User:La goutte de pluie/aetherometry discussion/Archive3

This is a moved archive of now deleted talk:aetherometry, a talk page of aetherometry, which was deleted in itself and moved to User:Natalinasmpf/aetherometry discussion. Reasons for deletion are explained there.



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. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) June 28, 2005 21:26 (UTC)

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)

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)
 * I'm sure everyone tries to write as well as possible. The great thing about Wikipedia is that when a nonsensical sentance is added or a grammatical or spelling error is made it is usually picked up on very quickly by someone who can very easily correct it. 81.109.242.195 29 June 2005 20:25 (UTC)

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)


 * Please reach a consensus on Talk:Future energy development on this. --Pjacobi June 29, 2005 16:30 (UTC)


 * Well, whether it was done by consensus or not, the lack of mention of those fields is a bias on the part of the article.  As I said, a majority bias can still perfectly well be a bias.  But none of this changes the fact that Mallove was a prominent activist in multiple fields of renewable-energy development, both those fields which are mentioned in the WP "alternative energy" article and those omitted by it.   DrHyde 29 June 2005 18:19 (UTC)

Archived
Someone has archived without changing the REDIRECT. I've just completed this. --Pjacobi June 29, 2005 16:27 (UTC)
 * I've copied the latest four threads. --Pjacobi June 29, 2005 16:29 (UTC)


 * That was me. When I tried to move the page I got an error message saying that the page had not been moved. I should have checked for myself, but I just assumed that the message was correct and I was called away at that moment and so couldn't attend to it. Anyway thanks for sorting it out. User:Theresa knott 29 June 2005 20:13 (UTC)

To Mel Etitis about the supposed "rejection" of Aetherometry by the mainstream
To my knowledge, there has never occurred any rejection of Aetherometry by mainstream science. If you know otherwise, please show proof. Otherwise, your repeated insertion of the claim of "rejection" into the article is POV. DrHyde 29 June 2005 22:53 (UTC)


 * I have changed this to "Aetherometry appears to be ignored by mainstream science.", as I can find no references to Aetherometry in the mainstream scientific literature. -- Karada 29 June 2005 22:58 (UTC)

Aetherometry is a direct outgrowth of Reich's orgonomy, and his inventions/discoveries of orgone, Dor, orgone accumulators, electroscope experiments, Orgone motor, the badness of fascism; so to the extent these are accepted in Aetherometry, then the criticisms that were directed at Reich on these points would apply to Aetherometry. Of these criticisms, many can be easily found. Likewise, the criticisms of the criticisms may apply. It's just that Aetherometry is a much newer name. When the free energy motor takes over the world, I'm sure the obscurity will go away.GangofOne 30 June 2005 02:11 (UTC)


 * Just checking: is this the new "civility", or the same old rudeness? Can't tell the diff.  Can you?  DrHyde 30 June 2005 14:04 (UTC)

1941 Reich-Einstein experiment
I just created a first version of this page. I am hoping that those with more information than I will flesh it out. GangofOne 30 June 2005 07:22 (UTC)


 * Doing that appears to be deliberatly provocative, since we've been complaining about you dragging Einsteins name into this nonsense. I'm moved it to R alone. William M. Connolley 2005-06-30 08:44:35 (UTC).
 * You speculate on my state of mind. Is it I that is dragging E******n's name in? Please check the facts. I have never touched the name of this experiment in this article. I thought everyone had given up on argueing the experiment name; the link was left in the article above for a future article on the experiment to be created. Since it was so recently in everyone's own mind, I decided to go ahead and create it. Frankly, the name you propose is decidedly less informative. Your word "deliberatly" is a nice pun. I did not deliberately try to provoke you with that article, but seeing that you have been provoked is pleasing. GangofOne 30 June 2005 09:14 (UTC)


 * The combination of these names, in reference to the experiment in question, is repeated by several other organizations unrelated to aetherometry. (is it necessary to list them all here?) The item in question is known as "Reich-Einstein experiment".  WMC, Please address your concerns here before deleting a portion of a named experiment.   TTLightningRod


 * Yes, that it would it make explicit, that the term is not used in physics, i.e. in academic science. --Pjacobi June 30, 2005 09:33 (UTC)


 * round and round you go......  The circular argument goes like this.  A person (in this case several) makes a bold statement, which upon further reading shows that a well known and highly respected name is politely challenged.  Well meaning observers come along, and suggesting that the well known name is simply used to draw attention, feel that they should censor the Good Man Mr. X's real name from the reference.


 * What confuses my small mind is that....  Would not the bold arrogance of challenging the good man (course not the man himself, he was a gentleman) be self effacing enough to the current claimant?  Your censorship is complete silliness.  I think you're just trying to be funny.  Ha ha...   I get it!  TTLightningRod

If you can show that the term R-E expt is used in peer-reviewed research, then I drop my objections. William M. Connolley 2005-06-30 11:18:54 (UTC).

To address concerns over the potential of name dropping.
I propose name coding and decoding... (to protect the innocent, as well the coo-coo)

Albert E. will now be refereed to as "Sir Hot Pants" The Surb should NEVER be referred to other than as "The Surb" Wilhelm R. to be called "Mr. Far Out" Eugene M. as "Capt. Back Street" Paulo C. will never be refereed to other than by a wispy little " .'. " And when I sign anything, you'll know it's me by a ....   Bronx Cheer.


 * See, we could then talk like this:


 * Once upon a time, silly people were convinced that there was more to the universe than simple and weak gravity. Something electrical seemed to be at play.  A looney Surb, spent great portions of his life thinking about such silliness.  Along came Sir. Hot Pants, who also thought great and wonderful things where taking place all around us. He was terribly polite and resisted the desires of many for sweeping conclusions and highly reduced mathematical formula.  However, even as Sir Hot Pants lay upon his deathbed, he voiced his reservations and caution to all, "I could have been wrong".


 * A far out kind of guy called Mr. Far Out, lived a life disconnected from convention. He launched into space simply outlandish ideas of sex, energy, thought, and interconnectivity between all living things within an energetic universe.  Mr. Far Out and The Surb were both known for using a very bad word.  Aether (we should not say such words, for small children may spontaneously combust when hearing such blasphemy).  After much jousting and Big Brother intervention, a consensus may have been reached, however so hard to tell as Big Brother and his sycophants like to keep hish-hush "never speak of" naughty words.


 * Much later in our fairy tail, Capt. Back Street enjoyed the ideas of a wispy .'. who also liked reading about the adventures of Mr. Far out, Surb The Great, and Sir Hot Pants. All and all much effort was placed into searching these tomes of thought and carving bits and pieces of glass, iron, and copper.  Yet now, as little Johnny goes to school, it is safe to say that he shall be protected from any possible thoughts or suggestions that there is anything stronger in the universe than gravity, fission, fusion, or E=MC2.


 * The end...   sleep tight, don't let the bed bugs bite.   (story by, sound of loud fart)

It's not so much a question of protecting the innocent readers from the knowledge of the experiment.It's more a question of naming conventions. When an experiment is called by the names of two people they have both published the results (usually jointly). Einstein did not publish the results of the experiment did he? In which case it is misleading to add his name to an experiment that he was not willing to add his own name to by publishing the result. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 30 June 2005 12:18 (UTC)


 * Really...  without naming names of people who may not want their names associated with spontaneously combusting small children, has the fairy tail in any way outlined as metaphor the story aetherometry over the last week?  phessss poo pooo.


 * Off topic, but arguably funny, treatment of the subject matter may be better placed at the Kamelopedia . --Pjacobi June 30, 2005 13:10 (UTC)

Connolley's reversions
Connelley has, several times now, just come in and reverted to some earlier version of the article, destroying a number of different people's edits without any justification. This seems to be just wanton vandalism of other people's work. Please stop doing it. If you have a beef with a particular edit, make a thoughtful correction and justify it. DrHyde 30 June 2005 15:03 (UTC)


 * You can't get away with adding POV stuff like "a person who has not studied the work". Its not even close to acceptable. And since you did it thus - this is a reversion, without even an edit comment - you're in no position to lecture on unexplained reverts. And... you can't even spell my name. William M. Connolley 2005-06-30 15:42:06 (UTC).
 * William, I appreciate what you were trying to do with that paragraph, but it wasn't in an encyclopedic style. I cut it down to its base assertion.  See what you think. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) June 30, 2005 15:51 (UTC)


 * I see, the factual "a person who has not studied the work" is POV, but "semi-pro" is NPOV? What kind of a scam is this?  And moreover, when you revert, you're destroying other edits, not just the one you're "imrpoving upon".  Is this normal WP "policy", or do you just do it with topics you have contempt for?  DrHyde 30 June 2005 15:53 (UTC)
 * William, do you find this to be an incorrect statement? If so, can you please explain how?  Aetherometry has not been peer reviewed in any mainstream scientific journals.  Thanks &middot; Katefan0(scribble) June 30, 2005 16:07 (UTC)
 * Its an odd way of putting it. You don't get peer reviewed "in" a journal. You might be PR "by" or "for" a journal. You get published in a journal - the PR is taken as read, for any respectable journal. William M. Connolley 2005-06-30 16:21:23 (UTC).
 * I'm not sure what you mean. Taken as read?  Are you saying that peer review happens after an article is published?  In other words, that a scientific journal is not a venue for peer review?  I'm not disputing what you're saying, only seeking to understand.  Thanks for helping &middot; Katefan0(scribble) June 30, 2005 16:23 (UTC)
 * When you submit a paper to a journal, the journal sends copies to two or three reviewers. (These are normal experts in the field) They review the paper and basically tell the jounal if it should accept the paper or not. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 2 July 2005 10:48 (UTC)

indifferent vs. ignore
IMHO ignore fits much better. Is mainstream science indifferent about the thesis, that the moon is made out of green cheese? Surely not, mainstream science is ignoring this thesis. You can't even quote a scientific journal, where someone explicitely argues that the moon is not made out of green cheese, but there are a lot of articles about basalt, regolith and whatsnot being the constituents of the moon. --Pjacobi June 30, 2005 15:54 (UTC)

