To AKRONOS Main Page
To the top of Wikipedia: A Techno-Cult of Ignorance
Letter to Jimbo Wales requesting the removal of the Aetherometry entry from Wikipedia (July 27)
Dear Mr. Jimbo Wales -
We, the undersigned, come by this means to request that the entry 'Aetherometry'
be removed from Wikipedia. A reasoned argument would be too extensive and
unnecessary when a simple demonstration of the fact that the topic/entry
does not qualify by Wikipedia's own standards suffices. These standards
include the section defined as:
A simple comparison with the criteria for such exclusions clearly
identifies the Aetherometry entry as amongst those that should be excluded
by Wikipedia policy:
What is excluded from articles
As the creators and inventors/discoverers of Aetherometry,
we can categorically state that the entry Aetherometry should count as
original research because:
A Wikipedia entry (including any part of an article) counts as original research if it proposes ideas, that is:
- it introduces a theory or method of solution; or
- it introduces original ideas; or
- it defines new terms; or
- it provides new definitions of old terms; or
- it introduces an original argument purporting to refute or support
another idea, theory, argument, or position described in the article; or
- it introduces neologisms.
All of the above may be acceptable content once they have become a permanent
feature of the public landscape. For example:
- the ideas have been accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal;
- the ideas have become newsworthy: they have been independently reported in newspapers or news stories (such as the cold fusion story).
If you have an idea that you think should become part of the corpus of knowledge that is Wikipedia, the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet, and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan manner.
The fact that we exclude something does not necessarily mean
that material is bad – Wikipedia is simply not the proper venue
for it. We would have to turn away even Pulitzer-level journalism and Nobel-level science if its authors tried to publish it first on Wikipedia.
Moreover, keeping the present entry in its highly contentious form
is neither accurate nor fair to our extensive work, ie Aetherometry, nor
is it of any discernible service to the public. In light of these simple
facts, we hereby request that the entry be immediately and entirely removed.
- Aetherometry introduces a novel theory and several new methods
for the solution of accepted scientific problems or questions;
- Aetherometry introduces original ideas;
- Aetherometry defines new terms, concepts and functions;
- Aetherometry provides new definitions of old terms like mass and
- Aetherometry introduces many original arguments that claim to
refute and overcome conventional, mainstream science;
- Aetherometry introduces neologisms, beginning with the name Aetherometry;
- The experiments and ideas behind Aetherometry have been peer-reviewed
by credentialed peers, patent examiners and test-evaluators, and published
in alternative physics publications, but not submitted to any mainstream
science publications, and thus have not been peer-reviewed by mainstream
Paulo Correa, MSc, PhD
Alexandra Correa, HBA
PS - Our request is to remove the entry "Aetherometry", but we would
like you to note that we also specifically object to the abusive and
present classification of Aetherometry in a locked Wikipedia entry, as Pseudoscience.
A short confrontation of the terms employed in the Wikipedia classification
of Pseudoscience (in bold below) with respect to Aetherometry, easily illustrates
the fact that this classification is, in the case of Aetherometry, purely
1. Asserting claims without supporting experimental evidence:
All the non-speculative claims asserted by Aetherometry have been
backed by experiments; these are experiments that were published in non-mainstream
scientific publications and in various instances reviewed by a variety
of peers, but predominantly independent ones.
The list of all these experiments was present in Dr. Askanas's original
submission to Wikipedia, under Experimental Aetherometry, but this was vandalized
and suppressed in a shockingly fascistic fashion. The archived record of
this process is a public disgrace. Dr. E. Mallove's description of many of
these experiments was equally discarded. So were the abstracts of many of
these papers collected at www.aetherometry.com by a small, independent
scientific publisher (Akronos Publishing), under the rubric of 'vanity press'.
Deliberate suppression of information makes it appears that there is no experimental
evidence for Aetherometry.
2. Asserting claims which contradict experimentally established results
No claim of Aetherometry contradicts established results, even if
many claims or findings of Aetherometry contradict official, institutional,
established, mainstream interpretations of established results. An example
in point is: to claim that a demonstrable, massfree dynamic Aether exists
is not in direct contradiction with any established results - since the
Aether that was abrogated by established results was a ponderable, stationary,
3. Failing to provide an experimental possibility of reproducible
Again, the extensive list of all the experiments backing up Aetherometry
was present in Dr. Askanas's original submission, under Experimental Aetherometry,
but was suppressed. The argument that some of these findings are in publications
which must be purchased is specious, since all mainstream and non-mainstream
science publications must also be purchased - through magazine subscription,
through governmental allocation of tax dollars, etc. A list of independent
authors and references citing Aetherometry in the entry itself, was also
equally removed, as was a list of peers, examiners and test-evaluators. Every
attempt was made to discredit not only our work but the work of any evaluator
sufficiently courageous to have made his/her observations known.
4. Violating Occam's Razor (the principle of choosing the simplest explanation when multiple viable explanations are possible)
This hardly applies, when Aetherometry presents explanations that
are significantly simpler than many of the conventional models for well
established facts. Indeed, Aetherometry claims to follow strictly the Ockham's
razor principle. Yet we should note that there is nothing in this principle
that precludes the identification, isolation or addition of complexifying
variables which can demonstrably be proven as real and verifiable.
Lastly, we should like to mention that many of the results of Aetherometry
have been submitted to peer-reviewed publications and conferences, just not
publications or conferences organized by mainstream publications.
Next:: Reply from Jimbo Wales
To the full document: Wikipedia: A Techno-Cult of Ignorance