community disrespects the outside community (always classes). Now 20 to 15 is 57% against on votes that don't count. whereas on the votes that count 13 vs 12 is 52% also against. clearly, amongst votes that count some count fractionally more than others (Jacobi-style differential calculus?). or is there one vote which is invalid (a subclass of untermenschen within admin)?209.29.85.139 05:16, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Ms Knott, and most cordially, may I suggest that all you have left is two possible courses: 1.Remove the entry entirely. This is the most sensible course. Majorities, no matter how slim, have voted to delete, in conformity with your majoritarian credo. 6 days are up. No one on this side of the fence will collaborate with you in being constructive - now that so much juvenile and malicious destruction has happened, and continues to happen (in subtler ways) on your part. You will be left with the task of writing something on something you presently and collectively have no grasp of. Retaining the article as a free-for-all will mean protracted war. You don't want that. I'm sure Wikipedia and Google don't want that, but it would be unavoidable, given that so many irresponsible comments, undemocratic actions, abuses of power and responsibility, etc, have been undertaken and will undoubtedly continue to be undertaken. Delete is the only intelligent course Wikipedia now has. Follow part of Gang of One's advice - and just keep it in Wikinfo. 2. Keep the entry. Then my advice is: clean up your act. Present apologies and remove all material offensive to third-parties or gratuitously aserted without foundation. Discipline (remember it's a suggestion - I personnally will not file complaints unless you keep the entry and the current behavior continues as expected) the administrators who have exceeded their power in gross fashion. Discipline this 15-year old who thinks that his age is an excuse for his behavior. However, you will still be left with the task of writing the article, with most likely no help from anybody who knows the subject, and running a constant risk of a repetition of what the record shows - with all of its implications. In IMHO delete is definitely the smart move. Take this, not as a threat, but as the best goodwill that I can summon right now. Helicoid.

Helacoid I cannot delete an article based on a majority vote. Our rules on deletion are quite clear. I agree that the article should be deleted but we do not have a consensus (consensus usually means at least 2/3 in favor of deletion, which we do not have). So the article is not going to be deleted. There will be no "disciplining" of people who are merely trying to improve an article by removing POV text. We have ways of dealing with revert wars, should the need arise, so no need to worry there. Wikipedia articles are always free for alls. That is the way Wikipedia works. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 28 June 2005 04:35 (UTC)

[edit] Something Rotten at the Core of Science?

For all you peer-review worshippers
Abstract: "A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision and an analysis of the peer review system substantiate complaints about this fundamental aspect of scientific research. Far from filtering out junk science, peer review may be blocking the flow of innovation and corrupting public support of science."

Irrelavent. We don't make the rules, we follow them. Remember this is an encylopedia. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 28 June 2005 04:25 (UTC)

in all sincerity, what "rules" are you referring to? I do not remember signing up to any rule list... at least not any rule list that doesn't begin with "there are no rules". Now a list with "Civility, politeness, reason, reference, collaboration, to build an encyclopedia of human knowledge." (experience both successes and failures are the basic building blocks of this knowledge).... that's the rule list I signed onto. TTLightningRod 28 June 2005 14:53 (UTC)

You know, things like Wikipedia:Verifiability, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:CITE...There are lots of rule - but only 5 that are immutable WP:5P. Guettarda 28 June 2005 15:01 (UTC)

....like i said... of the five pillars, #4 and #5 seem to be "all that" when it comes to rules. otherwise, pipe off. TTLightningRod 28 June 2005 15:12 (UTC)

There are 28 official policies and 35 guidelines. They are all rules, which you sign on to by editing Wikipedia. Pillars 1-3 are absolutely essential - in fact you "sign on" to #3 every time you hit the [Save] button. Guettarda 28 June 2005 15:33 (UTC)

This information could perhaps be relevant to an article on Peer review or Junk science, but it's not terribly germane to this one. · Katefan0^(scribble) June 28, 2005 14:55 (UTC)

