User:La goutte de pluie/aetherometry discussion/Archive4

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.



List of names
I've removed the list of names given as independent reviewers by the aetherometrists, since I can't find the source page. For the moment, I'm willing to take this claim on good faith grounds, but it would be really useful if someone could give a web link to where this claim is made. For the record, here's the orginal para, complete with the list of names:


 * To address the lack of peer review by mainstream scientific journals, the aetherometry website claims that work in aetherometry, including plasma physics, biophysics and technology-tests, has been independently reviewed by the following scientists (including six physicists) and medical doctors: 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).

-- Karada 07:33, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. A Google search for "Mallove Aspden Soudak Askanas Axelrad Tiller", the first six surnames from that list, finds (apart from the Wikipedia article, its Wikinfo fork, and mirrors) only these two web pages:
 * http://www.aetherometry.com/cat-authors.html "Akronos Publishing: Catalog of Authors", and
 * http://www.aetherometry.com/serpents_tooth.html "THE SERPENT'S TOOTH AND ITS EGG (OR: HOW THE STUPID ARE SO OFTEN MALICIOUS)", which gives a remarkable insight into the thinking of one of aetherometry's founders.

The web page http://www.aetherometry.com/bookstore/reviews.html "Reviews and Evaluations of the work of Paulo and Alexandra Correa" on the aetherometry website appears to give some of the rest of the names.

I'm not sure where the other names are sourced from. If anyone has a cite, please post it here.

Just for interest's sake, reading through the two documents cited above shows:

In the author catalog, the following (among others) are listed as authors of works published by Akronos Publishing:
 * Malgosia Askanas
 * Harold Aspden
 * Eugene Mallove
 * Arthur Axelrad
 * William Tiller

In "THE SERPENT'S TOOTH...":
 * Dr. M. Askanas is referred to as "one of our co-workers"
 * Uri Soudak is referred to as "our dear friend"
 * Gene Mallove is referred to as "our dear friend"

On, Luis Balula is listed as a "hon. member of ABRI", where ABRI is presumably the "Aurora Biophysics Research Institute" , which states "The Aurora Biophysics Research Institute (ABRI) is geared to take advantage of the multiple breakthroughs of Aetherometry by creating a nexus of distinct efforts targeting the further development of all the disciplines of Aetherometry (with respect both to education and research) concomitantly with the development of its various technological embodiments."

Regarding Prof. Emeritus Herman Branover, Google searches for "Branover aetherometry" fails to find any pages other than the list of names from this Wikipedia article, and a search for "Branover site:aetherometry.com" does not find any documents at all mentioning his name on the autherometry website.

Regarding Prof. Emeritus Herman Branover, Google searches for "Branover aetherometry" fails to find any pages other than the list of names from this Wikipedia article, and a search for "Branover site:aetherometry.com" does not find any documents at all mentioning his name on the autherometry website.

-- Karada 08:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

An earlier version of the page had this longer list: Eugene Mallove (PhD),Harold Aspden (PhD, P. Eng), Uri Soudak (P. Eng, MSc), Dr. Malgosia Askanas (PhD), Professor Emeritus A. Axelrad (MD, PhD), Professor Emeritus (Stanford) 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.

GangofOne 08:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * http://massfree.com/Team.html house site of Correa's: "Meet the core team behind the New Science of Massfree Energy." mentioned by name: P. Correa, A. Correa, U. Soudak, M. Askanas (aka User:Helicoid), H. Aspden, L. Balula, V Bard, E. Mallove, (ed of "Infinite Energry" )(deceased)
 * A. Axelrod was PhD advisor for P Correa at U Toranto
 * William Tiller is emeritus Prof of Material Science at Stanford, and has had long standing interest in subtle energies. Check out his website http://www.tiller.org/
 * Brinton, Sapogin, Egely, Branover, Tilley, Carrell unknown to me
 * Pratt, theosophist, check him out: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/homepage.htm
 * I assume the list got truncated during the rumble such that the non-Drs got squeezed out during the "who's got the PhD?" round, but Tom Bearden HAS a PhD and a wikipedia entry Tom Bearden MEG from where you can go to his website.

Now: removing from the list those associated with the the Correas' (dear friends and co-workers, people they have published through their press Akronos Publishing, hon. members of ABRI), BSc's, medical doctors, and Professor Branover, with whom I can find no link, we are left with the following:


 * Lev Sapogin (PhD), George Egely (PhD)

According to, one Dr. George Egely appears to be associated with the "Egely Wheel Vitality Meter", described as "A tool to measure and develop conscious control of chi". Is this the same George Egely referred to above?

Can someone check out Lev Sapogin, as this is the only name left.

-- Karada 08:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, let's add Tom Bearden back to the list, as he appears to have a relevant PhD. So, we now have:


 * Lev Sapogin (PhD), George Egely (PhD), Tom Bearden (PhD)

That's three, out of the original list, who appear to have been: and can be thus reasonably be described as "independent reviewers".
 * PhD qualified in science
 * not close associates of the Correas, or published by the Correas' publishing company
 * stated to have supported aetherometry, according to the aetherometry website

-- Karada 09:07, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * It is particularly specious to insinuate that all the names of peers who reviewed work in Aetherometry, and which you found a way to remove were not independent. With the obvious exception of Axelrad, all the others did not even know the Correas before making their evaluations or tests. Some state it themselves in their letters and publications.  Since you do not check primary sources, you resort to guesses. It is equally specious that statements, testimonials, etc, from these people placed in the the aetherometry.com website are discounted as 'vanity' press. 209.29.95.52 14:56, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

"On One of Energy Generation Mechanism in Unitary Quantum Theory" Lev G. Sapogin, Department of Physics, Technical University Leningradsky prospect 64, A-319, 125829, Moscow. also writes for "Infinite Energy", coldfusioneer. GangofOne 09:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

possibly, because of the plasma connection, Prof. Herman Branover, Head of the Center for Magnetohydrodynamic Studies, Head of the Joint Israeli-Russian Laboratory for Energy Research, Ben Gurion University http://www.bgu.ac.il/me/staff/branover/ GangofOne 09:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Prof. Branover appears from his web page at Ben Gurion University to be a mainstream scientist. He lists his interests on his website as "Magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) Flows – theory and experiments. Electromagnetic Processing of Materials. MHD Energy Conversion. MHD Turbulence. Atmospheric Turbulence. Preservation of the Environment. Solar Energy. Liquid Lead Cooled Nuclear Power Stations. 'Burning' of Nuclear Waste. Phenomena under zero-gravity conditions." None of these appear to be fringe topics. However, there does not appear to be any evidence (at least that Google knows of) that his name has been associated with aetherometry in any way. -- Karada 10:43, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I see the big list is back: I'm trimming it again, for all the reasons cited above. -- Karada 18:24, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Where are the anon IPs coming from?
Let's have a look at the recent anon IPs contributing to this article.
 * 216.254.158.163 - dialin-158-163.tor.primus.ca.
 * 216.254.160.187 - dialin-160-187.tor.primus.ca.
 * 216.254.157.187 - dialin-157-187.tor.primus.ca.
 * 216.254.163.67 - dialin-163-67.tor.primus.ca.
 * 216.254.157.113 - dialin-157-113.tor.primus.ca.

They all seem to come from Primus' PRIMUS-216BLK allocation. 'tor' is presumably Toronto. -- The Anome 14:11, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

And what is one to make of that Anome? Just like all the detractors of this entry have been administrators (besides the fictitious minor), PJacobi, William M. Connolley, Freddie Salsbury, Theresa Knott, Anome, and their quid pro quos. Should one look too carefully into the associations of this people with government and military services? And conclude what about this Wikipedia here? 209.29.97.61 17:26, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * We should "make of it" that they are all the same person. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 19:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * And what of 209, 62.178, 4.233, 232, 231, 224, and 249, 240, 80.168 or 68.110.237.166?  Anonymity, just like a fictitious persona Ms "Knott" (as in "not"?)..   is your Right. What's your point? No need to insinuate, when you can be crystal clear.
 * I'm not insinuating anything. I saying that all the IP's edits above are probably the same person. If you are trying to make a point by posting a load of numbers that are not IP adresses along with your own IP, it's flown right over my head. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 20:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The point seems clear enough Theresa, that the persons or IPs pushing keystrokes into this wiki, is meaningless when compared to the discussion. That the discussions, topics, articles, and concepts raised here, have been painfully marginalized in favor of a fixation upon "Who Is, and Where Is?".  It's Us, it's Here.  This wiki can serve as a clean slate.  It can always be edited.  It can always be amended.  It can always be cleaned up.  The ones and zeros that constitute this encyclopedia, chronicle our activity in the here and now for people to learn from and understand the knowledge of our epoch.  One thing I suspect they will notice, if We survive our own time, is that of our duality between Authority vs. Anarchy.  Most curious to me as I read through our local groups contributions and user pages, that includes both the Hilcords to the Nats, is our love/hate between the freedom we all wish to experience here, yet our clinging to "deferment to Authority".  I have no idea if Aetherometry is a load of shit, simply one new way of looking at things, or revolutionary for our standard model.  But until we look at the material, instead of phutzing about with "reference elsewhere on the net", I have little chance of learning about the stuff, nor seeing other people interested in its discussion. TTLightningRod


 * You argument would have more merit if the anon editor actually put some info into the article about aetherometry instead of trying to delete facts that he happens not to like. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:38, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Mel Etitis says...
".....let someone add an article about an academic, actor, writer, etc., who isn't widely known and acknowledged, and a pack of editors appear, yapping that the person isn't ‘notable’ . Leave aside the inconsistency for a moment; many of those who are claimed to be non-notable by this Vfd-pack are known to and have affected more people than all the nay-sayers put together (one sometimes wonders if that isn't the problem)." Question: How do you square that by deleting "Correa, PhD" from the article and call it a "tidied summary"? TTLightningRod

Does fairness count in Wikipedia?
Eugene Mallove founder of the alternative science magazine Infinite Energy, while alive, ran it as a peer-review publication: himself and at least one other physicist from either the Scientific Board or the outside reviewed all submissions. The admins in this case seem to consider that it is only peer-reviewed that which happens in mainstream publications, journals or magazines be they. That, is bias. 209.29.97.61 17:22, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Eugene Mallove is a freind and advocate of the Correas, plus he was the editor of the magazine. This is not what is meant by peer review. From our article peer review Typically referees are not selected from among the authors' close colleagues, relatives, or friends. also in scientific publication, the referees do not act as a group, do not communicate with each other, and typically are not aware of each other's identities. IE is a magazine not a scientific journal. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 20:33, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Mention of qualifications
In insisting on adding mention of qualifications in this article, it has been claimed that this is fair because William Connolley's article calls him "Dr". First, he's the subject of the article; Paulo Correa isn't.

