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

APPENDIX 8

Constant Recategorization of the Aetherometry Entry, and Related Harassments

This record comes from the history of the Aetherometry article itself.

Revision as of 18:49, 20 June 2005
Pjacobi
{{disputed}}{{cleanup}} + merges
← Older edit
Revision as of 21:33, 20 June 2005
Pjacobi
recat
Newer edit →
Line 339: Line 339:

aetherometric discoveries
aetherometric discoveries




- [[Category:Applied sciences]] + [[Category:Pseudoscience]]
- [[Category:Philosophy]] +

Revision as of 21:37, 20 June 2005
Helicoid

← Older edit
Revision as of 21:40, 20 June 2005
Pjacobi
Reverted edits by Helicoid to last version by Pjacobi
Newer edit →
Line 339: Line 339:

aetherometric discoveries
aetherometric discoveries




- [[Category:Applied sciences]] + [[Category:Pseudoscience]]
- [[Category:Philosophy]] +

Revision as of 02:25, 21 June 2005
Natalinasmpf
{{totallydisputed}}
← Older edit
Revision as of 02:28, 21 June 2005
Natalinasmpf
rm protoscience category, clearly not, replacing it with pseudoscience instead
Newer edit →
Line 653: Line 653:

encompass a philosophical account of the ethical and political 'choices'
encompass a philosophical account of the ethical and political 'choices'

that are affected by each type of machine. No scientific or philosophic
that are affected by each type of machine. No scientific or philosophic
- approach can escape being a part of one or the other type of machines. + approach can escape being a part of one or the other type of machines. {{dubious}}
-   +
- [[Category:Protoscience]] +





== References ==
== References ==
Line 665: Line 663:

Vol 1: Nanometric Functions of Bioenergy</i>,
Vol 1: Nanometric Functions of Bioenergy</i>,

Akronos Publishing, Toronto, Canada
Akronos Publishing, Toronto, Canada
  +
  + [[Category:Pseudoscience]]

Revision as of 03:08, 21 June 2005
216.254.162.101

← Older edit
Revision as of 03:08, 21 June 2005
Evil Monkey
Reverted edits by 216.254.162.101 to last version by Evil Monkey
Newer edit →
Line 8: Line 8:

{{OriginalResearch}}
{{OriginalResearch}}




- Article deleted by its sole author. No need to vote any further. + '''Aetherometry''' is a controversial concept developed by [[Paulo Correa|Dr. Paulo N. Correa]] and [[Alexandra Correa|Alexandra N. Correa]], who advocate it as ''experimental and analytical work that ''replicates, revises and continues'' the scientific contributions of [[Nikola Tesla|N. Tesla]],
  + [[Louis, 7th_duc_de_Broglie|L. de Broglie]], [[Wilhelm Reich|W.Reich]] and
  + [[Rene Thom|R. Thom]] and [[Harold Aspden|H. Aspden]] concerning '''massfree energy'''. However, this is generally rejected by the [[scientific community]] as [[pseudoscience]] concerning [[energy]] applications, and has met with severe criticism and opposition, those who also note that the credentials of the developers of the theory are questionable. The concept itself, including "massfree energy" is a probable [[neologism]], which conflicts with [[quantum mechanics]]. The probable likelihood is that their research does not continue the contributions of Tesla and similar scientists at all.
  +

Revision as of 21:41, 21 June 2005
Natalinasmpf
Yes, all of this is an extensive fraud, your plans to subvert Wikipedia to gain donations for your "new science" has backfired
← Older edit
Revision as of 22:48, 21 June 2005
Dragons flight
rm criticism of PhD, see talk.
Newer edit →
Line 9: Line 9:

{{cleanup}}
{{cleanup}}




- '''Aetherometry''' is a [[pseudoscience|pseudoscientific]] neologism conceived by [[Paulo Correa]] and [[Alexandra Correa]], who advocate it as ''experimental and analytical work that replicates, revises and continues'' the scientific contributions of revered figures such as [[Nikola Tesla]] concerning '''massfree energy''' and [[energy]] applications. However, this is generally rejected by the [[scientific community]] as [[pseudoscience]], and has met with severe criticism and opposition, those who also note that the credentials of the developers of the theory are questionable. The has shown extensive conflict with [[quantum mechanics]] as well as [[general relativity]]. It is of high probability the Correas are mere [[charlatans]]; they take the title of "[[doctor]]" but such credentials are probably [[fraud]]. + '''Aetherometry''' is a [[pseudoscience|pseudoscientific]] neologism conceived by [[Paulo Correa]] and [[Alexandra Correa]], who advocate it as ''experimental and analytical work that replicates, revises and continues'' the scientific contributions of revered figures such as [[Nikola Tesla]] concerning '''massfree energy''' and [[energy]] applications. However, this is generally rejected by the [[scientific community]] as [[pseudoscience]], and has met with severe criticism and opposition, those who also note that the credentials of the developers of the theory are questionable. The has shown extensive conflict with [[quantum mechanics]] as well as [[general relativity]]. It is of high probability the Correas are mere [[charlatans]].