The information about the inadequacies of peer review in deciding the worthiness of scientific research is irrelevant to a discussion in which lack of acceptance by peer review is constantly being brought up as "evidence" for the "junkness" of a particular scientific endeavour? You people can bring up peer review to attack Aetherometry, but when somebody gives you info about the problems with peer review, you declare it "not germane". Eh heh heh heh heh heh. Long live Wikipedia, that Carrier of Enlightment to the People!!! DrHyde

As always, if you have a source that is critical of peer review as it regards aetherometry, by all means, cite it within the article. But the Supreme Court information has nothing specifically to do with aerometry, so it really has no place in this article. · Katefan0^(scribble) June 28, 2005 15:29 (UTC)

Ah, here comes another waster of people's time. Nobody ever put any link to the article about the inadequacies of peer review into the Aetherometry article itself. It was put into the Talk and into the Votes for Deletion, for the information of those who invokews the peer-review process as if it was some kind of Holy Sacrament. But I guess you-all don't think you need to be informed of anything, do you? DrHyde

I never said anybody put a link to the information in the article itself. But you have been arguing for its inclusion, and thus we were having a discussion about the appropriateness of such a thing. I was trying to point you to the proper way to include that sort of criticism, which you seem to feel necessary, into the article. Talk about a time waster -- if you aren't really interested in including such information in the article, why are you still talking about it? Since you don't seem interested in engaging in any fruitful dialog, I am beginning to wonder whether you aren't only here to argue pointlessly. · Katefan0^(scribble) June 28, 2005 15:49 (UTC)

Neither I, nor anybody else, has ever argued for the inclusion of the dicussion on peer-review in the article about Aetherometry. What are you taking about? DrHyde 28 June 2005 19:53 (UTC)

Earlier, you said: You people can bring up peer review to attack Aetherometry, but when somebody gives you info about the problems with peer review, you declare it "not germane". Eh heh heh heh heh heh. Long live Wikipedia, that Carrier of Enlightment to the People!!! You're clearly arguing here for the inclusion of criticisms of peer review. If you don't actually care about whether it's included or not, what's the point of arguing about it? · Katefan0^(scribble) June 28, 2005 20:21 (UTC)

• Here for the illumination of Wikipedians, in particular those that have as their ignoble mission in life to seat before a screen and GRATUITOUSLY DESTROY THE WORK OF OTHERS, DISPENSE WITH FACTS AND SPREAD RUMORS, INNUENDO, SLANDER, AND LIES FOR THE HELL OF IT. The difference between peer review and the record of the interventions of the Wiki admins in this Talk (with some attempts at NPOV only by Ms Knott) and in Votes is not that peer-review is a barrier to fascism (not even to the kind of molecular, insidious, back-room fascism that we have seen here at work - the dictatorship of mediocrity and ignorance) whereas the Wikipedia review facilitates fascism. No. And the difference is not that peer-review is a sacred pillar of science, whereas this Wikipedia process is just A PILLAR OF FALSITY in the name of the sanctity of institutional science. Again: No. To know or not to know (science) never actually depended on the sanction by someone else that the one who knows, effectively knows or does not know. What depends on that recognition is correctly called mainstream, institutional, official, royal science. But here is the rub: application of the scientific method to peer-review has shown that the process is as good as flipping a coin! READ the reference: For all you peer-review worshippers. Yet, peers participating in peer-review are required to read the submitted material. Ah ah! Here is the difference: the peers in peer-review may not be familiar with the submission, but have to have the required credentials and background, and MUST read the material. Whereas this Wikipedia here - REPRESENTED by Jacobi, Kerada, Mel Etitits, Guettarda, Connolley (I'm leaving the anonymous young person Natalinas out for now, since he has asked for a ceasefire, though he has not stricken out all the abusive comments he's made about third parties) - has admitted not to have either the credentials or know the background, and what is immensely worse for any person seeking a genuine minimization of his or her own bias, is neither required to read the material nor has read any of it. In plain english, that is the difference. Accordingly, one should expect an even greater rate of error, falsity, lie, in Wikipedian-nonpeer-"review", than in any very fallible peer-review system. The proof is in the pudding: Mr. Jacobi, where are the references that prove your contention that Aetherometry is a farse (or, as you wish, a farce)? Please provide references in peer-reviewed communications. Helicoid.