Secondly, there are many, many other articles in which qualifications aren't used, though of course (because the article is about the person) they're mentioned. See, for example: Hilary Putnam, Alvin Plantinga, Peter J. King, Susan Haack, John McDowell, M.Govind Kumar Menon, Nicholas Kurti, Richard Feynman... the list goes on and on; in compiling it, I just picked philosophers and physicists from the relevant category pages, and didn't come across one in which qualifications were given before or after the name.

For examples of articles on inventions or theores in which relevant researchers are mentioned, see Scanning tunneling microscope, Quantum field theory, Pauli exclusion principle, Wave-particle duality, etc., etc. Again, none of the articles at which I looked (chosen pretty much at random) gave the qualifications of the people involved.

Q.E.D. --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 18:44, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Dropping "Dr." and "PhD" would be fine with me. Then I may also suggest removing the names of the "coiners of the term" from the article, and discuss the concept in itself.  If I recall correctly, (I can always dig through the dusty history archive),  the original article only spoke of these people at the very end.  Introduction of these names appeared to largely coincide with a wiki-campaign questioning the ability of scientist to research in a field "outside" their "credentials".  Can you remember such activity Mel? ὅπερ ἔδει δεῖξαι Did I get that right Mel? TTLightningRod


 * I recall no campaign, Wiki or otherwise, and deciding not to mention the fact that someone has a doctorate (I mean, good grief, who hasn't?) &mdash; but I do remember some editors insisting on citing credentials that were irrelevant to the topic at hand. The decision not to mention formal qualifications isn't the same as the decision not to mention credentials of any kind (relevant experience, publications, acceptance by peers, etc.), but it covers the case you're thinking of as well as this one.
 * I don't understand the connection with not mentioning the people at all (unless you mean that, although articles on real scientific theories and discoveries mention the people involved, articles on pseudo-science and quackery shouldn't).
 * I can't tell whether you have it right, as it's showing up partially as boxes for me. --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 22:28, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Confused
I'm a little confused. How can you argue that we should trumpet the degrees of all involved with this theory, and yet still argue that peer-reviewed publication in a mainstream scientific journal is not a necessary criterion for inclusion? In other words, isn't it inconsistent to try to make the theory seem reputable by mentioning one cornerstone of academia – degrees – while professing the irrelevance of another – peer-review? You can't have your cake, and eat it too. –Joke137 20:05, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Excellent point....  "Q.E.D."?   The last two weeks have gone in great silly circles over credentials and peer review, while the deeper text offered long ago has languished unaddressed.  Both of these items have been blown up as major points of contention, while any number of introductory paragraphs have been offered to warn the casual reader that the topic is clearly not accepted by the "mainstream".  Please, if you're genuinely interested Joke137, review the history and take careful note of when and by whom these issues have been made into mountains, as the topic itself has been inversely marginalized. TTLightningRod


 * Or you could just edit the article. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 20:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Me, I don't see any reason for confusion. The fact that Paulo Correa is a trained scientist with a history of mainstream scientific research, who has published numerous articles in prestigious mainstream journals, would give pause to any impartial and non-ill-willed observer, as a signal that it is possible that Aetherometry may have scientific merit and its lack of peer-review does not a priori permit any conclusions regarding the lack of such merit.  FrankZappo 21:41, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * If PC is such, what are his mainstream pubs? What was his training? lists a vast number of self pubs. There is a small section of nominally non-self pubs, but there is a lot of "infinite energy" in that section. Most of the rest are patents, not pubs. I don't see a single genuine mainstream science paper in the lot. Which ones are you thinking of? Unless you're thinking of his previous career in Hematology and Oncology, which doesn't seem relevant. William M. Connolley 22:12:26, 2005-07-17 (UTC).


 * PC's credentials, training, educational history, and scientific career have been described in these discussion several times already. His career in Hematology and Oncology is neither "previous" nor irrelevant.  It is ongoing, and it clearly shows that the man is a bona fide scientist who knows how to conduct scientific research.   And why is it, by the way, that in this here forum it is considered a high insult to call somebody  a  [insult removed - WMC] - and such "insults" get removed and the targets of the "insult" are given group therapy - but it is considered perfectly acceptable to call people hoaxters, repeatedly question their credentials, edit their articles without understanding the subject matter, and form a contemptuous mob against them simply because they submitted an article whose notions challenge yours?  How does this work? FrankZappo 06:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Frank Zappo are you Correa? Because you are acting as if you are. As for editing of articles. This is how wikipedia works.Anyone can edit any article at anytime. If you don't like that then you'll just have to lump it. The Correas "work" is not proper science because they have refused to submit it to review by other scientists. Don't give me a load of crap about IE magazine or their own vanity press. That's not proper peer review. What's more, they refuse to let anyone see their papers in full unless they pay for them. That's well dodgy and quite rightly leads to suspicion of crackpottery and fraud. We have all been far too polite really. We've welcomed you and your junk science here, we've been insulted, bullied, accused of being a cabal and generally been given a hard time. But you won't win. Because there are a lot of us, thousands in fact. The aetherometry article will call a spade a spade, and describe aetherometry as what it is. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 08:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Describe Aetherometry as what it is? And who is going to do that?  You?  Your dog?  Senator Helms?  And when did you last get one of your mainstream science journals, like Nature or Science, without paying for it?   FrankZappo 14:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Thee is a big difference between paying for a journal and paying the authors for individual papers. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 16:50, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * PC's career in Hematology and Oncology is obviously irrelevant (asserting that either has any real connection to a physics theory will only make your oddness index go up). It isn't even current - his last 1st author pub was in 1999. So, I've asked you to list his physics based pubs, in real journals, and you can produce none. This is why the theory gets dismissed (or more accurately, is never even noticed enough to be dismissed) by physicists. William M. Connolley 12:32:46, 2005-07-18 (UTC).


 * How do you know why, or even if, the theory "gets dismissed"? Have you asked the Correas for the history of the theory?   Have you ever done any unconventional science? [deleted - WMC] FrankZappo 14:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think you're doing yourself any good with this stuff. As I said, the theory doesn't even get dismissed - because it isn't in science journals, it never even gets noticed. And I'm still waiting for his physics pubs, which you assert exist, though you can't find them. William M. Connolley 15:16:24, 2005-07-18 (UTC).


 * You want it both ways - it is dismissed by mainstream science, but you William Michael Connolley cannot find a single reference to that effect. But it is so obscure as to not even be of interest in being dismissed (like your sidekick Theresa Knott, you find evidence in the absence of evidence). And then, after you have gone around doing your rounds of suppression of texts, references and other people's interventions (not just insults...), you ask for titles published in mainstream science journals, as if it were dictated by God that only these are a source of science, while you and your cabal suppress 45 titles of citations to the work of the Correas by other scientists, many of them published in peer-reviewed alternative physics publications.

I've struck out your comment, per removing uncivil comments. If you had not written it to begin with, I would feel more sympathetic to your attitude. My confusion is quite simple: it seems to me that arguing for the inclusion of the Correa's academic credentials is buying into the same system that encourages peer-review in mainstream journals. In any case, I think this page is too contentious for me to edit. &mdash;Joke137 22:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Don't give up. Its what they want. I've removed the insult entirely. William M. Connolley 22:12:26, 2005-07-17 (UTC).