Inifinite Energy Magazine
Compare Magazine and Scientific journal. --Pjacobi June 30, 2005 16:19 (UTC)
 * Interesting. So this magazine is the only place its theories have been published?  If so then it doesn't need mainstream. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) June 30, 2005 16:24 (UTC)


 * I am sorry to say that according to the definitions in those articles, Infinite Energy is definitely not a magazine.  Since the article about "scientific journals" associates them with academia, it looks like Infinite Energy does not have any adequate categorization within the painfully narrow world that is Wikipedia.  What do you call a periodically-appearing publication that has specialized articles in a single field, is not geared towards a "popular" level of understanding, and that publishes scientific articles that would be rejected by the mainstream because they are in a "taboo" subject?  Me, I call it a non-mainstream scientific journal, and since Wikipedia has nothing to say on the subject, it's my POV against yours.   DrHyde 30 June 2005 16:31 (UTC)
 * But doesn't it call itself a magazine? It says so on the website:  The Magazine of [etc etc]. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) June 30, 2005 16:37 (UTC)
 * Yup, it calls itself a magazine. But it sure ain't a magazine according to the description of "magazine" in the Wikipedia.  And, at least in Eugene Mallove's time (which is when the Correas published there), its main purpose was to publish specialized scientific papers of the kind that normally would be published, peer-reviewed, discussed, etc. in maintream scientific journals, if the "peer review" process was not so prejudicial against entire fields of inquiry.  In Mallove's time, Infinite Energy had its own peer-review process involving members of its own Scientific Advisory Board.   DrHyde 30 June 2005 17:02 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia article are not acceptable sources for material in Wikipedia. Too self-referential.  Guettarda 30 June 2005 16:49 (UTC)


 * Well, they seem to be quoted as "authority", or discarded as "self-referential", opportunistically. Jacobi sends me to them, and you disqualify them.  Could give a person a headache.  DrHyde 30 June 2005 17:02 (UTC)
 * A question for those who are familiar with aetherometry... was the reason this magazine was founded to provide a venue for aetherometry research? And, as a corollary, was the reason this was necessary because people tried unsuccessfully to get aetherometry research published in scientific journals?  Just curious. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) June 30, 2005 17:13 (UTC)


 * Infinite Energy was founded by Eugene Mallove in the end of 1994 or the beginning of 1995. Its founding had nothing to do with Aetherometry, and Mallove did not even know, at the time, about the Correas' existence.  There is plenty of material on the Web about Infinite Energy, including its own website, www.infinite-energy.com.


 * As for Aetherometry vis-a-vis mainstream scientific journals, I cannot speak for the Correas, but since Paulo Correa had worked in academia and has published a number of articles in mainstream peer-reviewed academic journals, one can easily imagine that he is quite familiar with the mainstream "peer-review" process, and has a good idea of what is, and what is not, worth submitting for publication in mainstream journals. He probably prefers to spend his life doing research and publishing in venues that are hospitable to "taboo" science than to spend it on a pointless quest for acceptance by the mainstream.  People's conceptions of what is worthwhile in life differ greatly.  DrHyde 30 June 2005 17:50 (UTC)

Whether its called a mag or not is fairly irrelevant. Science calls itselfa magazine - http://www.sciencemag.org/ - but by any normal defn its effectively a journal. And whatever it might call itself, IE isn't a science source. William M. Connolley 2005-06-30 17:18:21 (UTC).


 * Can you give the name of a single journal such that (1) its charter is to publish non-mainstream science and (2) you would regard it as a "science source"? Or are you just serving up tautologies?  DrHyde 30 June 2005 21:07 (UTC)


 * Mainstream science is science. What is the definition of "non mainstream science"? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 30 June 2005 21:13 (UTC)


 * Non-mainstream science is science that is not accepted by the mainstream, in spite of the fact that it follows the scientific method no less stringently than science that is accepted. Why is it not accepted?  Most frequently because the process of mainstream acceptance is very biased towards entrenched interests, both intellectual and material.   To use the word "science" as a synonym for "accepted by the mainstream" is like using the word "murderer" as a synonym for "convicted of murder".  A person may be convicted of murder without having committed it, and a science may fulfill all the criteria of the scientific method without being accepted by the mainstream.  These are simply facts.  209.183.21.205 30 June 2005 23:00 (UTC)


 * But then you get into philosophical relativism otherwise. The difference here is, it hasn't followed the scientific method "stringently". Firstly, the entire concept of a preset scientific method is flawed, there is no set procedure, but rather, a logical philosophical argument that, "given this and this, this must be true, or is likely to be true". It hasn't been rigorously checked, torn to pieces and recontructed again, like any other theory, nitpicking for every little loophole (which is infact, a good thing), and basically have it be set upon by jackals. If it can survive all that, it has entered the realm of "proven science". If not, it remains conjecture, even though is evidence for it, just like if I found 10 trillion cases for the Riemann Hypothesis, which is strong evidence, it still remains conjecture until I prove it for all possible (infinite) cases (by reductio ad absurdum et al). You assert that politicised interests et al often corrupt the nature of mainstream science (which I agree to a tiny extent, and I added this to the article, but your good friends removed it), but then you descend into relativism because the person saying could have it applied against him as well. See, Hawking radiation is still being disputed today, but it has gone through decades of research, not four or five, and was checked rigorously by a very large quantity of peers. Being reviewed by a small pool of scientists is peer review, but not a rigorous one. If it is because the other scientists are too "biased" as you say to look at it, then state your case, but you still can't assert it as truth. Rather than saying, "precise physical measurements can be made, including those prohibited by the uncertainty principle" (which the original article stated in a more obfuscating way, seriously, "physical determinations"? "epistemological approach"? Succint language isn't used like everything else? Do some of you order ice cream coca-cola floats by asking, "I'd like the carbonated caramel beverage a la mode"?), rather, "aetherometric theory assumes precise measurements can be made, even those traditionally ruled out by the uncertainty principle". Which by the way, I find the contravention of the uncertainty principle quite ridiculous, at least without proper elaboration in the article. Cite papers, immediately after the sentence, by the way, not at the end. Full text. That is my main problem with the original article - NPOV. If you can represent aetherometry as a scientific theory in contention, rather than some revolutionary-change-the-world discovery (even though it might be) because it is not wholly, rigorously, verified yet. I wouldn't have a problem with the article if it was represented this way. -- Natalinasmpf 30 June 2005 23:35 (UTC)


 * Thank you DrHyde, point taken (from below). That said, I'm inclined to accept the later portion of what Natalinasmpf just wrote.  Nat, would you like to offer two steps forward in article building?  Such as subheadings to begin or content outlines.  Even if only rough outline form, I would ask Mel to leave them stand for just a day or two so that we may work on building in the article space itself.  (passers-by should be able to handle some rough portions in a public encyclopedia) TTLightningRod


 * I didn't write the original article, but neither did I realize we were arguing about it. What is the relevance of your mention of the original article, Natalinasmpf?  If you are trying to bring back the original article in some form, then it needs to be posted somewhere where people can work on it.  Is that what the plan is?  DrHyde 30 June 2005 23:40 (UTC)


 * By the way, Natalinasmpf, I think you are experiencing a confusion between the methodologies of natural sciences, and the methodologies of mathematics.  The proof and acceptance processes for mathematical theorems is very different from the "proof" and acceptance processes for claims in natural science.   But you know, even in mathematics the notion of "proof" and "validation" is undergoing a bit of an upheaval, due to the appearance of not necessarily humanly verifiable proofs performed by computer programs.  DrHyde 30 June 2005 23:50 (UTC)

Theresa, the problem with your sentence: "Of course a few brilliant new ideas may initially get weeded out too, but in the long term following the scientific method tends to be persuasive, even for extremely unconventional ideas." is that it is completely unverifiable. How do you know that it "tends to be persuasive"? We rarely hear of the cases where it hasn't been, because they don't make it into mainstream scientific history. Also, I am not sure what the purpose is of that whole paragraph. The work of the Correas has been publically available for a number of years now. There is nothing to prevent any interested mainstream scientist from reading it, trying to reproduce the results, and engaging with it. It is not like not bothering with mainstream journals is equivalent to hiding it from view. Can you explain what you are trying to say? DrHyde 30 June 2005 23:09 (UTC)


 * You make a fair point. It was actually someone else's sentence that I retained, rather than my own, plus it's now been changed for the better in the main article so sorted (as they say 'roung 'ere). I have a question for you (or anyone else that can answer). Did the Correas sunbmit any of their work to a journal and have it rejected or have they never bothered trying ? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 1 July 2005 04:57 (UTC)

The last paragraph
The way it stands now it does not provide correct info, but I am tired of improving the article because either Connolley or Mel Eititis will revert it to some arbitrary earlier version anyway. So just for the record. The paragraph now reads (with my comments after each sentence):


 * Papers about aetherometry have not been published in any major scientific journals, although articles about aetherometry have been published in a magazine devoted to "alternative energy" theories known as Infinite Energy.
 * "Alternative energy" is a well-established term and it is POV to put it in quotes, as if its use was illegitimate, just because some people here have a revulsion for Infinite Energy. Infinite Energy is not devoted to "alternative energy" theories (what in the world does that mean anyway), but to non-mainstream research in alternative energy (or to non-mainstream alternative energy research).