If you want to include criticisms of peer review practices in the context of aetherometry, by all means please do. Find a source and cite it within the article. Thanks · Katefan0^(scribble) June 28, 2005 20:21 (UTC)

[edit] Gang of One

1. Why are you reverting to a mis-spelled version?
2. It is not helpful to link the a copy of this article - it's in the page history for anyone to see
3. Why, again, are you reverting to a mis-spelled version?

Guettarda 05:19, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So I missed 2 mispellings. You could have fixed it quicker than typing your comments number 1 and 3. "link the a copy" is that a typo or a mispelling? It's not helpful to refer someone to the page history, it's too massive. What I said was informative and helpful. Information has been removed/reverted by Natal... What's really bugging you? GangofOne 05:31, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You were revert-warring to a mis-spelled version. That shows bad faith. If you can't even be bothered to fix a spelling error in your rush to revert, it leaves on to wonder what the purpose of the edits are beyond simply revert warring for the fun of it. A typo a single time is not a big deal. Two typos, which you must see in red each time you look at the diffs before reverting, aren't something that a person can miss...unless they are reverting without looking at the diffs, which is bad-faith edit-warring. Guettarda 28 June 2005 04:34 (UTC)

[edit] Correa's PhD

Since I had nothing better to do today I downloaded and looked through Correa's PhD. And, contrary to what the anon insisted, it was granted in neither molecular physics, nor is it in biophysics. And even Paulo's best friend Helicoid couldn't get the department right. It happens to have been granted by the Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology, University of Toronto. And as far as its laying the groundwork for aetherometry, it's interesting to read what Correa has to say in terms of "future work":

Two main areas of future work can be envisioned as a result of our findings: 1) investigation of the expression of the Type I IGF-I receptor gene and tis protein products in normal and PV erythroid progenitors; and 2) investigation of the possible modulation exerted by the IGF-I binding proteins on the IGF-I-dependent erythropoetic mechanism.

So no, his PhD appears to be no more relevant to aetherometry than mine is. Guettarda 28 June 2005 04:05 (UTC)

Oh Illustrious Guettarda, you babble. The Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology is in the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Toronto, and the degree is in the area of Molecular Biology. Aetherometry claims an intimate relationship between massfree energy and the functioning of living systems, so a degree in Biology is quite prominently relevant to it. And I would imagine that after over 20 years of experimental and theoretical research in an area a person could be considered be competent enough in it, no? By your reasoning John McCarthy would have to be considered not sufficiently competent to be an authority in Lisp. DrHyde

Read this page & the article history - the anon who insisted in putting the "Dr" in their said molecular physics. And while you're at it, read the dissertation. My comment only goes to the relevance of the "Dr" (which is not normally in an article ike this anyway). Show me where in the dissertaion he even begins to speculate about things like this, show me where aetherometry in any way derives from the skills or expertise demonstrated in the PhD, and I will withdraw my complaint. The anon argued that it is relevant. The reasoning goes something like this. My PhD is in biology. Aetherometry "is" relevant to biology. Therefore, I am more of an expert in aetherometry than someone without a PhD. That reasoning is fallacious. Similarly, Correa's PhD says nothing (for or against) his credentials when it comes to aetherometry. Thus, it is irrelevant. I may babble, but I do not go off on unconnected tangents about speech pathology. Guettarda 28 June 2005 14:32 (UTC)

What is your problem? (as if I needed to ask.) Aetherometry did not exist when Correa got his Ph.D., so he couldn't have a PhD in it. The Anon said Correa's degree was in Molecular Biology; there is no such thing as Molecular Physics. The PhD question was first brought up by you, the so-callede "Wikipedia community (oy vey, may the gods protect me from such communities), so apparently whether or not Correa has a PhD is considered relevant - you guys brought it up as relevant, not any Anon. And finally and terminally, the Correas are the creators of Aetherometry. This makes them prominent and unequalled experts in it. Let me repeat this: DR. PAULO CORREA AND ALEXANDRA CORREA ARE THE CREATORS OF AETHEROMETRY. Aetherometry encompasses the results of over 20 years of their still ongoing work. Aetherometry did not exist when Correa got his PhD, and is at present not recognized by mainstream science, so EVEN NOW one could not get one's PhD in it. DrHyde