Revision as of 23:00, 21 June 2005
GangofOne
Books
← Older edit
Revision as of 23:05, 21 June 2005
Natalinasmpf
doesn't exclude them from possible (and most likely) charlatantry
Newer edit →
Line 9: Line 9:

{{cleanup}}
{{cleanup}}




- '''Aetherometry''' is a [[pseudoscience|pseudoscientific]] neologism conceived by [[Paulo Correa]] and [[Alexandra Correa]], who advocate it as ''experimental and analytical work that replicates, revises and continues'' the scientific contributions of revered figures such as [[Nikola Tesla]] concerning '''massfree energy''' and [[energy]] applications. However, this is generally rejected by the [[scientific community]] as [[pseudoscience]], and has met with severe criticism and opposition, those who also note that the credentials of the developers of the theory are questionable. The has shown extensive conflict with [[quantum mechanics]] as well as [[general relativity]]. + '''Aetherometry''' is a [[pseudoscience|pseudoscientific]] neologism conceived by [[Paulo Correa]] and [[Alexandra Correa]], who advocate it as ''experimental and analytical work that replicates, revises and continues'' the scientific contributions of revered figures such as [[Nikola Tesla]] concerning '''massfree energy''' and [[energy]] applications. However, this is generally rejected by the [[scientific community]] as [[pseudoscience]], and has met with severe criticism and opposition, those who also note that the credentials of the developers of the theory are questionable. The very concept of Aetherometry has shown extensive conflict with [[quantum mechanics]] as well as [[general relativity]]. There has been significant attempts by the Correas to gain followers for what they term as a "new [[scientific discipline": however, this is most likely [[charlatan|charlatantry]].

Revision as of 16:21, 24 June 2005
Natalinasmpf
NPOV? we have to represent the scientific community, who deserve to be represented as mainstream science
← Older edit
Revision as of 16:39, 24 June 2005
William M. Connolley
I don't think it true to say that mainstream science opposes this gumpf - it just ignores it. Kirlian photo, etc, aren't subfields of science - they are non science.
Newer edit →
Line 12: Line 12:








- '''Aetherometry''' is a [[neologism]] coined by Dr. [[Paulo Correa]] and [[Alexandra Correa]] to describe their alternative scientific theories, which range over many scientific fields, ( such as [[physics]], [[chemistry]], [[biophysics]]) and many controversial subfields, such as orgonomy, + '''Aetherometry''' is a [[neologism]] coined by Dr. [[Paulo Correa]] and [[Alexandra Correa]] to describe their alternative theories, which range over many scientific fields, ( such as [[physics]], [[chemistry]], [[biophysics]]) and many controversial fields, such as orgonomy,

Kirlian photography, aether theories, alternative theory of [[De Broglie]]'s matter waves, Le Sage-type theory of gravity and the aetherometric cancer project. Inspirations for it include interpretations of part of [[Nikola Tesla]]'s work that was never accepted by conventional science,
Kirlian photography, aether theories, alternative theory of [[De Broglie]]'s matter waves, Le Sage-type theory of gravity and the aetherometric cancer project. Inspirations for it include interpretations of part of [[Nikola Tesla]]'s work that was never accepted by conventional science,
- and the theories of Dr. [[Wilhelm Reich]] and [[Gilles Deleuze]]. One should note however, that these are interpretations of their work, and not necessarily what would be their views. Other influences include Dr. [[Harold Aspden]]'s physical theories, and Dr.[[Eugene Mallove]]. However, this theory has met strong opposition from the [[scientific community]], who also note that often such theories lack [[peer review]], and allege such a theory as [[pseudoscience|pseuoscientific]]. + and the theories of Dr. [[Wilhelm Reich]] and [[Gilles Deleuze]]. One should note however, that these are interpretations of their work, and not necessarily what would be their views. Other influences include Dr. [[Harold Aspden]]'s physical theories, and Dr.[[Eugene Mallove]]. However, this theory has largely been ignored as irrelevant by the [[scientific community]]. Often such theories lack [[peer review]] and may be [[pseudoscience|pseuoscientific]].










Revision as of 18:02, 24 June 2005
Natalinasmpf
wikify
← Older edit
Revision as of 19:32, 24 June 2005
William M. Connolley
No, its not because its new, its because it isn't peer reviewed (actually, its because its total twaddle, but sadly wiki NPOV won't let us say that)
Newer edit →


Revision as of 23:25, 24 June 2005
Karada
trimming
← Older edit
Revision as of 23:26, 24 June 2005
Karada
pseudoscience
Newer edit →
Line 13: Line 13:

Aetherometry has largely been ignored by the [[scientific community]], as no papers on it have succeeded in being published in peer reviewed journals.
Aetherometry has largely been ignored by the [[scientific community]], as no papers on it have succeeded in being published in peer reviewed journals.