 * The Correas often resort instead use their own press, Akronos Publishing.
 * Akronos Publishing is not a press. The press that publishes the Aetherometry books is Toronto University Press.  The publisher of Aetherometry materials is Akronos Publishing.  Also "resort use" is ungrammatical.  Should be either "resort to using" or simply "use".


 * This approach bypasses the normal rigorous peer review system employed by scientific journals. Proponents of aetherometry justify this by stating that the major journals ignore them because of bias due to entrenched interests.
 * No, that's not what is claimed by any proponent of Aetherometry that I know. What some of the proponents of Aetherometry claimed in this discussion is that the system of acceptance into mainstream science is permeated with entrenched interests, and that one cannot judge the scientific merits of a new science that has arisen outside the institutional framework and which challenges accepted notions, by the fact that it has not been accepted by the mainstream.   "Major journals ignore them because of bias due to entrenched interests" is, sorry to say, an infantile formulation and no Aetherometry "proponent" I know of has ever expressed anything like that.  216.254.164.192 1 July 2005 13:57 (UTC)


 * Note that I have addressed your concerns in the last 2 paras by rewriting them, including taking in a whole sentence from your comment above to replace the previous formulation. You've also deleted information about the sort of topics Infinite Energy covers: but this information comes from the magazine's publishers themselves. You may not like the content of these paragraphs, but please do not delete useful information if it is true. If it's untrue, of course, let us know about it here before performing any deletion. -- Karada 1 July 2005 14:50 (UTC)


 * That may well have been a different person. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 1 July 2005 14:55 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're right, it was User:209.183.21.253, rather than the IP above. So there's a chance they may be different people. -- Karada 1 July 2005 14:57 (UTC)
 * nslookup 209.183.21.253 name = dialin-209-183-21-253.tor.primus.ca 192.164.254.216.in-addr.arpa    name = dialin-164-192.tor.primus.ca.  Both from Canada. I note primus is based in Onterio. GangofOne 1 July 2005 22:04 (UTC)

Can whoever devised the phrase "the major journals ignore them" explain what it means? What does it mean for journals to ignore something? It's the scientists that do the ignoring, not the journals, right? And that whole last paragraph doesn't really hold water. Why is there a need to offer "justifications" for the Correas' publishing preferences? 216.254.164.192 1 July 2005 19:00 (UTC)

VFD debate
This article has been kept following this VFD debate. Sjakkalle (Check!)  1 July 2005 12:59 (UTC)

Hey, Kids!
The field of Aetherometry has not been published in traditional scientific journals and remains unexposed to that forum's peer review. However, through the internet, large portions of this field are available for free, and it has been accessible for peer review since 2001.


 * That's not quite what people mean by "peer review" in this context. Have any papers been submitted to journals? What was their response?


 * And, most of all, why not perform public demonstrations of some of the devices invented using aetherometric principles, and invite your critics to see them working, and test them? Remember, Einstein was prepared to give up some of his time in an open-minded attempt to help out Reich. (He did, too, but Reich didn't like the answer). You sadly underestimate the open-mindedness of many physicists. Remember cold fusion? Scientists are remarkably willing to reopen even apparently taboo areas of investigation if someone shows them a good, reproducible experiment. -- Karada 1 July 2005 15:13 (UTC)


 * Oh come come. How many years of constant pounding on doors, after the initial Pons & Fleischmann "exposure",  did it take before a mainstream journal published a single paper on cold fusion?  How much money, effort, how many private and institutional resources did it take?   Why do you think the "Infinite Energy" magazine and the lenr-canr website were created?  Precisely because the "peers" in mainstream journals recoiled and jeered when they heard the word "cold fusion", and would not even consider papers on the topic.  How many scientists were ostracised for even engaging with cold fusion?  Yes, now, millions of dollars and two DOE reviews later, some scientific institutions have suddenly become "open minded" about it.  DrHyde 1 July 2005 20:53 (UTC)


 * I remember the excitement in the physics community back then. It caused a real stir. People were very receptive to the idea of cold fusion. Things like that don't come along very often. Then the exitement turned to dissapointment because no one was able to replicate thier result. And it wasn't for lack of trying IIRC many teams tried, all failed. Fringe science advocates always argue that there is a conspiracy among scientists to reject thier ideas. They never accept the fact that the reason their ideas might be rejected by mainstream science is because they are talking crap. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 2 July 2005 05:29 (UTC)


 * It is precisely along these grounds that aetherometry fails. Fringe science is exciting.  There's a goood payoff in either providing the first independent support for an idea, or being the first to disprove it.  Without some great conspiracy to suppress, someone else, maybe someone in India or South Korea, or somewhere else outside of the central core of first rate first world science would have jumped on the bandwagon, if there were one to jump on.  A few good papers can go a long way towards tenure.  Science is not monolithic.  There is no cabal.  No memo comes around telling you which papers to keep down.  Or, at least, no one sends me the memos.  OMG - did I give the "wrong" paper an "accept" review?!  B-b-but I didn't get the memo!... Guettarda 2 July 2005 06:00 (UTC)

You're putting up strawmen for yourselves to attack. To my knowledge, nobody in this discussion, other than you above, talked about a conspiracy or a cabal. As for cold fusion, your knowledge of its history seems to be very one-sided. And one of the conundrums with respect to "fringe science" is that once it is declared "fringe" its endeavours and results are not treated in the same way as the normal endeavours and results of "non-fringe" scientists. It often takes a long long time to understand a previously unobserved type of phenomenon enough to get reproducibility. This is normal in science. From the point of view of "pure science", there is absolutely no reason to ever "fringify" any scientific endeavour, even if it takes centuries to either get some use of it or for interest to cease. "Fringification" is necessary because there are many projects competing for very few slices of the scientific-resource-allocation pie, that's all. There is no "conspiracy" or "cabal" involved, although there are often, as in any rat race, various falsifications, schemings, back-stabbings, etc., by individuals or groups against other individuals or groups. 209.183.23.49 2 July 2005 13:50 (UTC)


 * I'll see if I can take that apart. You'll let me know what I miss, I'm sure.


 * Available, would seem very different than, denying access to the information.  A person can not be made to do anything, not even made to review something handed to them for free.  This "peer review" labyrinth some wikipedians are checking aetherometry against, seems diversionary, divisive, or simply confused.  Most of the material is available directly on the net, if not free, only for the cost of printing and shipping, or a limited use password to large bodies of work.  Available, just like most all other science for the "traditional news-stand price". Again, this idyllic "peer review" is a very ethereal kind of litmus test being demanded here.  The material is available to anyone who wants to read it.  Are you not a high enough authority to defer? Otherwise, please list an authority higher than yourself you would need to receive blessing from to feel worthy of reading the material. (please don't list anyone, or any thing...  you may only demonstrate your confusion)


 * I do not know if any of this material has been submitted to a traditional journal...  personally, I might not waist my time trying to submit, and precisely why I wouldn't expect to see it there.  Couldn't blame anyone else who would ignore them the same.  I have offered plasma cosmology as a field in healthy progression, existing and moving with little thought to your traditional journal publication demands.  I have suggested a number of curious parallels between the fields as a way to encourage the open mindedness I "sadly underestimate."  We can talk about cold fusion and its difficulties in reproducibility another time. I can think of names listed last week, invited to demonstrations, and subsequently writing letters of acknowledgment to the Correas.  Mallove, Pratt, Dowland, and Soudak among others.  Please do not return to the "they're not worthy" circle jerk.  I seem to recall someone attempting (no matter how clumsy) to post a rather long listing of reproducible experiments.


 * (BTW, are people working here in tag teams to keep asking for answers to questions, repeatedly asked and answered by numerous others last week?) TTLightningRod

Here's a (slightly contrived) example of why peer review matters. Say I have an unorthodox new mathematical theory. As part of my paper, I could say


 * $$f_L(V^*,\mathbb{R}) \int_\omega f_k d^T \in \left|{\partial \mathbf{V^*} \over \partial {\mathbb{R}}}\right|$$

or I could say:


 * $$\#X(\mathbb F_{p^n}) = 1 -\sum_{i=1}^{2g} \alpha_i^n+p^n$$

Now, one of those is real mathematics that makes sense in the context of Étale cohomology, and the other is just nonsensical symbol soup vaguely resembling mathematical notation (quick: which is which?). With peer review, someone skilled in the art can spot the difference rather quickly. So, then I either have to (1) explain what my equation means in more detail, so other mathematicians can understand it too, or (2) perhaps I have to accept that it might actually be nonsense. Or, of course, I can take option three, decide that I am a lone genius, scorned by the world, and my reviewers are too stupid and bigoted to understand me. Now, if I really believed in my theory, surely I'd rather be willing to have my paper improved by honing it over and over again until I've beaten the reviewers into submission by the weight of my evidence and watertightness of my arguments, rather than risk taking option three. -- The Anome July 1, 2005 19:09 (UTC)


 * Hey there Lone Genius, did ya here me challenge the need for peer review?....  Did you miss the part where I pointed out the information is available and ready for your critique?  Did ya miss the part where others have done so, and even gone to the trouble of writing papers about it?  What "option three?"  or should I put it back up for ya? TTLightningRod

Just to help you, here's some advice on how to get published in peer-reviewed journals:
 * http://www.nature.com/nature/authors/get_published/index.html
 * http://chronicle.com/jobs/2000/11/2000112402c.htm
 * http://www-library.uow.edu.au/helptraining/guides/getpub.html

Let me know how you get on. -- The Anome July 1, 2005 19:39 (UTC)


 * arn't you just the pipe'n hero


 * I am indeed. -- The Anome July 1, 2005 19:43 (UTC)
 * and ya like Merry-go-rounds too. TTLightningRod


 * Here's how I got on......