Maybe you should read what I wrote, read what's higher up this page, and look at the history of the article. It was not first brought up by me. See this diff] and this diff and this diff. As for: "The Anon said Correa's degree was in Molecular Biology; there is no such thing as Molecular Physics" - just look up the page: "And if you honestly want to claim that a degree in molecular physics is irrelevant to biophysics, then you must be under some serious misconceptions. Do you know much about either field? 165.154.24.70 19:19, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)".

Obviously no-one could get a PhD is aetherometry - though I'd say the blame for that starts with the failure of the proponents to publish anything in a real journal. Publishing a frineg idea requires rigour. If you provide the rigour, someone will publish it - maybe not Nature, but you work your way down the line. All kinds of crap gets published. The bar is pretty low. If the only place you can publish is in a magazine (IE) then there is something majorly wrong with your methodology. Again, your rant is off-topic. For one, it isn't normal to call people "Dr X" in articles (except bios). I know there are exceptions, but standard practise is to not do so. More importantly, since Correa's PhD does not have bearing on the field (based on what is written in his dissertation), sticking it in looks like an attempt to use credentials in one field to prove credibility in another. Which is dishonest. Hence my flippant comments about my own - all I was saying is that a PhD in field X does not give you any extra credibility in field Y.

So what is "my problem (as if you need to ask)"? That I'm fed up with trolls and revert wars? Guilty! That I find insultive and incivil people annoying? Guilty? That I go to the talk page before engaging in revert wars? Please do tell. Guettarda 28 June 2005 15:23 (UTC)

Ah, yes, indeed, one of the Anons mistyped and said "molecular physics", as contrasted with several other people who correctly said "molecular biology". And has it ever occurred to you that people may have better things to do with their lives than try to be accepted by the mainstream?.

If you are fed up with trolls and revert wars, then DELETE the article. If you think Aetherometry is junk, then DELETE the article. If you cannot muster respect for it, its creators, or the people who know something about it, the DELETE the article. If you cannot spend the time learning about the topic, then DELETE the article. 'Stop wasting your time and other people's time. Do the honorable and reasonable thing. DELETE the article. DrHyde

1. I have no opinion on aetherometry.
2. I cannot delete an article against community consensus
3. If you are so stresed out about this, why waste your time here? Find something useful to expand. Go find some "open tasks" or join a wikiproject. There are over 600,000 article in Wikipedia - find one to work on that doesn't stress you out to so much. Guettarda 28 June 2005 17:04 (UTC)

• I.m curious Guettarda: above you wrote"So no, his PhD appears to be no more relevant to aetherometry than mine is. Guettarda 28 June 2005 04:05 (UTC)". What is your PhD on and could you direct me to a list of your publications in peer-reviewed journals, whether mainstream or alternative? I understand your background ('ecologist') but could you be succinct and precise when answering? Helicoid

My PhD is utterly irrelevant. Having read Correa's - so is his. Please cite something in his dissertation upon which aetherometry is bulit (I have a copy of it right here, so please be specific). Guettarda 29 June 2005 03:48 (UTC)

• • Guettarda: it goes like this: disregarding his BSc, the Doctor in question, Paulo Correa, is a Biophysicist by the Master's degree and a Molecular and Cellular Biologist (specialty Hematology) by the Doctor of Philosophy degree. He is therefore accredited as a bona fide scientist, with expertise in Biology and Physics: Bio-Physics. In Biology his expertise is in Molecular and Cellular Biology with application to Hemotology, subheading Oncology. Which part of this have you not understood so far? Good, because you may as well ask for fotocopy of his PhD certificate or contact the University of Toronto on your own. And you should before making the innuendo you're so good at. Now, to the rest that is missing from your understanding: Aetherometry addresses Physics and Biology. It offers (purports to offer, if you wish) a novel approach to Nanotechnology - in particular Nanobiology, an outgrowth in part of Molecular Biology. It also proposes a new approach to Oncology. And it proposes a biophysical theory of energy functions that concerns both Physics and Molecular Biology (incl. Biochemistry). So, guess what, the good Doctor does have his credentials and is scientifically entitled to say what he says and write what he writes, NO? (that is a question for you to respond Guettarda. And let's see how relevant is your PhD to ecology, and whether it makes you into a relevant peer of the work of Dr. Correa). Helicoid.