- Proponents of Aetherometry state that this is because the scientific community is unable to accommodate the revolutionary new ideas of Aetherometry. Detractors of Aetherometry state that the reason is that Aetherometry is simply nonsense, or pseudoscience at best, with no meaningful scientific content. + Proponents of Aetherometry state that this is because the scientific community is unable to accommodate the revolutionary new ideas of Aetherometry. Detractors of Aetherometry state that the reason is that Aetherometry is simply nonsense, or [[pseudoscience]] at best, with no meaningful scientific content.





[[Category:Pseudoscience]]
[[Category:Pseudoscience]]

Revision as of 01:41, 25 June 2005
Theresa knott
you cant know who has read what so this has to go
← Older edit
Revision as of 02:39, 25 June 2005
Theresa knott
Do you prefere this?
Newer edit →
Line 11: Line 11:




- Aetherometry has been ignored by the [[scientific community]] and no papers on it have appeared in mainstream peer-reviewed journals. A number of papers on it have appeared in peer-reviewed publications dedicated to "alternative science". Detractors of aetherometry state that it appears to be at best an attempt at [[pseudoscience]]. + Aetherometry has been ignored by the [[scientific community]] and no papers on it have appeared in mainstream peer-reviewed journals. A number of papers on it have appeared in peer-reviewed publications dedicated to "alternative science". Such publications are not treated seriously by mainstream sciemtists.

Revision as of 12:33, 25 June 2005
Karada
weasel words "point out" -> NPOV "state"
← Older edit
Revision as of 12:53, 25 June 2005
Mel Etitis
tidied, added wikilinks & comment
Newer edit →
Line 14: Line 14:





Proponents of aetherometry state that the process of "acceptance" by the scientific community is
Proponents of aetherometry state that the process of "acceptance" by the scientific community is
- heavily politicised, and governed by an interplay of entrenched interests - both intellectual and material - and that an acceptance of aetherometry, or even any interest in understanding it on the part of the mainstream "scientific community" is not likely to take place is any near future. There is an aspiration regard it as an alternate "scientific paradigm" and hope aetherometry may have some new and valid content, which may be integrated into the body of science in the future. + heavily politicised, and governed by an interplay of entrenched interests &ndash; both intellectual and material &ndash; and that an acceptance of aetherometry, or even any interest in understanding it on the part of the mainstream "scientific community" is not likely to take place is any near future. Some regard it as an alternative "scientific [[paradigm]]", and hope aetherometry may have some new and valid content which may be integrated into the body of science in the future. This, however, involves a misunderstanding of the [[Thomas Samuel Kuhn|Kuhnian]] notion of a paradigm.

Revision as of 17:38, 25 June 2005
TTLightningRod
Linguistics
← Older edit
Revision as of 17:47, 25 June 2005
Mel Etitis
copy-edited, added more details of paradigms, rm unattributed quotation and oddly-placed paragraphs of special pleading
Newer edit →
Line 9: Line 9:

<!-- End of VfD message, feel free to edit beyond this point -->
<!-- End of VfD message, feel free to edit beyond this point -->








- Proponents of aetherometry state that the process of "acceptance" by the scientific community is + Proponents of aetherometry state that the process of acceptance by the scientific community is
- heavily politicised, and governed by an interplay of entrenched interests &ndash; both intellectual and material &ndash; and that an acceptance of aetherometry, or even any interest in understanding it on the part of the mainstream "scientific community" is not likely to take place is any near future. Some regard it as an alternative "scientific [[paradigm]]", and hope aetherometry may have some new and valid content which may be integrated into the body of science in the future. + heavily politicised, and governed by an interplay of entrenched interests &ndash; both intellectual and material &ndash; and that an acceptance of aetherometry, or even any interest in understanding it on the part of the mainstream scientific community, is not likely to take place is the near future. Some regard it as an alternative scientific [[paradigm]], and hope aetherometry may have some new and valid content which may be integrated into the body of science in the future. This, however, involves a misunderstanding of the [[Thomas Samuel Kuhn|Kuhnian]] notion of a paradigm. Science is defined in terms of a shared paradigm; whatever lies outside that paradigm (which is defined in large part as a shared set of techniques, theories, and [[exemplar]]s) is by definition not science (if it claims to be scientific, then it is pseudo-science). In other words, the very notion of an alternative scientific paradigm is self-contradictory.

Revision as of 05:16, 27 June 2005
Natalinasmpf
rv - the people voting can be notified that this is so, but was for the people not participating in the vote, it has to be otherwise
← Older edit
Revision as of 04:37, 28 June 2005
Theresa knott

Newer edit →
Line 68: Line 68:

* [http://www.orgonelab.org/correas.htm Criticisms of Paulo and Alexandra Correas work] by James DeMeo.
* [http://www.orgonelab.org/correas.htm Criticisms of Paulo and Alexandra Correas work] by James DeMeo.