 * They??? Who is this "they"?  The people who know something about the subject?  Usually in an encyclopedia the people who are experts on the subjects get invited to write entries, not treated as a "they" whom one has to defeat.  Weird inversion, no?   FrankZappo 06:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * They are the people who are trying to POV the article to make out that this is a credible theory rather than crackpottery. Wanna prove me wrong? Publish in a proper journal. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 08:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Prove you wrong? Why, who are you to deserve any "proof"?  If you suspect Aetherometry is crackpottery, then you can politely say "Sorry, this article does not belong in the WikiPedia because we have no way of judging the merit of the science."  Period.  Good bye.  Or, if you have enough intelligence and breadth of thought to realize that there could be many reasons why a meritorious theory has not been published in mainstream journals, and you want a real encyclopedia article about Aetherometry, then treat the contributors with respect.  These are the two honorable paths.  Otherwise, what the hell is this, a witch hunt?  A freak show?  It's no longer permitted to attack blacks, women or Jews, but it's open season for deriding and showing contempt for people who have the courage to think for themselves in science and have made unconventional scientific discoveries?   FrankZappo 14:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * In what way is it contempt to state in the article that the Correas work has not been peer reviewed? That is simply a fact. Yet pro aetherometry folks keep trying to remove it. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 16:50, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * A fact? No, it is not.  A fact is to say that it has not been published in peer-reviewed mainstream science publications. For it has been published in peer-reviewed non-mainstream science publications. But since you and your fellow-travellers deleted the Category non-mainstream science, now you're back to the very dogmatism that sometime back you yourself Knott wanted to avoid when you settled for Protoscience and then Non-mainstream science (before it was deleted...).  Who's fooling who? 216.254.165.65 04:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

RFC
This article needs an RFC...although I'm not sure exactly what to say, but we can agree it needs commenting on the community somehow...I'm kind of tempted to say, "the issue is self-explanatory"? And on the "minor" part, one thing I've found very ironic, and nothing personal, just more of an observation than anything else, is that nearly all of the aetherometrists that have edited here have a very abrasive (with exceptions) style of communicating, remarkably similar to the self-proclaimed "rebuttal" to criticisms made. In my limited experience, I've always found that any distinguished researcher would behave more professionally, especially in a rebuttal. Most papers I come across make no personal references, are emotionless (and hence rational), don't resort to ad hominems and very matter of factly state their point, which makes it all the more poignant. I am reminded of a certain fable by a Greek slave concerning the wind, the sun, and a traveller with a jacket concerning the issue of force, but then again... -- Natalinasmpf 02:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, your limited experience is just that: limited.  Limited, narrow, "somehowish", and very short on actual knowledge.  But, to make up for it, very long on dogmatic pronouncements and on insinuations.  FrankZappo 06:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * And there is no way he'll ever get any experience because the Correas charge you to read up on what they have done. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 08:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * And what Frank? Limited? Forgive me, but that was a twist of irony. I presume it's "limited" and "narrow" then, to assume that scientists should always be courteous and polite to one another in order to make any progress in their fields, and that mudslinging is looked down upon, even if they oppose one another's theories...in the the papers I read about say, the industrialists downplaying global warming never threw any mud and went, "do [add environmentalist here] have any concept about the complexities of climate change?", then underlining their statement in bold, nor have I seen any environmentalist declare the industrialists "are scrambling to obscure the gaping hole we have uncovered in their industrial policy"? Hardly. Then proceed to say, "this is the final paper we'll file on the issue", as though closing one's ears tight like a toddler? Forgive me naivety then, for I've always assumed the professional thing to do was either to shrug off irrational comments, or reply politely, formally, rationally and emotionlessly on the scientific issues they disagree with. -- Natalinasmpf 10:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

You may well be a fake minor - but it is certainly a laugh to hear you talk of calm debate and read the fanatical, zealot record of your interventions, shrill from the beginning and as unfounded as could be expected from your cover as a supposed minor who does not sleep around the clock... 216.254.165.65 04:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Once Upon a Time in the Land O Wiki
Dear Knights of the Mainstream Only Round Table in this here Land O' Wiki. You must have painfully short memories of the repeated introduction of your requested publication listings, initially independent peer reviewing, professional backgrounds strongly pointing to a professionalism, AND EVEN THE PRIMARY TOPIC MATERIAL ITSELF, all of it dully deleted by thy Good Knights.

(personal attack remove by TK) 208.54.95.151 19:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Note to the anon who is blanking the page
Childishness will get you nowhere. Admins can revert you with one click. Plus we can, and will, protect the page from editing. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

OK you win. I've protected the page. I also reverted to my previous version for the simple reason that the anon who put the content back after a page blank with the edit summary "restoring page" actually reverted to an earlier version without explanation. No doubt you'll want to kick up a stink. I suggest WP:AN/I is the best place to go.Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 00:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * What I posted over to the WP:AN/I.
 * Heck sure, I'll bite. It sure wasn't CONTRAVERSIAL (sic or, is that SICK?).  And yes it's perfectly in line with the admin policy I've seen up until now.  I don't see any cabal by the way Essjay, just the usual twisted antics of the same obnoxious little group of clowns  -Theresa Knott, William M. Connolley,  Anome, Natalinasmpf and co.  You know the same droopy little group who have been trashing this page on an hourly basis since its inception.  The ones who like to pretend they're on a noble mission to preserve the sanctity of mainstream science.  The ones who don't know and don't want to know anything about the subject matter except how to find a way to smear it.  The ones who act as official sockpuppets on all the serious non-mainstream science pages (see autodynamics, hydrino theory, etc.).  The ones who tuck their tails between their legs and run when you confront them on facts - but are back the next day with a new set of slurs, lies and slander.  Goebbels school of Information.    The ones who plead on their webpages that they are 'notable' when their only notoriety is to be dicks.  The ones who make sure that the pages are locked on a version of the page distorted by Theresa Knott, William M. Connolley,  Anome, Natalinasmpf.  The ones who cry they're being oppressed by the corporations and then proceed to try to discredit anyone conducting serious research outside of the mainstream system.  The ones who pretend they are 'tidying up'.   The ones who pretend the category PSEUDOSCIENCE is an NPOV description. The ones who always go running to other admins to say 'I did right didn't I?  I followed wikipedia policy didn't I?'  - after they've just pulled off another round of  libelous slurs and suppression of information on the discussion pages.    WELL IF THERE ARE ANY ADMINS LEFT IN HERE WITH ANY REMNANT OF COURAGE OR SELF RESPECT, WHICH I DOUBT,  THEY SHOULD READ THE ARCHIVES OF THIS PAGE AND SUSPEND THE PRIVILEGES OF THESE 'ADMINS' WITH RESPECT TO THIS ENTRY. 4.231.163.145 01:45, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * This IP is, notably, not from Toronto. (Level3, LA dialup) -- The Anome 07:18, July 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * ("Menacing" message removed - Guettarda )64.241.37.140


 * Buy a clue 129.15.162.223, the comment by 64.241.37.140, is a direct response to "213.253.39.xxx" wanting to know who is 4.231.163.145. Who's "Menacing"?


 * "Are you sure you want to go down that road" sounds like a threat. Threats are not tolerated.  You're the one who choses to display your IP.  Guettarda 16:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The "road you're going down" is is NOT menacing, it's pointless. Pointless to such a degree, that it strongly suggests intention on the part of 213.253.39.xxx (aka Anome) "going down this road", who knows full well HIS OWN DESIRE for anonymity.  Nothing "menacing" about this, but rather far more telling about the tactics and strategy being used by people who do not want this topic discussed.   (ya, have a look at this IP, there are 200 people on it right now)User: TTLightningRod
 * The Anome is simply pointing out that the anon is possibly a different anon than the one from Toronto. There is nothing menacing about doing. People who truly want anominity should get an account. That way they don't display the IP to the world. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 17:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

pointless
The mainstream defenders may have succeeded in marginalizing this article in Wikipedia, but the fact that Aetherometry material has now spread like wild fire in the last week,  highlights one giant sore spot you lame-o-wikishits.....    Wikipedia had a chance of having a unique article DONATED FREE into this wiki. Instead, it now has the most bankrupt article throughout the web. Telling you to "GO FUCK YOURSELF" seems kind of pointless now!

What else Wikipedia lacks.....
The past 70 years has seen an explosion in the understanding Biology. Our knowledge of proteins and enzymes and their role in cellular processes is nothing short of astounding. Unlocking the wonders of the double helix as a conveyor of those functions from generation to generation, and progress in the decoding of the human genome is truly a triumph of Science.

Yet, as is exemplified by our poor understanding of something as basic as the energetics involved in insect flight, or the time scales of mutagenesis and evolution, our knowledge of bioenergetics is sorely lacking. Could it be that the foundations upon which this knowledge is based, is missing a critical component without which we will remain in the dark? From the pioneering work of Stanley Miller in the "primordial soup" experiments, to the modern day use of electrical discharges to energize cloned cells, the mechanism of electrical energy in these processes has been largely misunderstood.

Dr. Paulo Correa and his wife Alexandra have courageously tackled these issues and present a most impressive body of work that seeks to refine the accounting process for energy flows in biologic and chemical processes. In order to do this, the Correas step the reader through their 20 year path that has led to some astounding discoveries into the structure of the electron, the hydrogen atom, and the water molecule. They have enriched the understanding of pH and the formation of free radicals to include, more fully, the electron's role. They explore the structure of hydrogen bonds and Van der Waal's bonds. The fine structures of these bonds, the very bonds of enzymatic processes and membrane receptor binding, are revealed in a new light with tools that will enable the experimentalist and theorist alike, to glean new insight into the energetic control of these processes. By using a novel approach to energetics that the authors refer to as aetherometry, a rigorous accounting of kinetic, electromagnetic, electrical and even gravitational energies is accomplished. Furthermore, the inclusion of these energetic components leads to a new understanding of the "latent heat" involved in these reactions.

This monumental work is not for the close-minded nor is it for the feint of heart. It is indeed probably 50 years ahead of its time and will be appreciated only by those rare individuals who are able to look beyond the dogma of modern physics and quantum mechanics to a more functional and less statistically based model. But for those who are so able, this book will provide rich rewards.

