2. RAMPANT ADMINISTRATOR BIAS
Administrator bias rules Wikipedia. The cabal works by setting up its own ignorant view of the world as the parameter and filter for the 'knowledge and truth' that will be represented in Wikipedia, and does this with a total disregard for events and facts. resulting in a dogmatic rule of what is or is not true. The cabal dogmatically dictates what is, or is not, true, by garnering a "consensus" of like-minded, befriended, or ready-to-oblige Administrators and Users.
2.1. The parameters for truth are arrived at by dictate, even
if they are at loggerheads with facts, history, reality and science itself. An example is the fate of the references, within the Aetherometry article, to the work of Nikola Tesla:
"I see the article has aquired the near-obligatory references to Tesla, in this case "tesla radiation", which is a new one on me, and not (AFAIK) mentioned in any of the existing Tesla pages." William M. Connolley, 22:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC).
Connolley then makes it his mission to keep removing mentions of the fact that Tesla was an inspiration of Aetherometry. In one such intervention he writes -
Revision
as of 19:03, 25 June 2005
OldPatrick
Typo fix.
Older edit |
Revision
as of 19:22, 25 June 2005
William M. Connolley
Again, try to rescue teslas good name
Newer edit |
| Line 9: |
Line 9: |
|
|
|
|
| - |
"'''Aetherometry'''" is a [[neologism]]
coined by Paulo Correa and Alexandra Correa to denote a belief system
founded by them, the goal of which is the precise experimental and theoretical
study of purported "mass-free energy" (the metrics of the [[aether]]).
The purported impacts of Aetherometry are said to apply to fields such as
[[physics]], [[chemistry]], and [[biophysics]], and controversial subfields
including orgonomy, Kirlian photography, aether theories, alternative theory
of [[De Broglie hypothesis|De Broglie]]'s matter waves, [[LeSage (gravity)|LeSage]]-type
theory of gravity, and the aetherometric cancer project). Inspirations for
aetherometry include interpretations of the theories of [[Friedrich Nietzsche]], [[Nikola Tesla]] (see below), [[Wilhelm
Reich]], and [[Gilles Deleuze]]. Other influences include [[Harold Aspden]]'s
"Aether Theory", and [[Eugene Mallove]]'s defense of alternative energy. |
+ |
"'''Aetherometry'''" is a [[neologism]]
coined by Paulo Correa and Alexandra Correa to denote a belief system
founded by them, the goal of which is the precise experimental and theoretical
study of purported "mass-free energy" (the metrics of the [[aether]]).
The purported impacts of Aetherometry are said to apply to fields such
as [[physics]], [[chemistry]], and [[biophysics]], and controversial subfields
including orgonomy, Kirlian photography, aether theories, alternative theory
of [[De Broglie hypothesis|De Broglie]]'s matter waves, [[LeSage (gravity)|LeSage]]-type
theory of gravity, and the aetherometric cancer project). Inspirations
for aetherometry include interpretations of the theories of [[Friedrich
Nietzsche]], [[Wilhelm Reich]], and [[Gilles Deleuze]]. Other influences
include [[Harold Aspden]]'s "Aether Theory", and [[Eugene Mallove]]'s
defense of alternative energy. |
and he removes the references to 5 essays by the Correas on
Tesla:
This revisionism goes from an absurd malevolence to the simply bizarre: indeed, witness this exchange (of June 24):
- Nothing in science exists that does not come in conflict with something else. But you show little knowledge of fact when you venture that Tesla is in conflict with the concept of the Aether. Get informed and come down from your high horse. You may yet break a leg. Helicoid, 17:03, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
-
- In conflict with such an interpretation of his work, especially considering he may have well changed his mind today, had he lived long enough to see the work of quantum mechanics. Get informed? I hardly doubt that your nonsense is "information". WMC [that's Connolley] and other contributors can vouch for me. -- Natalinasmpf 17:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It is indeed a bizarre revisionism, when the supposed Singaporean 15-year-old Natalinasmpf, maker of encyclopedic truth, presents Tesla as someone who "would have changed his mind today (how such a pubescing pimple presumes to speak in the name of Tesla!???) because of quantum mechanics". The facts are: that Tesla, who lived for nearly 3 decades
after the quantum-mechanical revolution, did not change his mind about the existence of an electric, non-electromagnetic Aether and never considered that anything in quantum mechanics collided with his own views; and that this revisionist fabrication by Wikipedia has no other function than to provide justification and "consensus" for Connolley's systematic deletion of any reference to the fact that the Correas' work corroborates Tesla's ideas.
Connolley's fixation on de-teslifying the Aetherometry article is picked up by the rest of the cabal, and becomes a general mania:
Revision
as of 20:56, 15 July 2005
216.254.165.207
Older edit |
Revision
as of 21:26, 15 July 2005
Salsb
review and where did the tesla mention come from?