:*[http://www.aetherometry.com/publications/direct/ACT-01.pdf A rebuttal of James DeMeo's criticisms]
:*[http://www.aetherometry.com/publications/direct/ACT-01.pdf A rebuttal of James DeMeo's criticisms]
  +
  + [[Category:Protoscience]]


Revision as of 04:49, 28 June 2005
Pgio

← Older edit
Revision as of 04:52, 28 June 2005
Pgio
Oops! Forgot a 'the' and this summary. Ms. Theresa Knott has kindly changed the category of this article, because I didn't know how.
Newer edit →


In Talk:

"Categorising Aetherometry as protoscience seems a very sensible idea to me. I have done it for you but for future reference all you need to do is type [[category:Protoscience]] somewhere on the page (Usually at either the top or the bottom of the article)" Theresa Knott (ask the rotten), 28 June 2005 04:41 (UTC)
I very narrowly agree with the recategorizing. The process followed by the Correas has some superficial similarty with the scientific method, but only as a farce. And I'm somewhat suspicious abou science nuts, who don't see the large, flashing signs of bad physics, like physical constants of exactly 0.12m or π m/s. Pjacobi, June 28, 2005 08:46 (UTC)


Revision as of 04:52, 28 June 2005
Pgio
Oops! Forgot a 'the' and this summary. Ms. Theresa Knott has kindly changed the category of this article, because I didn't know how.
← Older edit
Revision as of 07:43, 28 June 2005
The Anome
Aetherometry is largely ignored by mainstream science.
Newer edit →
Line 12: Line 12:

[[Eugene Mallove]], who was a pioneer and a proponent of alternative energy, was a public supporter of aetherometry, and was one of the founding members of the International Society of the Friends of Aetherometry.
[[Eugene Mallove]], who was a pioneer and a proponent of alternative energy, was a public supporter of aetherometry, and was one of the founding members of the International Society of the Friends of Aetherometry.




- Because the existence of massfree energy and the status of aetherometry as a scientific discipline is largely unrecognized by mainstream science, Wikipedia categorizes Aetherometry as a [[protoscience]]. + Aetherometry is largely ignored by mainstream science.

Revision as of 04:53, 29 June 2005
Theresa knott
einstein removed again. Calling it the Reich -Einstein experiment is wrong when einstein did not publish this experiment
← Older edit
Revision as of 05:04, 29 June 2005
Theresa knott
Mainstream physics no longer recognises the existance of an aether
Newer edit →
Line 6: Line 6:

<!-- End of VfD message, feel free to edit beyond this point -->
<!-- End of VfD message, feel free to edit beyond this point -->




- "'''Aetherometry'''" is a [[neologism]] coined by Paulo and Alexandra Correa to denote the experimental and analytical system they developed, the goal of which is asserted to be the precise experimental and theoretical study of "massfree energy" (the metrics of the massfree [[aether]]). + "'''Aetherometry'''" is a [[neologism]] coined by Paulo and Alexandra Correa to denote the experimental and analytical system they developed, the goal of which is asserted to be the precise experimental and theoretical study of "massfree energy" (the metrics of the massfree [[aether]]). Massfree energy is not a term used by mainstream physisists and the existance of an aether is no longer accepted by mainstream physisists.

And one can always count on another Administrator to come out of nowhere and recategorize:

Revision as of 01:13, 30 June 2005
Helicoid
Added link
← Older edit
Revision as of 01:38, 30 June 2005
Geni
rm Category:Protoscience
Newer edit →
Line 28: Line 28:




-
 
- [[Category:Protoscience]]  


Revision as of 01:54, 30 June 2005
216.254.156.153
Restored cat: protoscience
← Older edit
Revision as of 01:57, 30 June 2005
Geni
rv this is jnot a protoscience
Newer edit →
Line 28: Line 28:

* [http://www.orgonelab.org/correas.htm Criticisms of Vol 1 of Experimental Aetherometry] by James DeMeo.
* [http://www.orgonelab.org/correas.htm Criticisms of Vol 1 of Experimental Aetherometry] by James DeMeo.

:*[http://www.aetherometry.com/publications/direct/ACT-01.pdf A rebuttal of James DeMeo's criticisms]
:*[http://www.aetherometry.com/publications/direct/ACT-01.pdf A rebuttal of James DeMeo's criticisms]
-
 
- [[Category:Protoscience]]  


Revision as of 04:34, 30 June 2005
Theresa knott

← Older edit
Revision as of 05:11, 30 June 2005
Pgio
To Geni: I honestly believe this fits Protoscience perfectly. The present article probably isn't the best way to judge this new science -- you'd have to read the primary sources. Thanks.
Newer edit →
Line 5: Line 5:

You are welcome to edit this article, but please do not blank, merge, or move this article, or remove this notice, while the discussion is in progress. For more information, read the [[Wikipedia:Guide to Votes for deletion|Guide to ''Votes for Deletion'']].</div>[[Category:Pages on votes for deletion]]
You are welcome to edit this article, but please do not blank, merge, or move this article, or remove this notice, while the discussion is in progress. For more information, read the [[Wikipedia:Guide to Votes for deletion|Guide to ''Votes for Deletion'']].</div>[[Category:Pages on votes for deletion]]