Howard Brinton, M.D. FABFP B.A. Biological Science

Lacking what? The only thing we lack thereof is the immense calculation required to predict the tertiary structure of proteins from a gene, or vice versa...or the interactions of charges to produce proteins that organise themselves in the right place, function regulation et al. There's nothing lacking in the existing model that requires aetherometry by the way. What "energetics" to explain it? Orgone energy isn't needed to explain cancer, aging, or biochemical processes. Possibly it would be a very interesting proposition for consciousness in the brain, but it would be highly contendable. Aetherometry isn't needed to explain germination, or how cells harvest energy from glucose and use the high energy electrons stored to produce ATP, which then can be strategically used to engineer reactions, or even a valuable insight on anything that quantum mechanics does not account for in cellular processes: explanations photosynthesis relies extensively on quantum mechanical theory (on the concept of a wavelength exciting electrons), while aetherometry has yet to provide anything substantial that quantum mechanical explanations do not. Has aetherometry provided any insights into apoptosis, carcinogenesis, or the germination of the embryo? Energetics of insect flight? Has it ever accounted for discrepancies in cellular respiration, seeing how discrepancies as at this moment, has yet to be pointed out anyway? Does it uniquely account for Hawking radiation, or redshift that existing models do not?


 * I hate to be a pedant, but Hawking radiation is perfectly well understood from semiclassical gravity and redshift has been well understood from classical general relativity for almost a century. On the other hand, black hole unitarity is still pretty controversial. –Joke137 17:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

And why the focus on the electron, without respective focus and the same attention to its counterpart, the positron? If it does for all these things, then I would like to see such models cited, then I will sit up. -- Natalinasmpf 04:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * How could a "pseudoscience" ever cause you to sit up? Do you want the models brought in here, or not?  Will you acknowledge that biology is a highly advanced form of chemistry.  That chemistry, is physics.  That physics and philosophy go hand in hand.  That a 20+ year investigation into these fields might have some interest to science.  That this could simply be a novel approach to energetics that the authors choose to refer to as "aetherometry".  Can you swallow that first? TTLightningRod 04:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I think a lot of biologists, chemists, physicists and philosophers might take issue with what you've said. Rutherford says "in science there is only physics; all the rest is stamp collecting," but it has been a long time since people really thought that way. If you think the Correas are the only people thinking originally in science, what is it you think scientists (i.e. the ones who publish in mainstream journals) do? Don't you think it's in their interest to try and branch out, and make a name for themselves, rather than just parroting what is already known? I always thought that was the business of science, and I know a lot of them who've been at it for more than twenty years. –Joke137 17:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Simply mind boggling...  "rather than just parroting what is already known?"   So now these people have have jumped from "hoxters", all the way to a blase-ish, parroting what is already known? You're just kidding, right? Further, the interdisciplinary comment points to the scientific interrelation of biology and physics....   Are you always this boring? TTLightningRod


 * Read the paragrapg again. He never said that the aetherometry lot were parroting what was already known. He said that that's what they are accusing mainstream scientists of doing. Which is blatently untrue. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 18:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * To add a bit, branching out is in a scientist's interest, but adding a new tree to the grove seems to be frowned upon. The best analogy I've heard of the scientist's work makes her a tile layer. The area already tiled is Knowledge, and the scientist hopes to add a new tile to the edge, always expanding Knowledge out into the unknown. But tiles can be badly laid, with gaps, and it does happen that the best way to fix the problem is to rip up the tiles and tile the area again. Why this causes such panic has nothing to do with Knowledge and everything to do with who has the power to represent it. Pgio 00:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I have to add that I'm a little dissapointed that very few people seem to want to learn anything about this topic. I've been doing my writing outside of Wikipedia hoping that I might return to a more informed group of editors. Pgio 00:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, I would prefer to learn from you, than our anonymous friend over there. You're much more polite. -- Natalinasmpf 01:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Pgio if you read through the history of this page you'll see that I repeatedly asked for someone to add some content to the page - namely the experimental results that the Correas claim. The anon editors (almost certainly either one of the Correas themselves or their assistant) refused to add them - along with insulting me. Yeah you are right. There is an initial resistence to new ideas. But they win out in the end if experimental evidence backs them up. Having a healthy skeptism is no bad thing, though because there is a lot of crud. That's why it's so important to publish experimental results.It's not true that nobody wants to learn about this subject. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 06:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll take my wig off if Pgio succeeds. You Lady Knott, you have called the subject of the entry quackery, hoax, what have you, but all the time present this innocent face asking for content...You have even changed your own categorization into protoscience back to pseudoscience out of spite. Now you talk of healthy skepticism. Someone healthy will be past being skeptic of your clearcut power-play.

(endless) recategorization
Can I ask why it's acceptable for someone's first edit to be a category change? It's happened at least twice, maybe three times now. Wikipedia encourages bold edits but this just seems absurd. Pgio 08:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Do you mean first edit to this article or first edit ever? If it's the former then there are people who'se main interest is in categories. They go around categorising articles. If it's the latter then yes its suspicious. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 06:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, those people are the administrators who go around 'recategorizing' (read slandering) Aetherometry and other topics as Pseudoscience. Without foundation and in carefree manner. Keep on going this way...

Alternate POV sample placed in the history
Uh...yes, but what are the numbers for the expected results and the actual results that seems to support a new model? -- Natalinasmpf 03:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * First, it's deleted. Then the space is protected from any possible re-introduction.
 * For now, this Wikipedia article belongs to the people sharing your impregnable POV. Good night Nat-wit. TTLightningRod 04:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Nothing is deleted. Everything is in the history. The page is protected because the anon took to vandalising the article. Are you here to make contributions or are you here to troll? If it's the former answer Natalinasmpf's question. Give a summary of the expertimental results that support atherometry. This is the aetherometry page after all. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 06:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's right, the page that you locked so that you could adulterate the topic at will. Which of the following experimental results would you like to discuss:

Experimental results of Aetherometry
1. A range of new experimental discoveries in basic physics, chemistry and biophysics:


 * The demonstration of an autogenous pulsation that is auto-electronically triggered from saturated cold cathodes in Paschen vacua [USP# 5,502,354, LS1-25];


 * The demonstration of electrodynamic anomalies in open circuits, in particular the development of cathode reaction forces in interrupted vacuum-arcs or autogenously pulsed abnormal glow discharges [LS1-07, LS1-25];


 * The demonstration of basic massfree energy anomalies: antigravitic anomalies of the electroscope, driven by latent heat [AS2-01, AS2-02, AS2-06], the thermal anomaly of specific Faraday-cage-type enclosures [AS2-05, AS2-25, AS2-26], anomalous and charge-asymmetric effect of far and vacuum UV photons in the Halwacks experiment [AS2-08], 'vacuum' contribution of longitudinal electric radiation to the normal and abnormal glow discharges in Paschen's Law [LS1-25];


 * The discovery of photo-induced antigravitic work promoted by specific blackbody radiation [AS2-08];


 * Identification of the particle ratios for photons, gravitons, electrons, atoms and aether energy units in both the Hallwacks effect and the antigravitic kinetoregenerative effect [AS2-10];


 * How to trigger vacuum cathodes into auto-electronic emission in the absence of applied power [AS2-11];


 * A formal and experimental demonstration of two different actions of reverse potentials at work in living systems, the ground and water - radiative nonelectric draw (of massfree latent heat) versus electric contact draw [AS2-04, AS2-28, Nanometric Functions of Bioenergy", Biological Field and Contact Meter, forthcoming AS2-29];


 * Analytic separation of the massfree and massbound charge currents and field effects of ordinary induction and Tesla coils [AS2-13, AS2-16];


 * Formal demonstration that Tesla radiation ('Tesla waves') is not electromagnetic, ionizing or blackbody, but longitudinally-radiated massfree electric energy composed of cycloidal waves [AS2-13, AS2-15, AS2-16, AS2-17A, AS2-31];


 * Isolation of the fundamental electric, magnetic and electromagnetic frequencies of induction coils for both massfree and massbound charge fluxes [AS2-13, AS2-14, AS2-15, AS2-16];
 * Identification and physico-mathematical isolation of the complete spectrum of longitudinally radiated massfree electric energy and fundamental constituent subspectra [AS2-17A];


 * Demonstration and simulation of the main solar mode of longitudinally radiated massfree electric energy [AS2-17A];


 * Induction of high specific latent heat of trapped electron plasmas inside Faraday cages exposed to Tesla radiation [AS2-17A];


 * Isolation of the complete chemical (heterolytic and homolytic), electronic and energy (photothermal and ambipolar) cycles for the dissociation and formation of water and hydrogen ["Nanometric Functions of Bioenergy"];


 * Demonstration of directed weight-cancellation of target mass using ambipolar radiation [AWN; Dr. Mallove's description];


 * Demonstration of directed monopolar lift employing the kinetoregenerative phenomenon [AS2-01, AS2-02, AS2-06, AS2-10, AS3-II.6, AAG technologies];


 * Demonstration of living systems as sources of ambipolar radiation [AS2-28, "Nanometric Functions of Bioenergy", Biological Field and Contact Meter];

2. The basic analytical and theoretical foundations of biophysical and biochemical aetherometric science:


 * A new analytical theory and classification of the electric and nonelectric functions of the electroscope, where electrokinetic and gravitokinetic components of the action of charges are explicitly differentiated [AS2-02, AS2-04, AS2-10, AS2-27];


 * A new treatment of the Boltzmann constant and new functions and dimensionality for the concept of temperature, and its scale [AS2-07];


 * A new model for the local production of blackbody photons; identification of the functional limit of the blackbody spectrum and the two contiguous blackbody subspectra with their contrasting physical, chemical and biological effects [AS2-08, AS2-11, AS2-14, AS2-17A, AS2-28, "Nanometric Functions of Bioenergy"];