 * The criteria for publication of scientific papers (Articles and Letters) in Nature are that they:
 * report original scientific research (the main results and conclusions must not have been published or submitted elsewhere) .... hmmm, that sounds effective.


 * "To succeed you must make your talents well known and widely appreciated." (Anome seems to be doing well on that one)


 * there is a requirement or expectation to publish
 * to raise your research profile
 * increase the visibility of your research


 * ... do I really need to go through your suggestions any further?  In summation: what a frigi'n waist of time when I can read the stuff myself, directly. TTLightningRod


 * The real difference between the self-educated and those who have gone through the educational system is that the former have never been told "you're wrong". And there is nothing more valuable in terms of learning to think critically than being told "you are wrong" by someone whose opinion you respect (and who you can't ignore).  Such also is peer review.  You can never really evaluate your own work critically.  It looks fine to you.  Outside input that you cannot dismiss - peer review - is the only process that can force you to look critically at things.  You may be right and just not have explained things properly.  You may be wrong and have a huge logical flaw that you missed because you were too close to the work to have real perspective.  Peer review can be brutal, but it's terribly valuable because it's the only way to weed out logical fallacies.  That is the value of submitting your work to peer review, of baring your soul before strangeers.  Showing your work to your friends and colleagues can never substitute.  That is the value of peer review.
 * Any idea that is at least logically coherent can find its way into the literature if you show persistence. You may not get it into science.  You may not get it into the secodn or even the third tier.  But there's a fourth and fifith tier in ISI-recongnised journals.  If you persist you will get published - eventually the comments will knock yoiur ideas into shape.  On the other hand, if you are discouraged by a rejection from Science (which rejects the vast majority of submissions) you probably don't have the temperament to listen to criticism, you probably don't have the temperament to do science.  If, on the other hand, you feel that you are good enough to do this on your own, if you choose to thumb your nose at the scientific community and self-publish, don't expect people to come and beg to review your work.  You have put a big sign above your head, a sign which says "crackpot".  You may not deserve it, but you have chosen your own path. So there is no point thereafter in whining about the lack of reviews because your material is out there in the internet (I have yet to find "free" content on aetherometry - not the links from the Correa's wbesite).  Science has its ways of weeding out crackpots.  If you choose "The Way of the Crackpot" and mainstream science fails to come pounding on your door...maybe you need to look at your own approach before you dismiss mainstream science.  Guettarda 1 July 2005 22:56 (UTC)


 * I think you're confusing me with some other people, as your address seems to suggest you think I'm trying to post my own work. Regardless, I do so appreciate the feedback system you are talking about, and actually enjoy constructive critiques...   even a big fat "you're wrong".  It is entirely possible, that my participation here has been misunderstood as an advocate of aetherometry.  Yet that would be confused with my real dog in the fight...   an interest in seeing the people who do know the language spoken last week, return here to try again without some rabid mainstream gang simply deleting out huge chunks of material.


 * With your valuable and necessary demands of rigor, I would very much like to see an article AT LEAST describing the controversy. Does that really mean that the controversy is best demonstrated through clearly child like behavior over Dr. credentials, printing locations, publication formating, etc as opposed to debating the deeper text?  The actions of the opposition this last week were astonishingly circular over completely mundane components compared to building an article around history, methods used, and correspondence between peers (maybe not your peers, but at least a correspondence between "crackpot peers").  Wouldn't you at least find that interesting, if not just humorous?  Why all the delete, credential, and "lack of mainstream formality" attacking? TTLightningRod

Capital, Ms. Guettarda. In one and the same post you aspire to educate (some unidentified student) about the merits of "looking ciritcally at things", and refer to the (rather modest, I might say) critical look at the peer-review process that has been offered here, as "whining".

But in addition, I believe you've got the story a bit backwards. Do you honestly believe that the reason local Notables  such as Misters Connolley, PJacobi or MelEtitis - or you, for that matter, Ms. Guettarda - are treating Aetherometry as if it was an icky piece of slime, is that those poor devils the Correas neglected to get it peer-reviewed? Do you honestly believe that if someone offered a Wikipedia entry concerning some not-yet peer-reviewed miniscule improvement to a known technique in calorimetry, those Notables - and you - would be dripping bile all over it? No, Ms. Guettarda, neither they nor you would. The reason they, and you, drip bile all over Aetherometry is not that it has not been peer-reviewed, but that it concerns itself with subjects that have been pronounced unholy by the Church of Science, such as the Aether, orgone accumulators, non-electromagnetic Tesla waves, and the non-relativistic electric nature of solar radiation. And who do you think populates peer-review boards if not the Connolleys, the Pjacobis, the MelEtitis' and the Guettardas of this world? If such a "peer review board" cannot even muster an ounce of respect, fairness, objectivity and courtesy with respect to a Wikipedia submission about Aetherometry, do you honestly expect it to muster any of that when it comes to a paper on Aetherometry submitted to a mainstream scientific journal? Oy, Ms. Guettarda, Ms. Guettarda. 209.183.22.22 2 July 2005 02:17 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the gender shift, but no, I am not a Ms. Maybe that's what you get for naming yourself after one of your favourite tree genera.  Figure I'm too stubborn, cocky and argumentative for anyone to take me for a woman.  Guettarda 2 July 2005 05:27 (UTC)

No one is treating it as a piece of slime. People are removing unreferenced stuff, but that is wikipedia policy. If something isn't published (and vanity publishers don't count here) then it cannot go into a wikipedia article as fact. It can only go in as opinion. Your agument about peer review doesn't hold water. There is a big difference between Wikipedia and a journal. Journals accept original work - that is what they are there for. Wikipedia doesn't allow original work. Wikipedia is an encylopedia. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 2 July 2005 05:22 (UTC)


 * No one is treating it like slime. On the other hand, look through the history of this page and you will see that Helicoid and the Toronto/Hamilton IPs are treating the rest of us like slime.  Guettarda 2 July 2005 05:27 (UTC)

No one? Tsk tsk. For example, today somebody inserted into the article a reference to Aetherometry as a "movement". Would you call Quantum Mechanics a "movement"? And every day brings some tiny - or not so tiny - contemptuous insertion or twist. Just because it's insidious doesn't make it any less contemptuous, or any less dishonorable on the part of those who do it. 209.183.23.49 2 July 2005 13:56 (UTC)


 * If slime dwelling beetles become ambitious, dry their wings to take flight in search of new pastures, how long does it take for once beetle free pastures to become slime?

Tag off too....
Linas!
 * All hail Linas... knower of all that is pseudo!  What's it smell like up there?


 * Ya, I just took a nice stroll through The Big Bang.....    You people and your wiggle room mathematics are full if it.  Talk about just cause to re-categorize THAT as pseudophysics.    But mind you...   unlike many of the mainstream sycophants pushing their POV in this far off article, I refrain from meddling in your fantasy constructs.  Hold on tight to the tiger's tail....  you're in for a ride.

And Anome steps into the ring with his "symbol soup" guns to phantom swat at those pesky mathematics not even yet presented in aetherometry. I think you've already decided you're a lone genius.


 * Of those on Team Tag Off, who is still convinced that "comets are only dirty snow balls"? Come on, you can tell us.


 * You could uses the arguments of solipsism or the brain in a vat, perhaps. After all, TWO PLUS TWO MAKE FIVE. BECAUSE THE PARTY SAYS SO. HAIL BIG BROTHER! WE WERE ALWAYS AT WAR WITH EURASIA.


 * only if titer values require breaking a threshold of 3.7x, however measurements only indicate 2.9x, factor the mass decrease of fly doo as it dries upon green auto paint in Denver, and your spud array will conjoin to deliver the the necessary 3.7x.


 * LIES, THE THOUGHT POLICE WILL VAPORISE YOU FOR YOUR TREACHERY

A Bagatelle on Pseudoconcepts
Have you, dear reader, ever marvelled over the fact that in this here Encyclopedia whose Pillars seem to get up every morning with a hymn to Occam's Razor on their lips, it was seen as appropriate to identify so many separate categories of nonscience and not-quite-science? We have


 * Pseudoscience
 * Pseudophysics
 * Protoscience
 * Pathological science
 * Cargo cult science
 * Bad science
 * Junk science
 * Quackery

and then there is also "pseudohistory", "pseudoarcheology", and "pseudophilosophy".

Some eager beaver even jumped in and included in the Pseudoscience article the pseudoconcept of "pseudomathematics". Why does the world need such a thing as "pseudomathematics", when it has already the perfectly workable concepts of correct math and incorrect math, elegant math and inelegant math, useful math and useless math? Well, let's try and understand this. The article informs us that "The efforts of pseudomathematicians divide into three categories:


 * attempting apparently simple classical problems long proved impossible by mainstream mathematics; trying metaphorically or (quite often) literally to square the circle
 * generating whole new theories of mathematics or logic from scratch
 * attempting hard problems in mathematics (the Goldbach conjecture comes to mind) using only high-school mathematical knowledge"

What in the world could be the reason to clump these three things together into an invented concept of "pseudomathematics"? In the first place, the second type of effort is completely ill-defined, since as it stands it would include things like Galois Theory and Conway's theory of surreal numbers. Or are those to be regarded as pseudomathematics? The third type of effort is most likely fruitless and a mathematically sophisticated observer would have a near certainty it would fail, but its failure is no different in kind from any other failure at proving something, which might always have seemed a near certainty to an even more sophisticated observer. The first type of "effort", when attempted seriously and with the sole purpose of doing something that had explicitly been proven undoable, is simply futile and will not result in a correct piece of mathematics. So what? It is not any more deserving of its own "pseudo" category than an effort to lick the back of one's head would deserve to be put in a specially created category of "pseudoathletics".