<!-- End of VfD message, feel free to edit beyond this point -->
<!-- End of VfD message, feel free to edit beyond this point -->
  +
  + [[Category:Protoscience]]





Revision as of 15:28, 1 July 2005
Karada
External links - (from the Aetherometry site)
← Older edit
Revision as of 15:36, 1 July 2005
Linas
recat to Category:Pseudophysics
Newer edit →
Line 24: Line 24:

*[http://wikinfo.org/wiki.php?title=Aetherometry_(by_Malgosia_Askanas) Aetherometry article by Malgosia Askanas] and [http://wikinfo.org/wiki.php?title=Aetherometry another person] on [[Wikinfo]]
*[http://wikinfo.org/wiki.php?title=Aetherometry_(by_Malgosia_Askanas) Aetherometry article by Malgosia Askanas] and [http://wikinfo.org/wiki.php?title=Aetherometry another person] on [[Wikinfo]]




- [[Category:Protoscience]] + [[Category:Pseudophysics]]

Revision as of 03:07, 2 July 2005
GangofOne
fix link to th 1941 experiment
← Older edit
Revision as of 06:00, 2 July 2005
Theresa knott
Let's try having both categories
Newer edit →
Line 24: Line 24:

*[http://wikinfo.org/wiki.php?title=Aetherometry_(by_Malgosia_Askanas) Aetherometry article by Malgosia Askanas] and [http://wikinfo.org/wiki.php?title=Aetherometry another person] on [[Wikinfo]]
*[http://wikinfo.org/wiki.php?title=Aetherometry_(by_Malgosia_Askanas) Aetherometry article by Malgosia Askanas] and [http://wikinfo.org/wiki.php?title=Aetherometry another person] on [[Wikinfo]]




- [[Category:Protoscience]] + [[Category:Protoscience]][[Category:Pseudoscience]]

Revision as of 04:27, 3 July 2005
4.247.13.235

← Older edit
Revision as of 07:17, 3 July 2005
Theresa knott
Adding category back in, removing irrelavent comment
Newer edit →




- [[Category:Protoscience]] + [[Category:Protoscience]][[Category:Pseudophysics]]


Revision as of 13:35, 3 July 2005
216.254.159.18

← Older edit
Revision as of 14:25, 3 July 2005
Mel Etitis
rv to Theresa knott, plus removal of redundant term
Newer edit →








- [[Category:Protoscience]] + [[Category:Protoscience]][[Category:Pseudophysics]]




← Older edit
Revision as of 20:21, 3 July 2005
Theresa knott
I really do think we should have both categories. Notice that I didn't replace protoscience with pseudophysics. But it's important that the reader is notified that this isn't physics.
Newer edit →
Line 26: Line 26:





[[Category:Protoscience]]
[[Category:Protoscience]]
  + [[Category:Pseudophysics]]

Revision as of 21:28, 3 July 2005
4.232.6.240
Refer to discussion page.
← Older edit
Revision as of 21:39, 3 July 2005
Theresa knott
Actually I did justify the inclusion of this category on the talk page. Yet you reverted me without explanation. Did you read the talk page?
Newer edit →
Line 26: Line 26:





[[Category:Protoscience]]
[[Category:Protoscience]]
  + [[Category:Pseudophysics]]

Revision as of 23:04, 3 July 2005
209.183.20.149

← Older edit
Revision as of 04:43, 4 July 2005
Theresa knott
Explaining why not publishing is bad
Newer edit →




[[Category:Protoscience]]
[[Category:Protoscience]]
  + [[Category:Pseudophysics]]

Revision as of 13:59, 4 July 2005
209.183.20.136
An encyclopedia is not the place for fatuous didacticism.
← Older edit
Revision as of 15:08, 4 July 2005
Pjacobi
Category:Pseudophysics
Newer edit →





[[Category:Protoscience]]
[[Category:Protoscience]]
  + [[Category:Pseudophysics]]



Revision as of 19:36, 4 July 2005
TTLightningRod
removed as non sequitur (see: American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language.)
← Older edit
Revision as of 19:37, 4 July 2005
Pjacobi
Reverted edits by TTLightningRod to last version by Pjacobi
Newer edit →





[[Category:Protoscience]]
[[Category:Protoscience]]
  + [[Category:Pseudophysics]]

Revision as of 19:38, 4 July 2005
TTLightningRod
removed as non sequitur (see: American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language.)
← Older edit
Revision as of 19:39, 4 July 2005
Pjacobi
rv, see talk
Newer edit →





[[Category:Protoscience]]
[[Category:Protoscience]]
  + [[Category:Pseudophysics]]

Note that the preceding constituted a violation of the 3-Revert Rule by Administrator PJacobi.