 * A new model and analytical treatment of leptonic and baryonic gravitons and antigravitons [LS1-25, AS2-10, AS2-27, AS3-II.3, AS3-II.4, AS3-II.6];


 * Identification of the electron-resonant, fundamental nonelectric massfree energy element whose superimposition yields the electron mass-energy singularity [AS2-10, AS3-II.3, AS3-II.4, AS3-II.6];


 * Identification of the standing electric and magnetic wave functions constitutive of the electron mass-energy and its finite volumetric geometry [AS2-12, AS2-15, AS2-17A, LS1-25, AS3-II.3];


 * Identification of the fundamental wave structure and functions of massfree charge and the kinetic energy of massbound charge [AS2-15, AS2-16];


 * Identification of the Duane-Hunt wavelength, and a novel fundamental equivalence for Planck's Law [AS2-12];


 * Identification of a new proportionality constant eta and its relation to the fine structure constant and the production of the microwave Cosmic Background Radiation spectrum (mCBR) [AS2-12, AS2-17C, AS3-II.6];


 * An original, integrated and consistent theory and physico-mathematical treatment of the basic electric functions and quantities - charge, voltage, current, inductance, capacitance, magnetic flux density, magnetic field intensity, magnetic flux, magnetic wavelength, free and bound current densities, cyclotron frequency and linear velocity [AS2-12, AS2-13, AS2-14, AS2-15, AS2-16];


 * A new treatment of the invariant and variable functions for the magnetic permeability and electrical permittivity of media [AS2-16];


 * Correction to the value of the gauss in light of the value of the tesla [AS2-15];


 * Critique of Reich's concept of an electroscopic OP, and operational isolation of the org [AS2-03, AS2-07];


 * An extended physical and chemical treatment of the basic allotropic cycle of the atmosphere that balances its enthalpy [AS2-09] and identifies the specific solar contributions made by longitudinally radiated massfree electric energy [AS2-17B];


 * New model for the structure of the electron in the hydrogen atom [LS1-25, AS3-II.3] and identification of its two fundamental states, electric and photoinertial [AS2-12, AS2-17A];


 * Identification of a cosmic background of longitudinal electric massfree radiation (CBOR), and prediction of baryonic radio Cosmic Background Radiation spectra (rCBR) [AS2-17C];


 * New cosmological model for the asymmetric creation of light leptonic charge with minimum kinetic energy [AS2-17C];


 * Energy model for formation of massfree superlattices in complex Phase Space and Time [AS2-17C, AS3-II.3, AS3-II.6];


 * A new physical and analytical model for Dark Energy and the production of the mCBR that refutes all Big-Bang cosmologies [AS2-11, AS2-17C, Dark Massfree Energy];


 * A microfunctionalist critique of Special and General Relativity [AS4-01, AS4-02];


 * New theory of, and new functions for, Space and Time manifolds [AS1-04, AS3-II.3, AS3-II.4, AS3-II.5, AS3-II.6, "Nanometric Functions of Bioenergy"];


 * A new theory of inertia, inertial mass and so-called 'gravitational mass' [AS3-II.3, AS3-II.4, AS3-II.6];


 * Identification of the functional length and wavelength equivalences of mass [AS2-01, AS2-10, AS2-12, AS2-13, AS2-15, AS2-16, AS3-II.1, AS3-II.3];


 * A new model of cycloidal gravitational waves and resonant pendular motion [AS3-II.1, AS3-II.2, AS3-II.3, AS3-II.4];


 * Identification of a fundamental cosmic acceleration constant [AS3-II.3, AS3-II.4, AS3-II.6];


 * New energy-based explanation of the universal constant G and novel determination of its non-instantaneous apparent velocity of propagation [AS3-II.4, AS3-II.6];


 * A novel energy model for the subcellular origins of Life ["Nanometric Functions of Bioenergy"];


 * New algorithm for linear-log integration of acid-base and redox reactions ["Nanometric Functions of Bioenergy"];


 * Identification of the ambipolar properties of globins relating to their capacity to absorb massfree electric energy and release sensible heat [AS2-28, "Nanometric Functions of Bioenergy"];


 * Ambipolar energy solution to the insufficient potential of the respiratory chain and new functions proposed for the role of oxygen in aerobic metabolism ["Nanometric Functions of Bioenergy"];


 * A new analytical and energy-based model for system dynamics, including thermodynamics, and a new function for the internal energy of a system ["Nanometric Functions of Bioenergy"];


 * New nanoscale topological models of hydrogen, helium, oxygen, water and hydronium structures ["Nanometric Functions of Bioenergy"];


 * New theory of electronic orbitals with original volumetric and dynamic structures for covalent and noncovalent (van der Waals) bonds ["Nanometric Functions of Bioenergy"];


 * Spectral identification of massfree inductive, receiver, transformer and transmitter functions of genomic DNA and genomic RNA ["Nanometric Functions of Bioenergy"];


 * Identification of the role of molecular massfree latent heat in the formation of ATP (Adenosine Triphosphate) and its hydrolysis ["Nanometric Functions of Bioenergy"];


 * Identification of a deuterium-tetrad pathway for table-top nuclear fusion (so-called CF/LENR reactions) conveying heat production with specific blackbody spectra by proton end-products, and with no neutron, triton or gamma ray emissions [Aetherometric Fusion Reactor, Correa Solution to Cold Fusion];

3. A series of technological systems and applications that aetherometric research has yielded - and are open for commercial exploration:


 * A plasma-pulse electromechanical inverter and transmitter [USP# 5,416,391; DVD];


 * A plasma-pulse-driven overunity converter operating in the aPAGD and IVAD plasma regimes that charges batteries, drives spinner-type drag-cup motors and flywheels [USP# 5,449,989; WIPO# 9,409,560; CP# 2,147,153; Pulsed Plasma Power; DVD; forthcoming LS1-23];


 * A gravitoelectric converter that transforms gravitational swings of massbound charges into electric impulses [AS2-11];


 * Operation of Tesla coils under conditions of resonance-loading to produce overunity massfree electric radiation [AS2-16];


 * Basic Aetheroscope hardware eg for the aetherometric study of Tesla coils [AS2-16, Aetheroscope];


 * Apparatus to passively charge a battery from a vacuum-emission cell exposed to specially filtered Tesla radiation in the biologically-beneficial energy range [AS2-17A];


 * Modified Faraday-cage-like enclosures as round-the-clock thermal drives for Stirling engines, with comparable daytime and nighttime performances that are substantially superior to solar cells [AS2-25, AS2-26, AS2-32, DVD, HYBORAC technologies];


 * A novel passive HYBORAC Distiller/Desalinator technology [PDD technology];


 * Passive biofield radiation meter [Biological Field and Contact Meter, "Nanometric Functions of Bioenergy", forthcoming AS2-29, forthcoming AS2-30];


 * Multi-tap ground-driven battery and capacitor charger [Dr. Mallove's report of demonstration, PGC technology];


 * Aetherometric weight-neutralizer technology [AWN technology; Dr. Mallove's report of demonstration];


 * Aetherometric monopolar lift technology [AS3-II.6, AAG technology];


 * Aether Motor/Converter driven by extracting massfree energy from Faraday-cage-like enclosures, atmospheric antennas, living beings, the ground, the "vacuum state" [DVD, Aether Motor/Converter technology, forthcoming Vol 3 of Experimental Aetherometry; patents pending];


 * Design of clean-running, passive and active, nuclear fusion reactors employing aetherometric reactions [Aetherometric Fusion Reactor, Correa Solution to Cold Fusion];


 * A novel linear-log [pe] Meter for integrated acid-base and redox reactions [The PE Meter; "Nanometric Functions of Bioenergy"].

Note - all references in brackets are for publicly available manuscripts with ISBN numbers.

May I suggest we start with Aetherometric weight-neutralizer technology? How is that done briefly? I assume the charged particles in the atoms interact with aether somehow? According to what I read at H Aspden's site, the Aether of which you speak is an array of charges embedded in a CONTINUUM of opposite charge. So somehow you change the charge distribution so as to cause repulsion? GangofOne 04:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Also, as a general comment, you've got enough here for 10 Nobel prizes. Even Einstein got a Nobel for the little old photoelectric effect, and this list has vastly more. One can only hope that these discoveries true worth will be soon recognized. Did I say 10? more than 10... GangofOne 06:08, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * What? I was not responsible for it being protected in the first place. Why do you blanket label? I'm just asking a question! It was not a sarcastic question, it was a purely genuine question. What utter arrogance you have, jumping to conclusions about my intentions. The aetherometric model has failed to convince me for a variety of reasons, for one thing, the lack of anything extraordinary. I could care less the energy produced by the explosion was greater than predicted; after all an explosion is an explosion, with many variables involved. (Unless it was something extraordinary, for example, gamma ray bursts - that's a sign of extraordinary energy involved.)

I'm just asking for further conviction. Copying and pasting stuff won't really do it, as however informative that may be, it was a response geared specifically to us. For one thing, if you could really come up with an explanation from scratch from the top of your head then I'll think aetherometry truly has something there. I'm asking for a personalised response, to us, regarding the aetherometric model, the kind of response you find at the Reference Desk. -- Natalinasmpf 05:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * As to the NASA experiment Deep Impact, a fissile reaction was even less anticipated than a high energy (electric) x-ray emission, neither of which it appears NASA adequately prepared for. (I too am very interested in any data known to exist for this question.)