Wow. What a gem of misdirection. When I say that my PhD is irrelevant (as is Correa's, having read his PhD), you ask me to prove that my PhD is relevant. I never questioned Correa's PhD...but then, you aren't reading what I write anyway. Higher and higher every day till over the mast at noon; the wedding guest here beat his breast, for he hears the loud bassoon. If you had read what I said, you would know that I already have a copy of Correa's PhD. But credentials in one field do not translate into credentials in another. Even if, as you seem so fervently to believe, aetherometry is the answer to every field of knowledge, that relationship is non-orthogonal. The expertice that is took to get a PhD aren't relevant to aetherometry. You say his MSc is in biophysics (luckily for you, since it's not on UMI, you can say whatever you like...just like you did with the PhD before I went and got myself a copy). Were you calling him "Dr. Correa" based on his MSc? If not, then it has absolutely no bearing to the discussion. But who am I fooling. Go find some people who are stupid enough to be convinced by yelling and name calling. Maybe you are used to people who are afraid of you, or who are awed by whatever credentials you allude to...never get specific about, just imply that they somehow trump everyone else's. Go find some people whose insecurities run deeper. So which one of you is Paulo and which one is Alexandra? Or are you all the same person? Guettarda 29 June 2005 03:48 (UTC)

I'm paulo; I'm alexandra; I'm malgosia; I'm esmeralda; I'm carlos; I'm the stars; I'm god; I'm all the names of history; I'm all the sock puppets; perhaps I am also all the puppet admins. Aren't you a little confused? Yes, what is your PhD in? Let's have it. Helicoid.

[edit] Recategorize to Protoscience

Hello. Finally the wiki upgrade is done! It seems to me that this process really jumped off the rails when the article was recategorized. This subject most definitely fits the Wikipedia definition of protoscience. Having studied the Correas' work for several years now, I can say in all good faith that they are the most scrupulous followers of the scientific method I have ever encountered -- and I've been a science nut since I was four years old (now 33.) How is an article's category changed here at Wikipedia? Pgio 28 June 2005 04:30 (UTC)

Hello and Welcome. Categorising Aetherometry as protoscience seems a very sensible idea to me. I have done it for you but for future reference all you need to do is type [[category:Protoscience]] somewhere on the page (Usually at either the top or the bottom of the article) Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 28 June 2005 04:41 (UTC)

Thank you Ms. Knott. Pgio 28 June 2005 04:46 (UTC)

I very narrowly agree with the recategorizing. The process followed by the Correas has some superficial similarty with the scientific method, but only as a farce.

And I'm somewhat suspicious abou science nuts, who don't see the large, flashing signs of bad physics, like physical constants of exactly 0.12m or π²m/s².

Pjacobi June 28, 2005 08:46 (UTC)

• A farse is when somebody without qualifications (a computer programmer), who has not read the material claims that Aetherometry claims a constant of exactly 0.12m? Please, GIVE REFERENCE FOR YOUR STATEMENT. (Yes, I know that you cannot find such a reference. Let's see you try). Helicoid.

• I already gave that reference. But again: The Correas write: 'He never formally divulged the functional equivalence between mass and length. However, from careful analysis of the results of his pendulum experiments, one can enunciate the earth-shattering discovery of the equivalence between molecular mass and wavelength ...' The equation is: mass-equivalent wavelength (in metres) = mass (in grams) x Avogadro's number x 10-2. at [11]. Now do a simple calculation invoking the definition of Avogadro's number. Then the mass-equivalent wavelength of C12 emerges as exactly 0.12m. --Pjacobi June 28, 2005 22:43 (UTC)