Revision as of 00:21, 5 July 2005
216.254.161.148

← Older edit
Revision as of 04:28, 5 July 2005
Theresa knott
category again. This cetegory fits perfectly. Please stop removing it
Newer edit →





[[Category:Protoscience]]
[[Category:Protoscience]]
  + [[Category:Peseudophysics]]

Revision as of 04:28, 5 July 2005
Theresa knott
category again. This cetegory fits perfectly. Please stop removing it
← Older edit
Revision as of 04:28, 5 July 2005
Theresa knott
whoops!
Newer edit →





[[Category:Protoscience]]
[[Category:Protoscience]]
- [[Category:Peseudophysics]] + [[Category:Pseudophysics]]

Revision as of 14:24, 5 July 2005
4.233.126.103
Category needs renaming.
← Older edit
Revision as of 15:27, 5 July 2005
Mel Etitis
Reverted edits by 4.233.126.103 to last version by William M. Connolley
Newer edit →







[[Category:Protoscience]]
[[Category:Protoscience]]
  + [[Category:Pseudophysics]]


First (proactive) proposal that the category "Pseudophysics", which supposedly was created to accommodate non-mainstream science, should be renamed "Non-mainstream science":

Revision as of 15:35, 5 July 2005
216.254.160.187
More accurate category name
← Older edit
Revision as of 16:14, 5 July 2005
William M. Connolley
rv pointless switch to non-existent cat
Newer edit →





[[Category:Protoscience]]
[[Category:Protoscience]]
- [[Category:Non-mainstream science]] + [[Category:Pseudophysics]]

Revision as of 17:13, 5 July 2005
4.240.78.8
Remove misleading category title. Needs renaming.
← Older edit
Revision as of 18:11, 5 July 2005
Pjacobi
Reverted edits by 4.240.78.8 to last version by William M. Connolley
Newer edit →







[[Category:Protoscience]]
[[Category:Protoscience]]
  + [[Category:Pseudophysics]]


Revision as of 21:27, 5 July 2005
209.29.165.62
Rm. tendentious, badly defined POV category
← Older edit
Revision as of 21:27, 5 July 2005
Theresa knott
Reverted edits by 209.29.165.62 to last version by Timwi
Newer edit →





[[Category:Protoscience]]
[[Category:Protoscience]]
  + [[Category:Pseudophysics]]

Revision as of 21:49, 5 July 2005
216.254.167.33

← Older edit
Revision as of 21:52, 5 July 2005
Salsb
(Reverted edits by 216.254.167.33 to last version by Theresa knott)
Newer edit →





[[Category:Protoscience]]
[[Category:Protoscience]]
- [[Category:Pataphysics]] + [[Category:Pseudophysics]]

Revision as of 22:01, 5 July 2005
216.254.167.33

← Older edit
Revision as of 22:03, 5 July 2005
Theresa knott
Reverted edits by 216.254.167.33 to last version by Salsb
Newer edit →





[[Category:Protoscience]]
[[Category:Protoscience]]
- [[Category:Psudophysics]] + [[Category:Pseudophysics]]

Revision as of 22:26, 5 July 2005
216.254.157.113

← Older edit
Revision as of 22:26, 5 July 2005
Theresa knott
Reverted edits by 216.254.157.113 to last version by Pjacobi
Newer edit →







[[Category:Protoscience]]
[[Category:Protoscience]]
- [[Category:Pataphysics]] + [[Category:Pseudophysics]]

Revision as of 22:32, 5 July 2005
216.254.163.67

← Older edit
Revision as of 22:34, 5 July 2005
Pjacobi
Reverted edits by 216.254.163.67 to last version by Theresa knott
Newer edit →





[[Category:Protoscience]]
[[Category:Protoscience]]
  + [[Category:Pseudophysics]]

Revision as of 22:34, 5 July 2005
Pjacobi
Reverted edits by 216.254.163.67 to last version by Theresa knott
← Older edit
Revision as of 22:55, 5 July 2005
Salsb
category
Newer edit →
Line 27: Line 27:

*Drew, David (2005). "[http://www.plasmacosmology.net Plasma Cosmology]". Retrieved [[June 25]] [[2005]]
*Drew, David (2005). "[http://www.plasmacosmology.net Plasma Cosmology]". Retrieved [[June 25]] [[2005]]




- [[Category:Protoscience]]  

[[Category:Pseudophysics]]
[[Category:Pseudophysics]]


Revision as of 22:55, 5 July 2005
Salsb
category
← Older edit
Revision as of 23:02, 5 July 2005
Theresa knott
Putting the protoscience category back in. I'm personally not sure if it should be in or out, but as a matter of fairness to the advocates you should justify the removal on the talk page
Newer edit →
Line 27: Line 27:

*Drew, David (2005). "[http://www.plasmacosmology.net Plasma Cosmology]". Retrieved [[June 25]] [[2005]]
*Drew, David (2005). "[http://www.plasmacosmology.net Plasma Cosmology]". Retrieved [[June 25]] [[2005]]




  + [[Category:Protoscience]]

[[Category:Pseudophysics]]
[[Category:Pseudophysics]]


Revision as of 23:16, 5 July 2005
Theresa knott
it's only a claim
← Older edit
Revision as of 23:40, 5 July 2005
Theresa knott
removing the protoscience category in the light of Salsb's justification for removing it on the talk page
Newer edit →
Line 27: Line 27:

*Drew, David (2005). "[http://www.plasmacosmology.net Plasma Cosmology]". Retrieved [[June 25]] [[2005]]
*Drew, David (2005). "[http://www.plasmacosmology.net Plasma Cosmology]". Retrieved [[June 25]] [[2005]]




- [[Category:Protoscience]] +  

[[Category:Pseudophysics]]
[[Category:Pseudophysics]]


And what exactly was it that Salsb (Freddie Salsbury) wrote in Talk? He wrote:

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

Of course, Freddie had been given plenty of references to peer-reviewed reports of experiments, but he doesn't mean those; what he means - but, poor malicious sod that he appears to be, cannot express in his voluntarily crippled conceptual framework - is that he wants reports that were peer-reviewed in mainstream publications. But you know what? The definition of the category "Protoscience", at least as it was in those heady days of July 2005, says absolutely nothing about mainstream publications! Here is the definition, in full:

In the philosophy of science, the term protoscience is used to describe a new area of scientific endeavor in the process of becoming established. While protoscience is often speculative, it is to be distinguished from pseudoscience by its adherence to the scientific method and standard practices of good science, most notably a willingness to be disproven by new evidence (if and when it appears), or supplanted by a more-predictive theory.

Fits Aetherometry perfectly, no? But we digress... Back to our history. The next event - in light of the fact that the proposal to change the name of the category "Pseudophysics" to "Non-mainstream science" fell on deaf ears - was the actual creation, by one of the "supporters" of Aetherometry, of a new category named "Non-mainstream science". Note how the next sequence reveals that "Pseudophysics", in spite of its pretences, was never really intended to "neutrally" encompass non-mainstream scientific endeavors:

Revision as of 00:36, 6 July 2005
216.254.160.187

← Older edit
Revision as of 00:40, 6 July 2005
Salsb

Newer edit →
Line 29: Line 29:





[[Category:Non-mainstream science]]
[[Category:Non-mainstream science]]
  + [[Category:Pseudophysics]]



← Older edit
Revision as of 05:22, 13 July 2005
Linas
add cat Category:Pseudophysics
Newer edit →




-   + [[Category:Pseudophysics]]

[[Category:Non-mainstream science]]
[[Category:Non-mainstream science]]

Revision as of 13:14, 13 July 2005
4.231.175.124
External links
← Older edit
Revision as of 13:35, 13 July 2005
Salsb
rv to linas
Newer edit →




  + [[Category:Pseudophysics]]

[[Category:Non-mainstream science]]
[[Category:Non-mainstream science]]

Revision as of 15:26, 13 July 2005
4.233.123.144
rv pseudophysics tag team's POV category
← Older edit
Revision as of 15:51, 13 July 2005
Salsb
rv linas
Newer edit →




  + [[Category:Pseudophysics]]

[[Category:Non-mainstream science]]
[[Category:Non-mainstream science]]

Revision as of 17:00, 13 July 2005
4.233.126.20
rv tag team's inappropriate category - again.
← Older edit
Revision as of 17:19, 13 July 2005
William M. Connolley
rv to S
Newer edit →




-   + [[Category:Pseudophysics]]

[[Category:Non-mainstream science]]
[[Category:Non-mainstream science]]

Revision as of 17:35, 13 July 2005
4.231.172.243
* Oh, of course, the Connolley member of the tag team club checking in. Next you can bring in Chris Thomas and Pjacobi. Hell, you can even bring in Laura
← Older edit
Revision as of 17:43, 13 July 2005
William M. Connolley
Rv again. Instead of bleating about tag teams, try thinking why so many editors oppose your edits.
Newer edit →




-   + [[Category:Pseudophysics]]

[[Category:Non-mainstream science]]
[[Category:Non-mainstream science]]


Revision as of 20:16, 13 July 2005
4.233.122.237
One could hardly qualify you lot as editors - and no matter how often your little club bleats pseudophysics and stamps its biased POV stamp here - it simply isn't.
← Older edit
Revision as of 20:19, 13 July 2005
Salsb
rv to W; undoing anon user's 5th reversion of the day
Newer edit →




  + [[Category:Pseudophysics]]

[[Category:Non-mainstream science]]
[[Category:Non-mainstream science]]

Revision as of 20:51, 13 July 2005
4.231.169.101
Yes. Your little tag team has been very busy
← Older edit
Revision as of 21:04, 13 July 2005
Pjacobi
Reverted edits by 4.231.169.101 to last version by Salsb
Newer edit →




-   + [[Category:Pseudophysics]]

[[Category:Non-mainstream science]]
[[Category:Non-mainstream science]]

Revision as of 22:29, 13 July 2005
4.231.171.215
Of course, the tag team pary just wouldn't be complete without Pjacobi
? Older edit
Revision as of 22:53, 13 July 2005
Pjacobi
Reverted edits by 4.231.171.215 to last version by Pjacobi
Newer edit →