 * Any relation to between plasma cosmology, aetherometry, or any electric universe model is acknowledge as speculative. The nascent possible interrelation, considers that acceleration of material via plasma phenomenon in EUMs, is also a large topic addressed under aetherometry.


 * ...just off the top of my head....   TTLightningRod 16:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * How is this censorship accomplished? I don't see the trail in history. Is this something administrators do?GangofOne 04:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * What censorship you are talking about?
 * TTLightningRod added stuff from http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/00current.htm :
 * Minutes later TTLightningRod himself deleted again: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAetherometry&diff=19203612&oldid=19202234
 * Pjacobi 05:12, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * OK. Never mind. I was confused about what TTLR was referring to. GangofOne 05:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

No Theresa, I am not a troll. However if you would please forgive me, I do wonder if your naive as to what actually is troll behavior, or even whether your naivete is not a show in itself. User:Danny has always had very kind words for you, and I trust Danny's sincerity in that reference, thus I hope you will read this is if said in a respectful tone to you.

The sample article I offered, illustrating a very HOT ongoing "Mainstream vs. Non-Mainstream" debate. Contained within it, is a long list of points directly addressing Nats very questions. Yet, he insisted in placing his provocative "questions" directly below the very points addressing his said "questions". That is not the act of "a young mind yearning to absorb information", but the act of an individual far more interested in disrupting the class. Nat is clearly capable of reading and writing in a form beyond his stated years, to pretend that EUM, PC, or Aetherometry hasn't an ounce of interest to the "real world of science", is contumacious. And that, is the hight of tolling. E. Myers Added bt User:TTLightningRod
 * I cannot agree with what you are saying about Natalinasmpf. He asked for numbers, I only saw arguments. And yes i do know what trolling is. Pethaps you need reminiding that Wikipedia is not a class. Nor is it your personal soapbox for you to spout your pet thoery. This talk page is for discussion abou the aetherometry article.We are all here to write an encylopedia, not spout original research. The data is too new, it hasn't been analysed by NASA yet, it hasn't, to my knowledge all been released yet has it? Is any of what you posted relavent to the aetherometry article? Because if it is it should go in don't you think? If not, then why did you post it? Now what do you think should be added to the article? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 17:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

If the electrical universe plasma model can explain what surprised NASA, and if the notion of a virtual plasma has been called an Aether, and there is evidence that the filamentous plasma structures observed in cosmological provesses can be explained by the electrical universe model, and further broken down by aetherometric cosmology, then why should E. Myers' intervention be declared irrelevant and suppressed? Lady Knott, how intolerant of you! The data is too new...

Next Step
As once offered sometime ago (and summarily deleted from the article main space), Without a valid approach in proper terminology, an exploration through any challenging algebra will quickly descend to gibberish collaboration. (quite exactly what has happened)

No one, absolutely no one, can honestly purport to consider numeracy before a conceptual model representation is established. In our minds, as humans, we begin all such efforts in words.


 * Example: #8. System Failure timing. A unique PC prediction was that: “Electrical stress may short out the electronics on board the impactor before impact.” The system did indeed fail a few seconds before impact, and data should be reviewed to look for indications of how that electrical breakdown occured. NASA did theorize that micro particulate or other local cometary debris could "sand blast" the probe and knock out its systems during its final approach. However, an abrasive-environment failure or mechanical strike should have a different data signature than that of an electrical stress event.

Here, a search through the data may help answer such a question. Of concern one may agree, is that NASA has already offered a cogent theory why the data flow would/could stop before impact, and thus may have less interest in exploring the shut down event from the more anomalous approach. In such a case, one may certainly need to have a concept of electrical stress vs. mechanical stress before one would examine data (numbers) with such care.

Thus, one may consider the importance of a (word dominant) encyclopedia article, before the commencement of a mathematical examination. Would you agree with this need for illustration in words before an algebraic representation can be honestly presented?

"Class", is the metaphorical answer to Nats pretended behavior as metaphorical child. He in no way requires your matronly protection in this matter. Why do you play such a game? It turns my stomach. Is that your intention? TTLightningRod 18:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * To deal with your points one by one:


 * it was pointed out that aetherometry (NOT my original work) was vastly more linguistic in nature, and required sincere effort on the part of readers to begin there, before progressing with mathematical formulae. 
 * This strikes me as way to avoid making a prediction.Are you familiar with the term "hand waiving"?


 *  “Electrical stress may short out the electronics on board the impactor before impact.” 
 * How long before impact? picosecond, millisecond, second, hour, day , year?  Has anyone worked this out to say an order of magnetude estimation? Because they need to do it.


 * In such a case, one may certainly need to have a concept of electrical stress vs. mechanical stress before one would examine data (numbers) with such care.
 * And has anyone with such a concept actually examined the data yet? What ere their results?


 * Thus, one may consider the importance of a (word dominant) encyclopedia article, before the commencement of a mathematical examination. Would you agree with this need for illustration in words before an algebraic representation can be honestly presented?
 * Yep as long as it' before rather than instead of. Hand waiving explanations often sound plausuble even when they are wrong. A good solid "the new theory predicts x to be 27.2 +- 1.6" it absolutely necessary for the theory to be considered science, becasue the numbers can to be checked by experiment. If it can't be checked by experiment it isn't (by definition) science.


 * "Class", is the metaphorical answer to Nats pretended behavior as metaphorical child. He in no way requires your matronly protection in this matter. Why do you play such a game?  It turns my stomach.  Is that your intention? TTLightningRod 18:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Could Natalinasmpf be the anonymous side of William Connolley? At times, they have the same writing style, the same ideas...?


 * He is not playing games. He was asking a straightforwards question. I am not being matronly. You gave an opinion of Natalinasmpf which I 100% disagree with. and I said so. I'm sorry if I turn your stomach but there is nothing I can do about that. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 20:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Even those who believed in you at some point in time in this process have come to realize that your rule is, simply put, madam, despotic. Your protection on this page is an insult to anyone who has any degree of self-respect. It is a classical example of fascism - you cannot win by convincing heads and minds, so you resort to power, suppression, etc. Insults is just a pretense that playful people provide you with. But along with the deletion of ad hominems, you delete content right, left and center. You have learned how to twist the already bureaucratic rules of Wikipedia into a shameful personal gig. Step down Knott.

A Hand Waiving response, and goodnight
Such a fool I've been, to descend to personally addressing critics. I've walked here for a month, with my pollyannaism tripe, that people might respond favorably to examples. Examples offered, simply attempting to suggest that another man's certitude, is not my own. Foolish to think that offering myself as example, might sway others to relax their own grip upon an illusion of control.

But no, a month here has shown only me to be the fool. Foolish to think that a concept of electricity playing a more significant role in the world around us, could hold any merit. For it has been me, the foolish one, quixotically fantasizing that some example, any example, might possibly raise a real question. The question that might cause one to imagine one, even just one, exception to the rule.

Foolish, foolish me.

For there are clearly no exceptions to the rule.

TTLR is clearly too dumb, or too tired, to continue with this great skipping Wurlitzer. Your great edit war by attrition has succeeded for you. Take pride. For you do sit with great security in your pristine ivory tower. TTLightningRod

TTLightningRod, If I may make a suggestion, and I don't want you to take it the wrong way, is that your efforts on plasma cosmology could more productively used in some other forum. Here, in Talk:Ae..ry, there are only about a dozen people who are even reading this, and there doesn't seem to be a critical mass of people who want to discuss it here, whereas if you post to the right newsgroups or webpages, you could have hundreds, thousands of readers. I haven't looked, but the plasmacos.com and thunberbolt.com, (approximate names) may have leads to good places where these new results are being discussed. You could also set up a plasmacosmology wiki of your own, and invite people, aetherometrists, NASA people, over to discuss it. Just because you hit a stone wall with the few people here doesn't mean anything. Wikipedaia isn't the world. Wikipedia isn't reality. Talk:Aetherometry isn't even Wikipedia. I think you should seek a wider audience; saying that, I don't think I've given you any reason to think  that I say that because I don't want you around here. GangofOne 05:17, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Insults and personal attacks
I reverted yet another of the anons who went on a long spree of insults. No reason we should tolerate this sort of abusive behaviour. Guettarda 03:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Everybody see the history of this Talk!
It is an exemplary record of suppression of free expression and abuse of power. Sheer censorship. As fast as I make my comments, Guettarda undoes them. Anyway, I have the whole night ahead at a boring job. Unless I get zapped, of course.

Then it stops, only to resume again...


 * The point of this page is to discuss the article, not to attack the editors. If you can't understand something that simple, then you have no purpose editing this page.  The purpose of this project is to write an encyclopaedia - you don't have "free speech" rights, you don't have the "right" to edit the encyclopaedia.  This is not a discussion forum.  My "job" here is to protect the rights of constructive editors who are adding something to this project.  Get a clue.   Guettarda 04:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Not to mention, it is entirely possible to any admin to delete any edit from the page history as well. Quite a simple task.  Guettarda 04:45, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Not true. Only developers can do that. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 16:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

COMPLETE STALINIST REVISIONISM, that's what. You even toggle the addresses of the edit buttons... Anon
 * You are mistaken Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 16:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * By "Stalinist" do you mean in the manner of my the nephew of the husband on the aunt of my first cousin once removed, Stalin Joseph, or Leroy Calliste, the calypsonian Black Stalin? Guettarda 16:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I have to object to the deletion of other's comments that has occurred over the last day or so. The insults have been extremely mild, so much so that if you used them in prison you would be murdered for using such lame insults. The only real insult worthy of the name was by 208.54.95.151. Plus it makes it harder for the reader to read the comments.GangofOne 05:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * It's normal to remove personal attacks. That I did.  Mild or moderate misses the point - personal attacks are not to be tolerated.  I think we have indulged the anon's (or anons') bad behaviour far too much and for far too long.  If a person has something worthwhile to contribute to the project, they can do it in civil language.  If not, it's just a troll harrassing editors who are actually trying to contribute to the project.  That kind of behaviour has driven useful editors to quit.  I see no value in indulging it.  Guettarda 05:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Guettarda, you and your sidekicks have made a mockery of any presentation, discussion, reference providing, explanation. All you have is naked power to suck on. -Anon
 * Have you actually provided any references etc? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 16:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Who locked this page?
An admin? An admin who also participanted in the discussion? An admin who deleted comments? An admin who forgets?