Newer edit |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| - |
In particular, aetherometry appears
to be, in part, a continuation of tesla' work
with longitudinal wave radiation and 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 [http://www.aetherometry.com/EAintro_orac.html].
In aetherometry, Reich's Orgone and DOR energies are regarded as forming
a single spectrum of "ambipolar massfree electric radiation". [http://www.aetherometry.com/glossary.html].
In spite of aetherometry's connections to Reich's work, some aetherometrists
are highly critical of Reich's followers [http://www.aetherometry.com/expose.html]. |
+ |
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
[http://www.aetherometry.com/EAintro_orac.html].
In aetherometry, Reich's Orgone and DOR energies are regarded as forming
a single spectrum of "ambipolar massfree electric radiation". [http://www.aetherometry.com/glossary.html].
In spite of aetherometry's connections to Reich's work, some aetherometrists
are highly critical of Reich's followers [http://www.aetherometry.com/expose.html]. |
|
|
|
|
Revision
as of 18:30, 17 July 2005
Mel Etitis
rm unnecessary qualifications (see Talk)
Older edit |
Revision
as of 00:11, 18 July 2005
The Anome
rm Tesla bit from Reich para
Newer edit |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| - |
In particular, aetherometry appears
to be, in part, a continuation of Tesla's
work with longitudinal wave radiation and 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 [http://www.aetherometry.com/EAintro_orac.html].
In aetherometry, Reich's Orgone and DOR energies are regarded as forming
a single spectrum of "ambipolar massfree electric radiation". [http://www.aetherometry.com/glossary.html].
In spite of aetherometry's connections to Reich's work, some aetherometrists
are highly critical of Reich's followers [http://www.aetherometry.com/expose.html]. |
+ |
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 [http://www.aetherometry.com/EAintro_orac.html].
In aetherometry, Reich's Orgone and DOR energies are regarded as forming
a single spectrum of "ambipolar massfree electric radiation". [http://www.aetherometry.com/glossary.html].
In spite of aetherometry's connections to Reich's work, some aetherometrists
are highly critical of Reich's followers [http://www.aetherometry.com/expose.html]. |
Tesla waves, Tesla currents, Tesla radiation - these are all terms which have been used in engineering and alternative physics texts to refer to what Tesla himself claimed, and which this Wikipedia Science-Purification cabal wants to eradicate from knowledge: the existence of a dynamic, electrical, nonelectromagnetic Aether. It suffices to read what Tesla himself wrote in 1916, when he emphasized the difference between, on the one hand, Marconi's patents and their utilization of hertzian or electromagnetic waves, and, on the other, his own patents for the transmission of power at a distance:
"From my circuit, you can get either electromagnetic waves, 90%
electromagnetic waves if you like, and 10% in the current energy that passes
through the earth. Or, you can reverse the process, and get 10% of the
energy in electromagnetic waves, and 90% in energy of the current that passes
through the earth. (...) You must not make the antenna give off 90% in electromagnetic
waves and 10% in current waves" (p. 75)
"I'm not producing [electromagnetic] radiation in my system; I am suppressing
electromagnetic waves" (p. 133)
"Electromagnetic energy, which goes out in the form of rays, is, as I have indicated here, unrecoverable, hopelessly lost. (...) Dr. Puppin has ridiculed the Tesla system. He says: "the energy goes only in all directions". It does not. It goes only in one direction" (p. 141)
"(...) In [my] system, as is obvious from the description in the patent, the waves are undamped" (p. 146)
"I had another way of producing continuous oscillations (...) then my make-and-break
was in synchronism with the waves in the antenna and I produced a train
of perfectly undamped waves" (p. 175)
(in "Responses to Counsel, 1916", in Leland Anderson, ed. "Nikola Tesla - on his Work with Alternating Currents, and their application to Wireless Telegraphy, Telephony and Transmission of Power", 1992, Sun Publishing, Denver, Co.)
It is apparent that Tesla believed that continuous, undamped current waves which could propagate through the ground or across ionized atmospheres were DISTINCT from electromagnetic rays or hertzian waves. Tesla waves, Tesla currents, Tesla radiation or ambipolar radiation, as the Correas designate it - for good reasons argued in those monographs, to which William Michael Connolley deleted the references - are terms for precisely this physical reality first identified by Tesla, which he believed was evidence for the existence of a dynamic electric Aether.
For other examples of the use of false science, or falsified records of the history of science, as the Wikipedia standard for 'politically correctified truth', see Appendix 4.