The only reason I can see for such a concept is that it gives any ignorant bureaucrat a tool whereby he can pronounce an apriori judgement on an attempted piece of mathematics by stamping it as "pseudomathematics" without actually having to do the work of understanding it, or having to disqualify himself from judging it on the basis of not wanting, or not being able to, do the work. But perhaps I am missing some crucial something? 209.183.22.22 2 July 2005 04:28 (UTC)

Please keep on topic. Arguments about pesodomathematics do not belong here. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 2 July 2005 05:32 (UTC)

Uncited
I've removed the following, pending a cite:
 * Work in Aetherometry, including plasma physics and technology-tests, has been independently reviewed by the following: Eugene Mallove (PhD), Harold Aspden (PhD, P. Eng), Uri Soudak (P. Eng, MSc), Dr. M. Askanas (PhD), Professor Emeritus A. Axelrad (MD, PhD), Professor Emeritus William Tiller (PhD), Luis Balula (M.Arch, PhD), Howard Brinton (MD), Vitaly Bard (MD), Lev Sapogin (PhD), George Egely (PhD), Prof. Emeritus Herman Branover (PhD), Michael Tilley (BSc), David Pratt, Tom Bearden, Michael Carrell.

Please provide a cite for this, prior to putting it back in the article. -- 80.168.224.145 2 July 2005 09:36 (UTC)

I didn't write the paragraph, but I could provide the cites. However, what would be the point? Obviously, none of them are in mainstream journals, and so by the circular logic of which we have seen so much here, they don't count. 209.183.23.49 2 July 2005 14:42 (UTC)


 * What kinds of publications would these be? Would they be Infinite Energy and Akronos publications? Or are any of them from other sources?


 * How about if I say this: "Aetherometry proponents state that its publications, including plasma physics and and results of technology tests, have been independently reviewed by numerous qualified people. However, none of these reviews have been published in peer-reviewed publications."? -- Karada 2 July 2005 14:49 (UTC)

I didn't write the original sentence, but it seems to me that its purpose was to provide specific info about people who reviewed work in aetherometry. If it's going to be nonspecific, there is no point in putting it in - it just sounds like a vacuous self-serving claim on the parts of "proponents", and thus yet another caricature. So no. But you could simply preface the original sentence - the one that provides specific names - with "The Aetherometry website  states that..." 209.183.23.49 2 July 2005 15:17 (UTC)

Aetherometry is not a "movement", and doesn't live in a house
Please change "Most works dealing with aetherometry are published under the aetherometry movement's own in-house imprint, Akronos Publishing." to "Most works dealing with aetherometry have been published by Akronos Publishing, a small publisher with a focus on aetherometric reseach." 209.183.23.49 2 July 2005 14:42 (UTC)


 * OK, then, who are the shareholders and management of Akronos Publishing? Where is it incorporated? -- Karada 2 July 2005 14:43 (UTC)

No idea, but I doubt it's a public corporation. How is this relevant, one way or another, to the sentence I proposed? Unless you're thinking of buying shares in Akronos. 209.183.23.49 2 July 2005 15:18 (UTC)

OK, so it's not a corporation. So, if it's not a corporation, who do I get to if I write to them? Its only contact information seems to be via E-mail addresses at "atherometry.com", which Eugene Mallove appears to have described as "the Correas' website". -- Karada 2 July 2005 15:47 (UTC)

I believe Akronos is a partnership in which the Correas are partners. If you write to one of the addresses at aetherometry.com, you will most probably get one of the people associated with it - depending on which address you write to and on what subject. It can loosely be referred to as "Correas' website" in that most of the research papers in Aetherometry are by the Correas, and the Correas are partners in Akronos. I believe that the sentence I proposed is in no way at odds with any of that. 209.183.23.49 2 July 2005 16:24 (UTC)

Thanks for that. -- Karada 2 July 2005 16:31 (UTC)

entrenched interests, cabal, etc
The formulations about only entrenched interests prohibit a wider circulation and acceptance of Aetherometry, in the POV of the Aetherotry supporters, were repeatedly reverted out of the article, e.g..

IMHO we can argue about the relevance of this belief, but its existence can hardly be disputed. See this lengthy quote from Eugene Mallove (10th International Cold Fusion Conference in August 2003):


 * On the surface, all seems calm -- at least to the so-called Scientific Establishment, in other words the mainstream scientific media. The latter includes prominently Science, Nature, Physical Review, Scientific American, American Scientist, The New York Times “Science Times,” and a host of other publications, which alternately ignore, mock, or misrepresent those scientific findings hard-won in laboratory experiments, such as are represented in the better papers that are presented at Cold Fusion/LENR conferences such as ICCF10. And, the major peer-reviewed publications in this Establishment do not accept papers on low-energy nuclear reactions and “cold fusion” phenomena -- these are not even given entrance (since the 1989-90 period) into the vaunted peer review process. This fact is neither admitted publicly by the obstructing publications, nor noted by the community of science journalists, who should be among the first to investigate and expose this blatantly anti-scientific publication practice.


 * To the Scientific Establishment all is calm because there are no phenomena from table-top experiments that are allowed to challenge the basic foundational physics paradigms, which have been laid down to become what can only be described as a church-like “holy writ.” It is almost as though we are back in 1894 when the sentiment expressed in the above quote of Albert Michelson prevailed -- all is well with Physical Science and “further advances are to be sought chiefly in the rigorous application of these principles to all the phenomena which come under our notice.” That is essentially the dogma of mainstream physics circa 2003. Moreover, most scientists in the cold fusion/LENR field, whose experimental work is rejected by the mainstream, do not wish to challenge the foundations of physics either; they believe that cold fusion/LENR does not challenge those foundations at all and that their observations can be or will be explained by prevailing quantum mechanics and relativity theory.

Pjacobi July 2, 2005 23:17 (UTC)

Two comments. First, this particular quote from Eugene Mallove is not about Aetherometry; it is about cold fusion/LENR, which is a very different matter. Second, the formulation that repeatedly reappers in the Aetherometry article - that Aetherometry is ignored by scientific journals becuse of entrenched interests - is a silly way of putting it, and is not what any "proponents of Aetherometry" have ever, to my knowledge, claimed. I will try to work out a less silly and more faithful-to-the-truth formulation. 209.183.23.49 3 July 2005 00:20 (UTC)


 * Well, I did work out such a formulation and added it yesterday, but Theresa removed it as an "irrelevant comment".   Whatever, dudes.  DrHyde 3 July 2005 17:00 (UTC)

What is disturbing about this clown-act of the administrators in this entry is that only one of you is reputedly a doctor (the modeller who works for the weather service, though I'm still to see what degree he has...) and yet, all of you, a gang of - let me count: Connolley, Jacobi, Karada, Guetarda, Anome, Mel Etitis (definietly sounds like a disease) and Knott, of course, plus this Linas - a total of 8 (Gang of 7+1) are now the self-erected judges of what is science and what is pseudoscience (plus all the other ridiculous categories that erupt from their brains (drains?)). And from this podium they proceed to classify not just the entries on Aetherometry, Aether and so on, but also Randal Mills, Carezzani, etc. These are people without qualifications, who specialize in subtle and not-so-subtle aggression. And these are the people who claim that their enemies talk about cabals. Well, if I've ever seen a little cabal, this is it, no? Pretty obvious and orchestrated too. Power-hungry. The new cabalistic peer-review.
 * I actually count 3 PhD's that I know of in that group, Dr Correa. Guettarda 3 July 2005 20:17 (UTC)


 * So what? I, for example, have a PhD, but I would be ashamed to make judgements about scientific work that I haven't studied and about which I have in fact only heard a week ago.


 * Technically, I don't have a PhD :-). But, the point you are missing, is that what is being judged is the objective "has been published in peer-reviewed journals" not the rather more subjective "quality of science" (though personally I think its junk, I'm not editing on that basis). Now, you can rant and rave about the cabal of PR, but it will do you no good: if stuff hasn't been P-R'd, most/all scientists will say its probably junk. William M. Connolley 2005-07-04 11:16:33 (UTC).


 * And so would any real scientist. It is you guys who are pseudoscientists.  (I am not Dr. Correa, but I am probably as much of a Dr. Correa as the person you were addressing as Dr. Correa.).  216.254.161.129 3 July 2005 23:17 (UTC)


 * Typicaly hilarious response. First you say: "What is disturbing about this clown-act of the administrators in this entry is that only one of you is reputedly a doctor", and when I point out that, actually, at least 3 of them do, you say: "So what?".  And yeah, you switched your IP, but it's still a Toronto IP and the language is still the same.  Just like the language on stuff attributed to the Correas on their web site.  Guettarda 4 July 2005 01:07 (UTC)


 * Sorry, guy. You lose in this, as you do in so many other things.  Toronto has a large population, Primus is a large Telco, and I am not the same person as the one you replied to.  And if I pointed out all the mutually inconsistent texts spouted on these pages by the combo of Theresa, Jacobi, you, et al, there would be no end to the hilarity.   216.254.164.68 4 July 2005 02:43 (UTC)


 * I lose what? How tragic.  Didn't realise there was some competition here for me to lose.  Guettarda 4 July 2005 03:15 (UTC)

Easy answer: As it is only question of weighting the references and not debatting the content, editorial work more often than not doesn't require deep knowledge of the field. OTOH, if this case comes to WP:RFAr and the arbitrators request the information, I will happily present my qualifications to them. Also, that our best contributors in physics aren't even interested in debatting Aetherometry shouldn't be taken as endorsement. --Pjacobi July 3, 2005 16:48 (UTC)

POVness of the Wikipedian guards of alternative physics
Red Guards of the truth of physics, pure souls on ignoble missions of suppressing facts: here's the POVness, very basic: assuming the Correas never even bothered with applying their 60 page plus essays to mainstream publications, they would be the ones that ignored institutional science, not the other way around. Assumption of no guilt is always a real sign of an open mind (yes, not in Wikipedia). But if mention is made that infers that Aetherometry has not been peer-reviewed by "physisists" (Knott's BSc did not tell her how to spell physicists), then it either means, factually, that Aetherometry has not been published in mainstream publications (so the physicist-business should be dropped), or to make the statement balanced and NPOV by the Wikipedian ideology, a sentence must be added containing some of the physicists, scientists and medical doctors that have reviewed Aetherometry. Removing it shows a tainted bias.