Still locked after many days? What cowardis!

This is a demonstration of the worst Wikipedia has to offer. Total crap!


 * Blocking to deal with vandalism (which is what the problem was) is totally legit. The fact that you are complaining about it suggests that it can't be unblocked yet, since you are here to vandalise it again.  You just validated the continuing block.  It isn't like you are involved in a constructive discussion seeking consensus regardling the changes you would like to see made.  And, btw - it's policy to delete personal attacks.  If you want that changed you should take that up elsewhere - maybe you should propose a policy allowing personal attacks.  Guettarda 01:26, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * "Who locked this page?" See the page history, not the Talk: but the article. The latest entry is the lock notice from the admin you seek, who has not previously measured the aether. You may communicate directly with him/her via his/her Talk: page. For the benefit of all I hereby rescind the rule against personal attacks on wikipedia as it applies TO me. Personal attacks directed at my self are hereby ALLOWED. GangofOne 03:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Cool! Gang of one is ugly! ner ner ne neerr ner (OK I know that was pretty lame, just trying to lighten the mood) Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 14:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Gang of One is an ugly and arrogance loner who thinks a particular rule shouldn't apply to him! ner ner ne neerr ner!  (this is kind of cathartic, thanks Mr. One)  I third your motion, open season on The Rod too.  Let the lightning bolts fly!  TTLightningRod 15:53, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Better to be reviled than ignored. I'm a little confused though, "arrogan[t] loner", that's an insult?GangofOne 12:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * "Just trying to lighten the mood?"... A little Helsinki Syndrome camaraderie, anyone? User:4.231.175.251 (dialup-4.231.175.251.Dial1.LosAngeles1.Level3.net)
 * Note that the IP's of the vandal are 4.231.160.246 (dialup-4.231.160.246.Dial1.LosAngeles1.Level3.net), 4.233.120.31(dialup-4.233.120.31.Dial1.LosAngeles1.Level3.net), 4.233.125.247(dialup-4.233.125.247.Dial1.LosAngeles1.Level3.net) It's pretty clear that the person who wrote the above statement and who added the box that said that the admins sponsered the vandalism is the vandal. This page will stay locked for the time being. Theresa Knott  (a tenth stroke) 18:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Once again my ongoing protest of the rampant abuse of admin powers on the Aetherometry entry was summarily removed from the discussion pages - this time by ANON admin tool Natalinasmpf.

With wry amusement, I saw on the personal user page of Teresa Knott the following instruction to a wikipedia user:

"As an arbitrator it is important that I see all evidence. For this reason I am instructing you never to remove anything from any page that is arbitration related. If you change your mind about one of you own comments strike it through rather than delete it and under no circumstance remove anyone elses comments or replies to your comments. Even if it is a personal attack - leave it there. OK? Also from your edit comment I urge you to continue to defend yourself in this accusation. I am an unbiased arbitrator and I am notifying you Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 08:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)"

Clearly, Ms. Knott knows very well that it's highly improper conduct to remove text - 'evidence' - from the discussions - be they under arbitration or not - especially when the entry is so bitterly contested and opposed as this page is. Yet this is simply standard fare for Admins and their anti-non-mainstream-science tag team. The only conclusion one can take then is that  the systematic removal of protesting evidence on this entry is willfully and deliberately agreed to by tag team members as a deliberte ploy to cover their tracks. One more shameful abuse in a long and shameful list. While Ms. Knott, as an admin, is permitted to illegitimately accuse others of vandalism - the evidence of complete disagreement with her opinion is summarily deleted from the discussion by one of the infinitely rotating slur team members. So I'll repeat my message, and see which team member deletes it this time. What I said, to Ms. Knott's absurd accusation that -

" It's pretty clear that the person who wrote the above statement and who added the box that said that the admins sponsered the vandalism is the vandal. This page will stay locked for the time being. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 18:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC) "


 * No, Ms. Knott. The anon who denounces the locking is NOT the vandal. You guys really have this down to an art, don't you? What a laughable rewriting of history. I suppose you write this kind of nonsense for other Admins who might fly by - whom you know won't bother read the actual records of what has transpired here. What's crystal clear to anyone who does actually read them is that the vandals of this page have been admins - Pjacobi, the Anome, CesarB, CSTAR, Guettarda, Karada, Kbdank71,and Teresa Knott who locked the page. All Official ANONS. What I've been doing is calling them out for it. Calling a spade a spade. And the contributing non-admin vandals for the wikipedia science purity squad pseudoscience tag team include ANON Salsb, William M. Connolley and his alterego ANON Natalinasmpf, etc.. Hence it is quite accurate to notify readers that "The Aetherometry page has been locked to protect Wikipedia admin sponsored vandalism". No amount of reinterpretation by the Trujilloista School of Disinformation Management nor the disingenuity of Ms. Knott will change the content of the archives. Unless of course, the admins continue their policy of altering and deleting them. [Which they did] The page was locked to secure the disinformation the admins have maliciously scrawled on it.4.233.125.157 04:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry anon user. But you repeatedly blanked the page. This is vandalism. Pure and simple. We didn't do it. You did. You were warned that blanking the page would lead to it being protected, you did it anyway. Now you come here calling of of us vandals. Call us what you like, we don't care. The page will stay blocked for the time being. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 07:43, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Is "vandel" a personel attack?GangofOne 12:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Our policy on no personal attacks sayas we should attack the argument not the person, however blanking a page is not an argument it's vandalism. What the anon did was vandalism, so I described him/er as a vandal. It wasn't intended as a personal attack. I could say "person who vandalised the article" but it seems a long winded way of saying exactly the same things. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 07:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * "Blanking a page is not an argument it's vandalism." Says Theresa knott.  Oh, that's rich.  Almost a month of unabated administrator vandalism on this page.  Not one constructive intervention by Wikipedia smear campaign members on 24 hour rotation duty - so that the sacred 3r rule of running down the opposition would not be broken.  Bulldozing their way to ensure that this entry would not contain one useful piece of information but would be fully loaded with defamatory crap.  What really got Theresa, was the fact that she first locked the page down on a not quite so malicious version (a pretty big error in amalgamating all anonymous users...).  But she caught herself when she wrote: "Oh that was a sneaky one. I bet you though you were clever! I'm reverting to my previous version. Feel free to complain all you like."  Of course, when she says "I'm reverting to my previous version", what she really means is I'm reverting to Natalinasmpf's version which was Kbdank71's version, which was The Anome's version, which was Pjacobi's version, which was Salsb's version etc., etc, etc.  What she really means is we're locking this page down to protect our official disinformation version.  Go suck on it.  We're admininstrators and there's not a damn thing you can do about it.  That Theresa knott is not an argument, and not very noble either, it's collusional, defamatory and it's a rank disgrace.  Seeing a blank page on this entry was the first breath of honesty I've seen here.  It was serene.  64.48.78.4 17:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Where you are most vulnerable in your position, is your assertion that blocking the page is a just action by you. Reverting vandalism, by pressing the convenient "revert" button I understand admin like yourself posses, is a proper tool.  Blocking IP's or user names has also become a very acceptable police action.  But barring the entire world access to the page, is a clear action by you I find most offensive.  Not even George W Bush is a protected page, and the two most contentious contributors there, LIKE IT THAT WAY!  And further, I find it even more stomach turning that I would need to pass my contributions through an admin filter like yourself (after you have indicated a POV on this topic) when I choose to build upon a subject, or any subject.