Yes, I'd agree with you about that. Physical theories should be independent of their units of measurement. The idea that the rather arbitary MKS measurement system might be privileged seems bizarre, particularly since the second and meter have regularly been redefined in terms of different physical phenomena since the SI was first created. -- The Anome June 28, 2005 12:01 (UTC)

Mmmh, the Correas citing Guy Debord (e.g. at [12]). Perhaps Aetherometry is just a Situationist detournement. --Pjacobi June 28, 2005 15:57 (UTC)

Or perhaps your participation in this discussion is just a Situationist detournement? Your cursory survey of Aetherometry is exactly like picking up Kant and saying, "Well, that's all gibberish!" The language and terminology are precise but non-obvious until you follow the process that produced them. And to Anome, why did you edit the protoscience clarification on the article page? It's factual and situates the article in the Wikipedia body of knowledge. Taking it out seems just spiteful. Pgio 28 June 2005 17:55 (UTC)

[edit] arXiv.org

Arxiv.org full-text search, all subjects: no hits for Aetherometry. Rather suggests its not a live topic of discussion in the wider physics community, which is generally rather interested in even the more far-out speculation in theoretical physics. -- The Anome June 28, 2005 12:01 (UTC)

As has already been said quite a number of times, and in fact was still stated in the article when I looked at it 10 seconds ago, the current status of Aetherometry is that it has been largely ignored by the "wider physics community". I am sorry to say that your revelation that it is not a live topic of discussion in that very community has a somewhat - how shall I put it? - muted impact. DrHyde

[edit] Screwy

Something majorly screwy is going on with this page. Is it the new software? Guettarda 28 June 2005 15:26 (UTC)

:No, it appears that DrHyde is removing his and other peoples' comments under the "something rotten" section above. · Katefan0^(scribble) June 28, 2005 15:39 (UTC)

I am not removing anything. There is indeed something screwy going on; every time I kook at this page, something that was just there a moment ago is missing from it. Time to go do my toenails. DrHyde

It has the symptoms of a software/server bug: This diff most likely was a section edit (edit summary is a section title), but content from another section got lost. --Pjacobi June 28, 2005 15:51 (UTC)

It's a complete mess now. Check the history, whenever someone adds a comment shortly after another edit, there is a danger of losing the older edit. --Pjacobi June 28, 2005 16:01 (UTC)

[edit] Removing talk page comments

DrHyde, please stop removing other peoples' comments on this talk page. It is not very civil. · Katefan0^(scribble) June 28, 2005 15:38 (UTC)

I didn't remove anything. It is not very civil to accuse people of things they have not done. DrHyde

Well, it appeared so -- [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. But it looks as if Pjacobi's latest edit has done the same thing. At first it appeared to only be happening during DrHyde's comments, but it does look like it's something strange with the software update. DrHyde, I apologize; it's clearly something with the software. · Katefan0^(scribble) June 28, 2005 16:01 (UTC)

[edit] Google

OK, the Google spider did its job and our article is now indexed, in the moment it's the 4th hit when searching for "Aetherometry". Now we should better fulfill our noble mission. --Pjacobi June 28, 2005 15:46 (UTC)

[edit] Edit conflict mess

I hope I've caught everything and no edit is missing.

I assume we can minimize the problem by archiving the talk page, as this reduces the page load and save times. But it seems, some thraeds above are still active. Shall I archive nevertheless (you can cintinue that threads on the archived page).

Pjacobi June 28, 2005 16:17 (UTC)

[edit] civility....again

You see, while I'm trying to come up with a statement that includes my own apology and a new look at things and how this could possibly be resolved, we get anomymous users and various other new ones (after the maintainence upgrade)....now, what I'm concerned is, every single person that has come here to defend aetherometry has a swaggering, non-civilised attitude and has made massive personal attacks. Now I'm not saying anything, but if you don't want that to be a sign of something, I suggest changes to the attitude be made. Now, I'm on the verge of typing up a lengthy reply, so if I change my attitude to aetherometry, I reckon you should change your attitude to Wikipedia. -- Natalinasmpf 28 June 2005 19:45 (UTC)