 * What physicists have reviewed it? BTW I have dsylexia, I spell things wrong all the time. There is no need to point out my misspellings. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 4 July 2005 04:14 (UTC)


 * It is thought police, purity squads, etc - when MENTION of the independent peers that reviewed the evidence is NOT permitted. These are people with more qualifications than Knott, and certainly the proper qualifications (which apparently Connolley lacks).  But if there are other PhD's lurking about in the Wikipedia cabal, they are anonymous, which pretty much gives them a Ku-Klux-Klan-like hat. The real peers are deleted, and editorialistic kangaroos become the new peers...


 * The independent "peers" have not bothered to publish in a proper journal though. Plus are any of them actual physicists? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 4 July 2005 04:14 (UTC)

About Categorization
Mel Etitis and Theresa knott: If you intend to continue Mr. Connolley's proxy project of stamping the just-now-created pseudo category of 'pseudophysics' on this entry - then I presume you have studied the concept of pseudo a little better than Ms. Knott has learned to spell the word "irrelevant". That's "irrelevant", Ms. Knott - not "irrelavent". The Funk and Wagnalls dictionary defines pseudo as
 * 1) False; pretended
 * 2) Counterfeit; not genuine
 * 3) Closely resembling
 * 4) Illusory; apparent
 * 5) Abnormal; erratic

If you are going to mule-headedly insist on recategorizing the Aetherometry entry into this POV(lovian) category, then, BEFORE doing so again, please defend - in detail - and provide cited references as to how the physics of Aetherometry - as well as the extensive work in physics of Mills, Tesla and Carezani etc., -  conforms to the official dictionary definition of "pseudo". 4.233.120.63 3 July 2005 17:31 (UTC)

Exactly. It's pseudophysics because it's not physics. So that would be 2), 3) and 4) of the definition above. The reason i say it's not physics is because it hasn't been peer reviewed by physisists, it's never been published in a physics journal. The reason I say it's pseudophysics is because to someone without an education in physics it resembles physics.What does a term like "massfree energy" say to a layman if not physics?  The catagory lets the casual reader know not to trust the physics sounding words, this is not the same sort of thing as say relativity or quantum mechanics.Theresa Knott  (a tenth stroke) 3 July 2005 20:15 (UTC)

From the description of the pseudophysics category "This category consists of those theories and research endeavours in the areas of physics and astronomy which have not undergone the critical review process needed in order to be accepted by the scientific community as actual, valid theories of nature." I think that fit's pretty near perfectly. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 3 July 2005 21:44 (UTC)


 * Then the category is misnamed. "Pseudo" signals to the "casual reader" that the thusly-labeled activity has been reviewed, and has been found to be not real physics, but counterfeit and phoney.  Just because something has not been peer-reviewed doesn't make it counterfeit or phoney.  If you want a category for not-peer-reviewed scientific endeavours, then call the category "scientific claims that have not been peer reviewed", or "scientific claims that the Wikipedia community cannot evaluate fairly".   "Pseudo" is not an NPOV designation.  216.254.161.129 3 July 2005 22:30 (UTC)


 * Then the casual reader should be less casual. Also, "pseudoscience", etc., can be perfectly NPoV, though their use has to be carefully watched.  Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 3 July 2005 22:37 (UTC)


 * Why, what's wrong with "scientific claims that have not been peer-reviewed"? It's accurate, and does not induce the kind of confusion that attaches to the prefix "pseudo".  Also, by what kind of "logic" is it that your category of "pseudoscience" defines itself as pertaining to behaviours that violate the principles of the scientific method, such as


 * asserting claims or theories without first verifying them in experiments
 * asserting claims which cannot be verified or falsified (claims that violate falsifiability)


 * while your category "pseudophysics", which obviously should be simply a sub-category of "pseudoscience" and therefore inherit its badness, pretends to just be a synonym for "physics that has not been peer-reviewed". This is supposed to guide the "casual reader"?  Give me a break, ladies.   216.254.161.129 3 July 2005 22:51 (UTC)


 * *asserting claims or theories without first verifying them in experiments What exactly 'are the experiments that are supposed to have been performed? This article has existed for how long? And none of the aetherometry advocates have actually posted details of the experiments on the wikipedia article. Why is that? Theresa Knott  (a tenth stroke) 4 July 2005 04:21 (UTC)


 * It is clear the Wikipedian cabal was never interested in writing an unbiased entry. In fact, they voted to keep the entry so that they could wage their guerrilla war on Aetherometry, as they wage it on Randall Mills or Carezzani or Reich or. There's no end to their collective rewriting of history and science. Facts and sources are immaterial for this pseudo-people. Only the most narrow-minded interpretation of instutional science matters to them.  Not knowledge. Not facts. Not even the articulation of their pseudo-"catagories" (to follow Knott).209.183.20.149


 * What facts exactly? So far no one has actually stated what science hhas actually been done. What experiments were performed? What were the details of the experiments, who repeated tyhe experiments, and what were the results? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 4 July 2005 04:23 (UTC)
 * I agree that more on experiments would be more telling that more on the theories. As far as experiments go, have you not looked at 1941 Reich-Einstein experiment? GangofOne 4 July 2005 06:31 (UTC)


 * Yeah I have. It has been stated that the Correa's have improved apon this experiment, but there have been no details added to this article of what these improvements were, and how the accounted for convection. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 4 July 2005 20:33 (UTC)

Dear Aunt Theresa, the Experimental Aetherometry monographs (and books), which have a total length of a couple thousand pages, contain exact descriptions of hundreds of experiments. No one has actually stated what science has been done and what experiments were performed? No, dear Aunt, they have been stated plenty. 209.183.20.136 4 July 2005 14:04 (UTC)


 * I haven't found any free to view papers on what their experiments were and am certainly not about to pay for them. Since you clearly are, perhaps you could add some details of what was done and what the Correas claim the results were? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 4 July 2005 20:33 (UTC)


 * I am not sure where you were looking when you concluded that you "haven't found", but includes brief summaries of a number of the experiments that form part of the narrative of  Experimental Aetherometry.  216.254.160.187 5 July 2005 17:08 (UTC)


 * Even if the Correas' monographs finally add up to 10,000 pages, it will be very doubtfull wether they alone can be cited as factual evidence. Note the precedent of Lyndon LaRouche where it was decided by ArbCom, that the publications of the LaRouche movement are in toto unsuitable references for the Wikipedia (should be considered original research, as in No original research). --Pjacobi July 4, 2005 14:44 (UTC)


 * But it could be added as a claim perhaps. (as long as it was worded well) Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 4 July 2005 20:33 (UTC)


 * Well, Aunt Theresa asked me for details of the experiments, the results, etc.  If she wants those, she should look at the papers written by the people who performed the experiments.  You sort of lose me when you then jump to arguments about "citing them as factual evidence".  To whom and for what purpose do you want to cite them?  The Wikipedia article has now been stripped by this here "community" of all concrete claims, so there is no occasion to cite any experimental evidence at all - and since you don't accept the experimental evidence put forth by the people who actually performed the experiments, it wouldn't interest you anyway.  Yes, Aetherometry is original research by the Correas.  If you guys don't know how to treat such stuff fairly and scientifically, then delete the article.   Ah, I forgot: you poor lambs can't delete it, because of the Rules from the Sky.  Since you have been good wikipedians, though, perhaps you can pray for it to miraculously disappear?  209.183.20.136 4 July 2005 16:11 (UTC)

Here are some experiments that caught my eye: "The Aetherometric Weight-Neutralizer (AWN) is a tunable, target-directed device that can be used for short-range weight-cancellation of an object of known chemical composition. With a power consumption of a few watts, first-generation devices can induce weight-loss of objects weighing in the 100 mg range, by employing a homogenous ambipolar energy beam." ; The Aetherometric Anti-Gravitator;   Power from Nuclear Fusion in Table-Top Reactors; "Aether Motor/Converter (AMC). Its development drew upon the lost and misunderstood investigations of Nikola Tesla and upon Wilhelm Reich's 'Orgone Motor'. The AMC operates by extracting Massfree Energy from Faraday cage-like enclosures or resonant cavities, living beings, the ground, vacua (Reich's Vacor tube principle), and atmospheric antennas." Lots more just as interesting at http://www.massfree.com/Technologies.html GangofOne 4 July 2005 07:27 (UTC)


 * Sounds exciting. If genuine, it would have been submitted to Nature or Science. Since it hasn't been, the conclusion is obvious... come back when you have some genuine references to genuine journals. & its "Dr Connolley" to you. William M. Connolley 2005-07-04 11:19:35 (UTC).