 * Revert page after vandals... Good
 * Blocking vandals IP's or User names....  seems OK
 * Locking up a page....  simply not right. TTLightningRod 12:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Rollback only works as long as someone is watching that article all the time. For The George Bush article, where loads of people have it on thier watchlist this isn't a problem (although that article has been locked for weeks in the past because of vandalism). Vandalisms are rolled back on that article within minutes. This article is different. One particlular page blanking vandalism lasted over an hour . Blocking this particular vandal IP isn't really practical as he is using multiple dialup adresses. The only way tp block the vandal would be to use a massive rangeblock that blocked every single one of the IPs. This would almost certainly mean that innocent users who also use that same ISP would get caught in the block. Therefore the only sensible thing to do is protect the page until the vandal goes away. I understand that you don't like the idea of passing your contributions through me. By all means find another adminidstrator who is neutral in this matter and let them do it. Or just wait for the anon vandal to  and go away. Theresa Knott  (a tenth stroke) 14:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I think you're over extending your ability, and the ability of Admin. The vandalism in question here, is far from mindless, and their particular points placed in the summery section go un-addressed.  A blank page, even for an ENTIRE hour, hardly seems like it could take from this grand Wikipedia as "This article is different." (why, because of it's relatively low profile compared to Bush? Then your argument holds even less water).  Further, by your own acknowledgment of sweeping IP/User blocks might "certainly mean that innocent users who also use that same ISP would get caught in the block."  How do you square that by blocking the whole world unless they go through admin.  Get a grip, admin can not manage every article in this manner, unless you are sincerely working on the "wiki admin committee to vet all material."  This wiki will die with, or with out such a committee if access to main-space articles is denied outright to non-admin, like it has been here. TTLightningRod 18:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Page blanking is very much mindless vandalism. Blocking the whole world from one article is infanantly better than blocking a whole isp's users from the whole of wikipedia. If you can't see this then I wash my hands of you. I will not unblock this page all the time the pageblanking vandal is about. End of story. You argument about admins managing the whole of wikipedia isn't even worth answering, as no one is suggesting such a thing. If you are not happy with my response take it to WP:AN you may find an administrator willing to unblock the page. But I will not do it. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 00:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * A valid observation...  yet as for myself, I still have a very clear OPINION as to who and why the page has been "protected" from further maturity.  Who, Why? Those who sympathize too strongly with a concept of mainstream-near-infallibility. Check yourself! TTLightningRod
 * You know you can always start a temp page Aetherometry/temp. Put any edits you want there, we can thrash them out here on the talk page and once consensus is achieved an admin can edit the protected article. There is no reason that a page under attack from a vandal has to not mature. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 18:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

The last time that this was discussed (that I've seen, anyway) the feeling was that temp articles should be avoided in article name space; editors should create temp pages in their User space (such as User:TTLightningRod/Aetherometry). --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 18:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I really don't like the idea of putting a temp article in a user name space.I think it will stifle editing from others. What's wrong with putting it in the article namespace? Why was there a feeling that it shouldn't be done? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 21:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually I find subpages tend to get lost, and anyway, forks are bad. What's wrong with detailing proposed changes here - after all, that is what this page is really for.  I agree that the page should not be protected, but it was protected because of repeat vandalism.  Since I can't tell one anon from another (assuming that there are more than one), and none of them have renounced or denounced the vandalism that got the page protected, what can we do but leave the page locked?  On the other hand, proposed changes can be hashed out here, without revert wars, and once there is consensus (or at least an agreement not to revert war) they can be incorporated into the page.  That way we avoid both the revert wars and the need to lock the page.  Guettarda 21:42, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Although the particular proposal moves around a bit, as all village pump stuff does, RavensWood has pulled a few good examples of highly contentious subjects which might benefit from a Point-Counterpoint format, such as this talk page.


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29#Point-Counterpoint


 * Please take a few to read it, seems quite simple and straightforward. We could set up a template here as the last item.  Once the temp is here, we can archive everything above, (shameful, I think most of us would agree)  and move forward by filling in the talk as a P-CP forum.  Thoughts?  TTLightningRod
 * I took a look. To be honest - I'm not sure. It might work for an argument about peer review.  I don't see how the rest of the article could or should be written in this way. Theresa Knott  (a tenth stroke) 07:43, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Where is your head? TTLightningRod 12:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Where is your point? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 00:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

It might be interesting at the point to mention that the physicist John Baez, who regularly gets sent people's unconventional theories, has an interesting rating scheme for evaluating them here: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html -- Karada 12:29, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

End the lock, please.
How long is this editing lock supposed to last, anyway? 68.164.226.32 07:33, 1 August 2005 (UTC) OOPS, not logged in. Pgio 07:48, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The anon who was blanking the page is still here, and seems not to think that s/he was doing anything wrong by blanking the page. So I don't see how it would be unlocked.  That said, as was discussed earlier, if people have changes they would like to make, the should discuss them and hash them out here.  Guettarda 11:59, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

pseudointellectual
The "bad anon" fixation is pseudointellectual...  You might as well indite yourself, Guettarda. Whoever Guettarda is?

Yet still, to respectfully address the anon Guettarda's point about discuss and hash:

The proper, if not simply the safest, categories for this material would seem to be protoscience, non-mainstream science, theoretical physics, or possibly even as applied physics (if we're going to use applied physics to challenge it). "Pseudoscience", is quite a bold assertion by an encyclopedia which has only been exposed to the material for a number of weeks. (outright resisting exposure would more accurately describe the actions of people who have deleted reference material, deleted reference to competent reviewers, deleted and strongly resisted investigating the experimental results offered.)

Here's a question for people to ask themselves, if ya had to place a bet, and you only have two choices between which is just plane false, Pseudo: The hundred-plus cumulative years of work, involving dozens of people, thousands, possibly 10' of thousands of hours of research experimentation in a laboratory......     OR, a free-for-all wiki placing the material in a false category in less than six weeks? As you place your bet, don't forget that placing a bet in favor of this wiki, may be placing an inordinate amount of faith in this wiki's acknowledged systemic bias.

Calling (categorizing) this material as theoretical, proto, non-mainstream or some such.. seems a pretty safe bet, and would in the least stem from a mindset of "assume good faith". Categorizing as "false" AND LOCKING THE PAGE is hardly assuming good faith (particularly when no one has pointed out a single documented claim of false referenced from an ISBN or OTHERWISE. Other than ofcourse, the internal workings of some wikipedians)

A short step further....  Should 1/10th of the material and work done under the name aetherometry in fact be true, (nonfiction)....  Then this wiki would have libelously slandered something genuine. And if genuine, something important to us all. Important, as a small contribution to all human knowledge.

That's a pretty serious bet....   Myself? I like to hedge my bets....   non-mainstream, hardly seems like I could loose with that moniker.

Lets put this in yet another metaphor.... Unlike a bowline, or the even more elegant 2-1 trucker's hitch, (knot's which can bear tremendous load with ease, yet are releasable without having to cut the line)...  What wiki is creating here is a bit more like the knots used by a pack of ne'er-do-well Boy Scouts, gaging up on a few of the less mindlessly over-masculine campers. Dragging them out in the woods and finding a particularly humiliating location, concocting some silly binding twists of rope, jamming up the rounds with sticks and fifty unreleasable overhand knots. The immature gang then returns back to the safety campfire to faithfully report to their underlings that the "trouble makers" have been detained and should no-longer pose a threat to their dominance.

Only after some time has passed, wondering "where have our real badge winners gone off to?", do the Eagle Scouts go off to find a few of the missing kids. Well, they have taken out their "be prepaired" pocket shanks, and left a pile of uselessly knotted cord.

Non-mainstream seems like a safe bet. TTLightningRod 14:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * How is my position "pseudointellectual"? The page was protected because it was repeatedly blanked.  Page blanking is considered vandalism.  Page protection in this case is legit.  A protected page stays protected until the problem is worked out - either by hashing out the differences on the Talk page, or by the troublemaker losing interest and going away.  Neither of these has happened - the person who was doing the page blanking continues to complain about admin abuse and the fact that the page was protected.  S/he has not attempted dialogue - "I want X changed, no, Y would not be acceptable wording to me, yes Z would do..."  In the absence of dialogue, what evidence is there that the person would act any differently if the page were to be unprotected?
 * And, for the record, I have no horse in this race. I am no fan of the pseudoscience cat.  Guettarda 14:43, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Respectfully Guettarda: That besmirching an anon, mostly for being an anon, makes little sense.  Reverting the deleted page, was vastly less difficult than the issuing angst we are seeing by the page being locked.  (smashing a walnut with a sledgehammer, the nutmeat has been mixed with the unpalatable shell).  The use of the phrase pseudointellectual, is asking you to more clearly separate these two issues.  Vandalism and Anons.  Vandalism is not what we are experiencing in the article, unless we also talk about the category.  (which was the anons' stated issue.  It's not like s/he placed a picture of a monkey, and a page full of profanity about Bush)


 * (If wikipedians wants to advance a claim that a subject is false, the same wikipedians MUST reference a third party, OR demonstrate its falsehoods, OR demonstrate the material as un-falsifiable, and ONLY THEN may one have any intellectual honesty in calling the material pseudo. To date, that has only been done ad hominem)


 * Aside, and very separate to all questions about vandalism, is any discussion about anonymous collaboration. Currently, the only measure that can be applied to defining ANY difference between Wikipedians, (outside of their very words) is their edit count.   Yes?  And yet even you Guettarda may have a long and distinguished log of contributions, BUT YOU ARE STILL ANONYMOUS.  Yes?  You would not enjoy your work being thrown into question simply because you haven't posted your street address and phone number after every edit.  Yes/No?


 * Deleting a page is inappropriate, and clearly futile. The delete-contributor should have learned that by now. Teaching newcomers this, is a proper lesson.  I would imagine that has been shown.  "Waiting them out", to become bored or "reborn" seems silly and probably ineffective in the end.


 * Addressing the category and unlocking the page is what I want, and what a number of other wikipedians want too. Your Yes/No here begins a new consensus.  208.54.95.151 16:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I did not criticise anyone for not having a user name. It's easier to focus on people with user names, of course.  And, obviously, I am (semi-)anonymous here, although there are enough clues for someone really determined to make a pretty good guess at who I am.  But that is not the point.  I am critical of [someone] for blanking the page.  For a number of reasons I am guessing that the person is still around.  If I had some reason to believe that [someone]'s tactics had changed, I would unprotect the page.  Without evidence, I think the protection is reasonable - unfortunate, but reasonable.  So I do not plan to unprotect the page.  If there were edits proposed and discussed, if there was evidence that the protection was somehow materially affecting the quality of the article, I would see reason to unprotect even with the threat of further disruptive edits.  But I don't, so I see no reason to act.  That said, I was not the one to protect the page, and there are several hundred users on this site who can unprotect the page.  Guettarda 17:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)