-   + [[Category:Pseudophysics]]

[[Category:Non-mainstream science]]
[[Category:Non-mainstream science]]

Revision as of 13:08, 14 July 2005
62.178.37.244
Corrected the list of PhD-credentialled scientist reviewers.
← Older edit
Revision as of 14:03, 14 July 2005
Salsb
return cat
Newer edit →





[[Category:Non-mainstream science]]
[[Category:Non-mainstream science]]
  + [[Category:Pseudophysics]

Revision as of 15:05, 14 July 2005
4.233.121.177
rv Inappropriate category
← Older edit
Revision as of 15:33, 14 July 2005
Mel Etitis
tidied; replaced category
Newer edit →





[[Category:Non-mainstream science]]
[[Category:Non-mainstream science]]
  + [[Category:Pseudophysics]]


On July 18th, the category "Non-mainstream Science" was voted to be deleted (actually, the term used was "merged", but the effects were exactly the same). The pretended reason for the "merging" was that the caterory was redundant, since the category "Pseudophysics" had exactly the same purpose (to accommodate non-mainstream scientific theories). One could, of course, wonder why it was not the category "Pseudophysics" that was voted for elimination - i.e. for merging into the much more accurately named "Non-mainstream science", rather than the other way around. Yes, one could indeed wonder, but the answer, given the rest of the history, is pretty clear. And, in keeping with this clarity, note that as soon as "Non-mainstream science" was eliminated, the Aetherometry entry was recategorized from "Non-mainstream science" to - what? the supposedly synonymous category "Pseudophysics" that Linas had supposedly created for it, and that everybody was for a while so intent on putting it into? Not at all. It was recategorized - to "Pseudocience"!! See for yourself:


← Older edit
Revision as of 12:32, 18 July 2005
Kbdank71 (Talk | contribs)
recat
Newer edit →




- [[Category:Non-mainstream science]] + [[Category:Pseudoscience]]


On the next day, after a bit more "cleanup" in which the list of peer-reviewers of work in Aetherometry was once again removed, the entry was made "protected" against "vandalism" (i.e. was locked against attempts to edit it), with the Pseudoscience categorization firmly in place:

Here, for the record, is the version that was locked:



Aetherometry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

"Aetherometry" is a term coined by biophysicist and molecular biologist Paulo Correa and Alexandra Correa to denote the experimental and analytical system they claim to have developed, the goal of which is asserted to be the precise experimental and theoretical study of "massfree energy" (or, as they also put it, the study of the "metrics of the massfree aether"). (Note that "massfree energy" is not a term used by mainstream physicists.) Unlike those previous theories of the aether which were ruled out by the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment, aetherometry proponents claim that their concept of massfree energy provides a theory of the aether based upon that null result.

Aetherometry claims to provide a different foundation for much of accepted physics, chemistry, and biophysics, and to go beyond them by explaining a number of what its supporters claim are hitherto unexplained anomalies. Among the subjects it addresses are blackbody radiation, microwave cosmic background radiation, Kirlian photography, Tesla coil resonance, electroscopic discharge, anomalous cathode reaction forces, autoelectronic emission, the thermal effects of orgone accumulators, the 1941 Reich-Einstein experiment, and the Orgone motor. It also claims to explain the failures of a number of controversial theories in minor fields of scientific investigation, such as orgonomy, LeSage-type theory of gravity, and models for cold fusion. The main philosophical influences claimed by aetherometry are Friedrich Nietzsche, Camillo Berneri, and Gilles Deleuze while its main scientific influences are claimed to be Nikola Tesla, Louis de Broglie, Wilhelm Reich, Harold Aspden, and René Thom.

In particular, aetherometry appears to be, in part, a continuation of Reich's investigations into orgone energy. Its proponents claim to have experimentally confirmed most of Reich's claimed experimental results, and have proposed theoretical explanations for them [1]. In aetherometry, Reich's Orgone and DOR energies are regarded as forming a single spectrum of "ambipolar massfree electric radiation". [2]. In spite of aetherometry's connections to Reich's work, some aetherometrists are highly critical of Reich's followers [3].

Eugene Mallove, founder of Infinite Energy magazine, was a public supporter of aetherometry, and was one of the founding members of the International Society of Friends of Aetherometry.

Papers, books and DVDs in Aetherometry have been published by Akronos Publishing (a Canadian publishing house in which Paulo Correa and Alexandra Correa are partners) and in the non-mainstream peer-reviewed science magazine Infinite Energy, but not in peer-reviewed mainstream scientific publications. None of the papers have been cited in peer-reviewed mainstream scientific publications.

According to aetherometry's supporters, work in aetherometry, including plasma physics, biophysics and technology-tests, has been independently reviewed by a number of scientists and medical doctors. The Correas' website provides a set of references to aetherometry research (linked below), which includes the names of a number of their supporters and endorsers.

External links

Advocacy:

Criticism:

  • See also the Correas' rebuttal of the above

Related sites:

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aetherometry"

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