 * Exciting? That word doesn't even nearly describe how fantantastic this machine sounds. Cancelling out weight! Extracting energy from the vacuum! Extracting some kind of weird lifeforce energy from living things! You betcha it would get into science or nature! Why if I invented this thing I'd be hammering on scientists doors all over the place. " Don't say a word until you look at what this thing can do". The fact that it hasn't even been submitted to a journal is a bit dissapoining though. Could it be that the Correas are perhaps er exaggerating or even outright lying? Without someone else repeating their results it's very difficult to tell for sure. Theresa Knott  (a tenth stroke) 4 July 2005 20:23 (UTC)


 * Ah, the pseudoscientific argument of "would have been". How do you know what would have been?  209.183.20.136 4 July 2005 14:04 (UTC)


 * You are atroll, and you're now reduced to vandalising the page. William M. Connolley 2005-07-04 16:43:05 (UTC).


 * I think you're a troll.....   Deep Impact into Tempel 1 is doing a number on you right now.  Grapple your contortionist mathematics around that data and back off your troll patrol here.   (you know who i am) (yeah you're user:TTLightningRod stirring again. Why do you never sign your posts?)
 * FYI. I believe TTLichtningRod is here referring the ongoing event described in http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/03/1246254&tid=160 "Deep impact on comet theory. "Proponents of the Electric Universe theory have gone out on a limb ahead of Deep Impact. They're predicting it will show comets are just rocks and not dirty snowballs. Controversially they assert comets are highly negatively-charged asteroids on eccentric orbits. As they travel further into the Sun's radial positive electric field, they discharge into space, expelling material at supersonic speed." see also Plasma cosmology, which is an aeth..ry related topic.GangofOne 4 July 2005 22:49 (UTC)
 * Cool! A testable prediction. That's what I to see. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 5 July 2005 04:04 (UTC)


 * William didn't vandalise the page. The anon OTOH did. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 4 July 2005 20:33 (UTC)


 * I thought this was a discussion page. Now you guys say I am vandalizing it by participating in the discussion?  I didn't think my conversational skills were that bad.   In fact, I rather think yours are inferior, and yet I wouldn't have gone as far as accusing you of vandalism just for exercising them.  216.254.156.53 4 July 2005 21:15 (UTC)


 * If you are the same person as the one who posted above then you are accused of vandalism in this edit Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 4 July 2005 21:20 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes, that was indeed me. Vandalism?  I thought it was a perfect extension of Theresa's silly and presumptuous editorializing.  216.254.156.53 4 July 2005 22:21 (UTC)
 * If you thought my sentence was silly then what you should have done was delete it, instead of editing in bad faith. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 5 July 2005 04:48 (UTC)
 * Hee hee, such a sudden bout of concern about "bad faith". The bunch that Connoley refers to as "the rest of us" have performed tens of bad-faith edits to the article, without incurring any moral opprobrium from you.   At least mine was amusing, while those by "the rest of us" invariably drip with grim self-righteousness.  216.254.160.187 5 July 2005 13:38 (UTC)

Aetherometry is a perfect fit for Category:Pseudophysics, please note the definition: ''This category consists of those theories and research endeavours in the areas of physics and astronomy which have not undergone the critical review process needed in order to be accepted by the scientific community as actual, valid theories of nature. Many of these endeavours have few supporters, but are notable in having been broadly popularized.''. --Pjacobi July 4, 2005 19:38 (UTC)

The definition may be fine, but the name is not just inaccurate but clearly indicative of bad faith. The category should be called "non-mainstream science" or "science not reviewed by mainstream institutions". "Pseudo", as has already been pointed out, has an accepted dictionary meaning that has nothing to do with not having been accepted into the mainstream. The category is misnamed. 216.254.160.187 5 July 2005 16:48 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with you changing the name of the category. GHow do people feel about "fringe physics" ? would that be acceptable? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 5 July 2005 18:58 (UTC)


 * What's wrong with "non-mainstream physics"? 216.254.160.187 5 July 2005 21:32 (UTC)

To address this lack of external peer review ...
The paragraph starting with:
 * To address this lack of external peer review, the aetherometry movement's website claims that work in aetherometry, including plasma physics, biophysics and technology-tests, has been independently reviewed by the following scientists and medical doctors

looks rather odd as encyclopedic content. Of course it could preserved as witness of the misunderstandings of the peer review process. But otherwise? First, we should get rid of the medical doctors. Their vote on physics is irrelevant and should be treated with caution. The counting PhDs. If they got their PhD for something that make them important witnesses of Aethermetries merits, they are most likely relevant enough, to get a small biography article here, so that everybody can reproduce this assessment.

Pjacobi July 4, 2005 20:05 (UTC)


 * If you are going to get rid of medical doctors, it might also be wise to get rid of PhDs in non physics topics too. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 4 July 2005 20:35 (UTC)


 * Some of the findings are in biophysics (see the book "Nanometric Functions of Bioenergy") and some are technological (e.g. the lab prototypes of new power-generation technologies).  Some are both.   I would say medical doctors and engineers are perfect reviewers for such things, no?  216.254.156.53 4 July 2005 21:38 (UTC)

Why do we need to touch the para? To the aetherometrists, it puffs up their claims, so they are happy. For the rest of us, its clearly labelled as their claims, and (to be frank) it makes them look silly. Everyone wins! William M. Connolley 2005-07-04 21:41:49 (UTC).


 * Yeah you are right. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 4 July 2005 21:44 (UTC)


 * Of course it makes them look silly to the "rest of you". To that "rest of you", everything that pertains to Aetherometry looks silly, no matter what.  In fact, everything that is alive with thought, with the passion and joy of thought, looks silly to you.   You are a sad, envious, small-minded, self-important and self-righteous  bunch.  You remind me of a priest going around a park with a hammer, knocking penis' off of statues.    You are the modern equivalents of the priests in Blake's "Garden of Love":


 * I went to the Garden of Love,
 * And saw what I never had seen:
 * A Chapel was built in the midst,
 * Where I used to play on the green.


 * And the gates of this Chapel were shut,
 * And `Thou shalt not' writ over the door;
 * So I turn'd to the Garden of Love,
 * That so many sweet flowers bore,


 * And I saw it was filled with graves,
 * And tomb-stones where flowers should be:
 * And Priests in black gowns were walking their rounds,
 * And binding with briars my joys and desires.


 * May this here Aetherometrist bask for a long time to come in the glorious silliness of the science of Aetherometry. 216.254.156.53 4 July 2005 22:00 (UTC)

Now resorting to deletion of entire comments in the talk page.....
Which part got to you more, William M. Connolley. Was it the possible truth of what I observe about pathological skepticism? Or maybe it was the real scientific leads people could pursue to make their own judgments, without pseudoskepticism having to mind their business? TTLightningRod 5 July 2005 17:01 (UTC)


 * Talk page comment deleted by William M. Connolley, "-- rm pointless insults. Wiki is not... here for you to vent your spleen", because TTLightningRod said the following:


 * "Pathological skepticism masquerading as proper skepticism, or Pseudoskepticism, is also a class of pseudoscience.


 * Plasma Cosmology, (and Aethometry on plasma acceleration evident in coronal flair), had said prior to 23: 50 July 3rd Deep Impact impact, that the flare or explosion would be more energetic than expected, due to the contribution of electrical energy from the charged comet. NASA scientists were astonished and expressed their amazement on camera and in no uncertain terms: The blast was “considerably more energetic than I expected."' “The big question is how did we make such a big splash.” “I’m at a loss to explain it.” 


 * The reaction was universal: “The impact was bigger than everybody would have expected.” (oh, except for those "crack pots" who have a physical model capable of making accurate predictions basses on a silly concept that the universe is vastly more electrical in nature)


 * ( ...so yes my spleen really goes on to vent in light of the last several weeks treatment around this article...)
 * We live in an electrified solar system. The number of you who have chosen Aetherometry as your personal bane, or dragon to slay, shift from tediously annoying, to a death defying boring. I send up a giant F U (or maybe I could say "deep impact"). May the pincers of a billion tiny crabs gnaw you from your skin on inwards, you trite little snots." (here ya go) TTLightningRod 5 July 2005 17:32 (UTC)


 * TTLightningRod what is this all about? Are you here to discuss the aetherometry article or to rant. TYou were the one who said there was too much talk and not enough doing, and you are using this talk page as if it were your personal blog. Discuss the article please. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 5 July 2005 18:56 (UTC)

Category and mainstream
Oh User:TTLightningRod, quite to the contrary of your edit comment [, it is easy to search the abstracts of scientific journals. This is a standard procedure in science, done zillions of times every day. --[[User:Pjacobi|Pjacobi]] July 5, 2005 18:24 (UTC)


 * Didn't you mean to say it is easy to search the abstracts of mainstream scientific journals? Or is this "standard procedure in science, done zillions of times every day", truly flawless through its inclusiveness?  Are you really hanging your hat on that? TTLightningRod 5 July 2005 18:34 (UTC)


 * At least in physics, journals that are not indexed, not included in the abstract databases, are not part of the scientific process. --Pjacobi July 5, 2005 18:45 (UTC)


 * Ok. I'm so gald you're here to guide me. TTLightningRod 5 July 2005 18:53 (UTC)


 * Here's a hint, TTLR: look up citation index. -- Karada 5 July 2005 19:33 (UTC)


 * See response under "experimental details". TTLightningRod 5 July 2005 20:49 (UTC)

Experimental details
Could someone please explain either here or on the article page what experiments have actually been done. Someone gave me a web page above (Sorry but the thread was getting messy so I am starting again here)

"Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharge (PAGD) Reactor. This is an evacuated glass tube with aluminum electrode plates which is set into auto-electronic discharge emission by associated and patented circuitry, and it produces reported excess electrical energy."