2.2. Wikipedia administrator bias is present not only in revisionist reconstruction of facts, events, realities, but also in the manner (usually insinuating) in which questions are posed to "undesirable contributors" and their responses are discarded or ridiculed - while the editorial interventions whose purpose is to provide the asked-for evidence are deleted or stricken out. It's a prosecutorial sport where no defence is permitted. Guilt is not presumed, it is concluded a priori and enforced without any possibility of appeal. Any defence that might be forthcoming is always already deemed invalid and not worth exploring. Here is an Aetherometry Talk exchange , under the title "Experimental Details", between Theresa Knott and an "pro-Aetherometry" undesirable:
Could someone please explain either here or on the article page what experiments have actually been done. Someone gave me a web page above (Sorry but the thread was getting messy so I am starting again here) http://www.aetherometry.com/mallove_appreciation.html
"Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharge (PAGD) Reactor. This is an evacuated
glass tube with aluminum electrode plates which is set into auto-electronic
discharge emission by associated and patented circuitry, and it produces
reported excess electrical energy."
Right so what are the details of that experiment? What is the vacuum in the tube? How big are the electrodes, how far apart are they, what shape are they? What does "auto-electronic discharge emission" mean? What is the "associated and patented circuitry" ? A circuit diagram would come in handy. How was the energy output measured? what are the sources of error? How precise is the measurement? And how much excess energy was produced? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke), 5 July 2005 19:30 (UTC)
- PAGD is the subject of 3 US patents and some international patents. Anybody who wants to study it can study the patents, which are exceptionally well written. There are links to those patents on the Aetherometry web site. I don't think anybody here knows whether PAGD has been reproduced by anybody else; if any of the commercial companies that had in-house people trying to reproduce it was successful, it is highly unlikely they would be interested in touting this. They would be more likely to sit on it and wait till the Correas run out of money to keep the patents alive. 216.254.160.187, 5 July 2005 21:28 (UTC)
-
- Are the patent's available on the web? Can you provide links? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke), 5 July 2005 21:33 (UTC)
-
- See http://www.aetherometry.com/patent_links.html. 216.254.160.187, 5 July 2005 21:42 (UTC)
-
-
- Thank you. The abstract for the patent only describes the construction of the PAGD reactor. It doesn't talk about excess energy or appear to answer any of my later questions. i.e. how was the energy measured etc etc. Can you fill me in on this details Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke), 5 July 2005 21:52 (UTC)
-
-
- You could try to write to the people who publish Monarch Notes and tell them about the need for a Monarch Notes from the autogenously Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharge patents. 216.254.160.187, 5 July 2005 22:14 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Actually I was hoping that one of Aetherometry advocates could just provide the details. It claims to be an experimental science, why is it so difficult to get the results of an experiment? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke), 5 July 2005 22:18 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Oh come come. You call wasting people's time "good faith"? Do you customarily write to scientists and demand that should they spend their time producing for your use digests of their works because you are too lazy to read the works? If you want to learn about, and understand, the experiments, then go and read the texts that were expressly written for people who want to learn and understand. 216.254.160.187, 5 July 2005 22:34 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- I'd be happy too. Unfortunately I can't find any experiments to read about. Why is it so difficult to get the result of an experiment in what is claimed to be an experimental science? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke), 5 July 2005 22:37 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
What's the difficulty? I sent you to the Exp Aeth monographs; you complained you had to pay for them. I sent you to Mallove's summary; you complained it doesn't have enough detail. You want the full detail? Pay for the papers like everybody else who wants the detail; or if you pay me, I'll write you a summary. I sent you to the PAGD patents, which are available for free; you read only the abstract, and complained it didn't provide the full info. Of course it doesn't; the full info is in the patent. "Experimental" doesn't mean the results are provided in pre-digested sound bytes suitable for the Jay Leno show. They are provided, as such things usually are, in papers to be read by people who are willing to invest time and thought. 216.254.160.187, 5 July 2005 23:00 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I'm not willing to pay the Correas to read their non peer reviewed papers. They may be a sucker born every minute but I'm too long in the tooth to pay to read crackpot science. In my experience of real physics papers, important results such as "excess energy" would certainly appear in the abstract. In my experience of real scientist, they are always only too happy to provide all the information any one asks for "take this paper, and you'll probably need this one too, Oh and you'd better read this review paper if the other two are to make much sense" is a typical response of pretty much every scientist I've ever come into contact with. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke), 5 July 2005 23:14 (UTC)
This Theresa Knott, who loves throwing her weight about as a self-appointed judge of the worthiness of scientific endeavors, is completely clueless concerning the realities of institutional science and how it is paid for (yes, Ms. Schoolmarm, Nature and Science are not free publications), and equally clueless about the realities of non-institutional science and how to even begin to make intelligent discernments about it. She is so thickheaded that she does not even send away for the Correa US patents which, as far as patents go, have an abundance of experimental data, including on energy in excess of breakeven. Yet she feels fully qualified and justified to put forth institutional science as a model of scientific conduct, and to treat the non-mainstream science with utmost contempt, while being equally incompetent to judge either. Ladies and gentlemen, that's Wikipedia for you: couch matronas and illiterate hams.
Next: RAMPANT ADMINISTRATOR ABUSES
Previous: WAR OF ATTRITION IN ORDER TO INTENTIONALLY FALSIFY SCIENTIFIC SUBJECT-MATTER