To AKRONOS Main Page
To the top of Wikipedia: A Techno-Cult of Ignorance

Appendix 4 of Wikipedia: A Techno-Cult of IgnoranceAPPENDIX 4

Two examples of using false science (ie a false notion of what is accepted science) to judge the merit of scientific claims mentioned in an article on a subject the administrators know nothing about:

Example 1: Lack of understanding of the accepted equivalence of mass and energy:

## Aetherometry Talk. Title: what the heck is massfree energy anyway?

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

And I object to a parade of ignorance enforced by a child's tantrum. On the authority of B. Russell, p. 96 of the ABC of Relativity it reads: "At first sight mass and energy are very different things. But it has turned out that energy is the same thing as measured mass." And he goes on to explain how "energy and mass become identified". As mass is by definition inertial, ergo all energy is inertial. There are schools of thought that treat inertia as a separable property (eg H. Puthoff), but they are what people like you call pseudoscience. Even when in Big-Bang theories energy is said to have been massless near the event, all energy is considered to carry mass and be identical to mass today. Unless in Singapore there are noninertial masses to be reported to a scientific journal, the above comment is trite and ignorant.
Its not ignorant. Energy doesn't have inertia, mass does. Mass is form of energy, but inertia is only unique to mass (including antimatter and matter). Trite and ignorant? Well I won't comment on your personal attack, but then you have a very skewed idea of what energy is. Compare [the Wikipedia entry for] energy to [the Wikipedia entry for] mass - inertia is not mentioned in energy, but certainly in mass. Unless you want to redefine key scientific concepts and the entire set of physics articles on Wikipedia? A child's tantrum, indeed! Unfortunately, you haven't heard about assuming goodfaith and civility? Maybe I'll ask Linuxbeak to give you a nice lecture. -- Natalinasmpf 22:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well then Russell is ignorant because, if mass and energy are identical, and one and the same, and all energy has mass and all mass is energy, then the inertial property is coextensive to energy. This is what deBroglie's theory of matter-waves teaches us (and Paul Dirac and the Correas and others have commented on this), that even kinetic energy adds mass, adds inertia, you should know, 14-year-old poseur - this is how light speed became the limit for the acceleration of particles, how Special Relativity found its first proof, by inference, when applied to the experiments in accelerators early in the XXth century. And this how light was first explained to bend, and how many physicists indeed claim that it is likely that photons have mass. And since all energy is electromagnetic, and all energy carries mass or inertia, ergo, syllogism of the first degree, good old logic, all electromagnetic energy carries, displays, affects, presents, inertia. What part of this lesson in accepted science still escapes you? I guess Russell, deBroglie, Dirac, our accelerator physicists are all ignorant - as proclaimed by a fake anarchist with a fake mental age.
Example 2:  Presenting false claims as if they were the claims of Aetherometry:

## Aetherometry Talk. Title: Introduction

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

Only very narrow minded people would accuse the Correas of doing this. Only classical mechanics argues that sustaining a force that holds an object immobile performs no work. I can quote textbooks if you wish. Biophysics has always argued that molecular work is involved. The Correas have proposed a theory of that molecular work. Do you want me to present it? Your lack of scientific knowledge is showing.
Oh, an electroscope is a biological system? Sure? And yes, of course, sustaining a force that holds an object immobile performs no work, is a very basic fact of physics. The pillars holding the Arch of Titus immobile for 2000 years didn't need an energy source for this. --Pjacobi 20:07, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
Biophysics does not deal solely with biological systems, but with physical systems relevant to biology. The electroscope appears indeed to be relevant to biological systems. As for the Arch of Titus - why is it crumbling anyway? Will it last until the Big Crunch? Do you say?
The physical decay is independent of holding it upright. Anyway, can you give scholarly sources, doubting $formula$
-- Pjacobi, 20:33, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
Are you claiming that the Correas' claim is that this formula is incorrect?? Please PROVE, by quoting reference. I KNOW YOU CANNOT AND WILL NOT. My reading of their work is that they identify the length component vector of that function in the behaviour of the electroscope, if you can read the integral you slapped here. Classical Mechanics claims that this distance cannot be computed. Biophysical theory is constantly confronted in having to compute it, or replacing the entire function by energy-equivalent ones, when calculating molecular work. Do you want a reference by physicists? Read the exchange that the Correas, Dr. Mallove and Dr. Storms had in public (a kinda peer review), and look up the references they provided. Do some work my friend. Learn the ABC of what you want to denounce. Your integral is in entire agreement with what the correas wrote on the subject of electroscopes and pendulums. You think that by just splattering this, you can pass for a scientist or mathematician?

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

Everyone agrees that when the gold leaf is initially repelled by the stem it has to do work against gravity. Thereafter, because the leaf seems to be essentially stationary at the macroscopic level, orthodox physics maintains that it does not have to perform any further antigravitational work, no matter how long it stays deflected. Rejecting this 'implicit and underhanded recourse to perpetual motion' by classical electrostatic theory, the Correas argue that, in the presence of a gravitational field, the leaf can only remain deflected for as long as the kinetic energy it expends in doing work against gravity can be replenished in some way.
Yes? And where is your argument?? The above formula is no argument. You do not seem to understand even the above formula - the distance that an immobile object moves while being supported on something, that something and the body being in a gravitational field, only does not exist from the phenomenological viewpoint of molar or large-scale motion. It does not preclude the motion of molecular elements in the body doing the lifting, each with their work integral, nor the summation of these integrals, as every bonehead knows! The Correas make specific claims for the electroscope, so if you want to argue, go argue with their experimental and theoretical points. What you wrote above may be argueing, but ain't arguing. An equation is not an argument, specially when it is not doubted, but e,ployed by the Correas. Do you want a reference to that too, Jacobi?
The temperature vibrations of molecules will have no net effect, as in the mean they move as much up as down. Otherwise you would see a net movement. It's
$formula$
and not
$formula$
Pjacobi, 21:33, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
No one is talking about thermal drift. It proves you have no inkling of the argument. When a material substance is under stress all sorts of electrical (have you heard of excitons?) and atomic interactions occur that are poorly understood and acknowledged as such. The Correas put forth their own theory of it. That is only laudable. How could a theory based on experiments, armed with simple equations like the one above (which proves the gratuitousness and stubborness of your POV) and which is available free to the public, be discarded A PRIORI as a hoax? Only fascists would behave that way. They too, fear knowledge above all else.

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

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

To the top of Wikipedia: A Techno-Cult of Ignorance