Right so what are the details of that experiment? What is the vacuum in the tube? How big are the electrodes, how far apart are they, what shape are they? What does "auto-electronic discharge emission" mean? What is the "associated and patented circuitry" ? A circuit diagram would come in handy. How was the energy output measured? what are the sources of error? How precise is the measurement? And how much excess energy was produced? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 5 July 2005 19:30 (UTC)


 * PAGD is the subject of 3 US patents and some international patents. Anobody who wants to study it can study the patents, which are exceptionally well written.   There are links to those patents on the Aetherometry web site.  I don't think anybody here knows whether PAGD has been reproduced by anybody else; if any of the commercial companies that had in-house people trying to reproduce it was successful, it is highly unlikely they would be interested in touting this.  They would be more likely to sit on it and wait till the Correas run out of money to keep the patents alive.  216.254.160.187 5 July 2005 21:28 (UTC)
 * Are the patent's available on the web? Can you provide links? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 5 July 2005 21:33 (UTC)


 * See . 216.254.160.187 5 July 2005 21:42 (UTC)


 * Thank you. The abstract for the patent only describes the construction of the PAGD reactor. It doesn't talk about excess energy or appear to answer any of my later questions. i.e. how was the energy measured etc etc. Can you fill me in on this details Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 5 July 2005 21:52 (UTC)


 * You could try to write to the people who publish Monarch Notes and tell them about the need for a Monarch Notes from the autogenously Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharge patents. 216.254.160.187 5 July 2005 22:14 (UTC)


 * Actually I was hoping that one of Aetherometry advocates could just provide the details. It claims to be an experimental science, why is it so difficult to get the results of an experiment? Theresa Knott  (a tenth stroke) 5 July 2005 22:18 (UTC)


 * Oh come come. You call wasting people's time  "good faith"?  Do you customarily write to scientists and demand that should they spend their time producing for your use digests of their works because you are too lazy to read the works?   If you want to learn about, and understand, the experiments, then go and read the texts that were expressly written for people who want to learn and understand.   216.254.160.187 5 July 2005 22:34 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy too. Unfortunately I can't find any experiments to read about. Why is it so difficult to get the result of an experiment in what is claimed to be an experimental science? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 5 July 2005 22:37 (UTC)


 * What's the difficulty? I sent you to the Exp Aeth monographs; you complained you had to pay for them.  I sent you to Mallove's summary; you complained it doesn't have enough detail.  You want the full detail?  Pay for the papers like everybody else who wants the detail; or if you pay me, I'll write you a summary.  I sent you to the PAGD patents, which are available for free; you read only the abstract, and complained it didn't provide the full info.   Of course it doesn't; the full info is in the patent.  "Experimental" doesn't mean the results are provided in pre-digested sound bytes suitable for the Jay Leno show.  They are provided, as such things usually are, in papers to be read by people who are willing to invest time and thought.   216.254.160.187 5 July 2005 23:00 (UTC)


 * I'm not willing to pay the Correas to read their non peer reviewed papers. They may be a sucker born every minute but I'm too long in the tooth to pay to read crackpot science. In my experience of real physics papers, important results such as "excess energy" would certainly appear in the abstract. In my experience of real scientist, they are always only too happy to provide all the information any one asks for "take this paper, and you'll probably need this one too, Oh and you'd better read this review paper if the other two are to make much sense" is a typical response of pretty much every scientist I've ever come into contact with. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 5 July 2005 23:14 (UTC)


 * Can an introduction of this proceed if the information is not located in Karada's citation index? TTLightningRod 5 July 2005 20:50 (UTC)


 * As far as I am concerned, it's ok to go on the page as long as it's made clear that this is is claim, that it hasn't been published in a scientific journal, that it hasn't been verified by anyone else. As long as that is made absolutely clear, and no one is duped into accepting it as fact then I see no reason not to have the info in the article. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 5 July 2005 20:54 (UTC)


 * Please read carefully what you just wrote. Might you say that better, before I respond?  TTLightningRod 5 July 2005 21:13 (UTC)


 * Probably not. I'm not always that good at expressing myself. I'll try though. As long as any experimental results that have not been published in peer reviewed scientific journals are clearly labelled as such, then as far as I am concerned it's fine for them to go into the article. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 5 July 2005 21:17 (UTC)


 * Theresa Knott can't read physics texts, patents, etc nor spell for that matter. She just suppressed my direct challenge on Talk, and told me she was doing me a favor...fascists are all alike.


 * She also blocked you for vandalism again (Bad faith edits to the article are a big no no you'll end up getting a long term ban if you keep it up) Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 5 July 2005 22:31 (UTC)


 * you blocked me to protect the actions of Connolley here, and his false claim to be a doctor. And you blocked me for your insistence in putting Pseudophysics back when the term is a misnomer, your definition ridiculous, and your labelling a reversal of your own previous position and slanderous POV. How do you know it is pseudo-science? Who are you to make such a call??? But power sure rises to your head, no?


 * He is a Dr (that's why I said I was doing you a favor. You were making yourself look silly)I blocked you for vandalism. I don't agree btw that the term is a misnomer but misspelling  trolling and disruptive or bad faith edits will not be put up with. And yes power sure does rise to my head mwhaaa! Theresa Knott  (a tenth stroke) 5 July 2005 22:44 (UTC)

Category Change
I removed protoscience from the category, since protoscience is " to be distinguished from pseudoscience by its adherence to the scientific method and standard practices of good science, most notably a willingness to be disproven by new evidence (if and when it appears), or supplanted by a more-predictive theory." (to quote the wikipedia definition. The scientific method require that experiments be reproducable and the standard practices of good science require at least publication in peer-reviewed journals. Aetherometry is a prime example of what is pseudoscience, and not protoscience. Oh and in case anyway wonders, Web of Science, which covers ~6000 scientific magazine and journals since 1974, does not report a single publication of aetherometery.Salsb 5 July 2005 23:07 (UTC)
 * Did you misspell it "aetherometery" when you did your search? GangofOne 6 July 2005 06:36 (UTC)
 * I spelled it Aetherometry Salsb 01:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * So? What evidence do you have that Aetherometry does not adhere to the scientific method, is not willing to be disproven by new evidence or supplanted by a more-predictive theory?  Where do you guys get these airs and pretensions?  How can you make these pronouncements about something you know nothing about?  And this is supposed to be "scientific"?  Man, you are a bunch of sorry turnips.  And every day another sorry turnip rolls in.   216.254.160.187 5 July 2005 23:21 (UTC)


 * Well see the problem we have is that we only have your word for it that Aetherometry adheres to the sceintific method. And that isn't really good enough you see. That's why publishing is so important. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 5 July 2005 23:29 (UTC)


 * I apparently was replying at the same time as Therea Knott was, but my response is the same.
 * The lack of even a single peer-reviewed report of any experiment. Salsb 5 July 2005 23:35 (UTC)

No, my little turnips. The lack of peer review shows only the lack of peer review; it provides no evidence of non-adherence to the scientific method. But why am I wasting my time here? One can repeat the same stuff over and over again until one is blue in the face, and nothing will change in this here Kingdom of Fools. I've had enough of the toxic waste that is Wikipedia. You turnips can roll to hell. 216.254.160.187 5 July 2005 23:43 (UTC)


 * The Correas may well be expert experimenters who adhere rigidly to the scientific method. However without peer review we will never know. Since this is an encylopedia we have to err on the side of caution and presume otherwise.We cannot take your word for it (were you even there when they performed the experiments? What do you know about how to perform a good, as opposed to sloppy, experiment?) If they ever do get around to properly publishing their research in a journal then everything changes of course. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 6 July 2005 05:00 (UTC)


 * Oh tragedy of tragedies - your insistence in adhering to reality has chased away yet another disruptive user. You should be ashamed of yourself, oh Wikipedia!  Guettarda 5 July 2005 23:48 (UTC)


 * ...and Team Group-Think wins the day!


 * I thought you said you were gone. Guettarda 6 July 2005 01:16 (UTC)


 * That was TTLightningRod not the anon. TTLightningRod seems to be just trolling now. He hasn't made any constructive edits or any constructive arguments for ages. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 6 July 2005 05:05 (UTC)


 * I still believe pseudoscience is the most accurate category for this theory since it does not correspond to good scientific practices, but non-mainstream science is better than protoscience. Salsb 6 July 2005 00:59 (UTC)

NPOV
The activity of the dispute is clearly evident through the talk pages. Deleted comments in the talk page can be viewed in the history, at least until the history is deleted as well. In summation, the dispute largely revolves (and revolves again) around and between: Pro posting of description, con demands for reference, pro listing of reference, con denial of reference legitimacy. Pro posting of description, con demands for reference, pro listing of reference, con denial of reference legitimacy followed by use of sweeping deletion. Repeat this recipe, and you have dispute. TTLightningRod 6 July 2005 00:46 (UTC)

The article sounds rather positive towards Aetherometry as it does not emphasis the point that aetherometry is ignored by scientists, due to the unwillingness or inability of the advocates to submit their work to peer review. I personally just object to have it categorized as anything other than pseudoscience, or maybe non-mainstream science as a compromise, although that category did not exist until the protoscience category was removed here. Salsb 6 July 2005 01:13 (UTC)

Actually the dispute recently has centered on the category. Hopfully that is settled now with the new compromise name. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 6 July 2005 04:45 (UTC)

the wonders that are Aetherometry
every time I look I find something new and wonderful. Here's a fascinating "document" proporting to be about the Philadelphia experiment, with a little about the 1941 Reich experiment. I have duely linked this url to those pages. FYI. http://www.aetherometry.com/unified_field/uft_index.html "50 Years after Albert Einstein: The Failure of the Unified Field" GangofOne 6 July 2005 06:49 (UTC)


 * I like this one from my pet rock, plasma cosmology.... http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/00current.htm    TTLightningRod 6 July 2005 19:49 (UTC)