Well, I've been civil. But there's certainly been swagger on both sides of this debate. My goal here is an NPOV article that meets WP standards that will help readers relate Aetherometry to other scientific disciplines. You all must realize that you can't write an NPOV article from a place of ignorance, and it's no shame to admit you're ignorant about Aetherometry; it's a huge and detailed body of work that takes time to understand. And arguing about the merits of a subject from a place of ignorance is just illogical. All I ask is that the Wiki regulars suspend their snap judgements, so we can work together. Pgio 28 June 2005 23:52 (UTC)

I agree. We can get nowhere without civility. I would like to focus the argument on theories, not personalities. I think the principal bone of contention here is that most people believe that Aetherometry is only recognized as a scientific discipline by its own proponents. It does not help that Aetherometry's "research papers" are not generally available without paying substantial sums, and even the "free" ones are unavailable without agreeing to a click-through "end-user agreement". As a result, it is very difficult to have a serious conversation with Aetherometry advocates. Making their basic works freely available without a click-through agreement would go a long way towards allowing a reasonable debate on the validity or otherwise of their theories. -- Karada 29 June 2005 07:19 (UTC)

No, the fact that Aetherometry is not widely recognized as a scientific discipline is not a "bone of contention"; it is a simple fact, and nobody has ever stated otherwise. And paying for scientific papers is standard. When they are published in mainstream journals one typically has to pay for them too - and when mainstream scientific papers are offered for free, it is usually because the cost of their distribution has been paid for, directly or indirectly, by the institution financing the scientist's research. Aetherometry is no different in this respect.

By the way, if you want to read about Aetherometry, you can also try asking your library to purchase one or more of the Correas' books. And just curious, what's the problem with clicking on a click-through agreement? All my browsers handle them just fine. DrHyde 29 June 2005 14:40 (UTC)

[edit] FYI -- RFC

Just a heads-up, I am listing this on WP:RFC, just to attract a few more eyes. Maybe it will help break some of the stalemates, now that the article appears headed for a keep result on VFD. · Katefan0^(scribble) June 28, 2005 21:26 (UTC)

[edit] About the redirection of this discussion to "Archive2"

Could this be done in such a way that when one clicks on the "article" tab one still gets the actual Aetherometry article? The way it is now, clicking that tab gets you back to Archive2. DrHyde 29 June 2005 14:55 (UTC)

[edit] About the edits to the Aetherometry article

Could people please be generally more careful to not introduce bad grammar and to not produce sentences that are meaningless or nonsensical? This is an encyclopedia - and it should have, among its other goals, the goal of precise, sensical and correct expression. It seems to me that it should be incumbent on every one of us to be careful and responsible in the edits we make. DrHyde 29 June 2005 14:55 (UTC)

[edit] To PJacobi, about Mallove

The articles characterization of Eugene Mallove was exactly right - he was a pioneering researcher/champion of alternative energy. One of the reasons he was involevd with the Correas' research both in plasma discharges and in massfree energy is that the Correas developed a number of lab prototypes for alternative-energy technologies. So the mention of "alternative energy" is both factual and relevant to the task of providing lucid and sensical information. DrHyde 29 June 2005 16:03 (UTC)

Read the article alternative energy, which is actually a REDIRECT to Future energy development, and tell me, to what tipic discussed there, Eugene Mallove has a relation to. Hint: Neither cold fusion nor massfree energy is discussed there. --Pjacobi June 29, 2005 16:22 (UTC)

The fact that they are not discussed is a shortcoming of the article; they should at least be mentioned. They belong in the section "renewable energy". As for Mallove, he wrote about, published about, and championed all forms of renewable energy. Just look through the "Infinite Energy" tables of contents. DrHyde 29 June 2005 16:27 (UTC)

I am not going to let you guys lead me into the "three reverts" trap, if that's what you are trying to do. The fact is, whether you like it or not, cold fusion research and research into the technological harnessing of aether energy _are_ part of renewable energy research. This is a fact. Your constant changing of the Mallove sentence is simply a blatant pushing of your own POV. However widespread that POV may be, it is still a bias, and a rather ignorant one at that. DrHyde 29 June 2005 16:34 (UTC)

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