Wackpedia: pt.3
Sock-Puppet'ullah
Natalinasmpf tutored and teleguided by the Wikipedia Science Police
One of the most obnoxious techniques used by the Wikipedia Science-
Purification Cabal of administrators and "scientific" hitmen (such as
Freddie Salsbury and William Michael Connolley) was the brazen
manipulation of the minor, or supposed minor (for it has been
suggested that this minor might, in fact, be a 'sock puppet' of one of
these people) Natalinasmpf to become the most visible, if rather
discombobulated, spokesperson for the cabal's views.
On the User page of this self-declared Singaporean minor, one reads
these two gems:
I do not advocate liberterian [sic] majoritarianism to an extent, but
not to the type of Mao and the Nazis, because that wasn't particularly
liberterian [sic].
Scientific institutions can't be filled with errors and hoaxes if they
are ruled out through peer review, that is the whole concept.
It was Natalinasmpf who, one day after the Aetherometry entry was
submitted, called for a Vote for Deletion (a 'VfD' in Wikipedia speak)
on it. His opening salvo read:
Advertising, pseudoscience, and a hoax. Its certainly not notable
either. It undermines the professionalism of Wikipedia, and would
contribute to the ignorance of the masses by corporate propagation of
snake oil material.Also, notice how half the terms it links to are
red, probably signifying it doesn't have any empirical scientific
concepts whatsoever? Its also not NPOV, and the presentation likes to
present all its allegations as truth, rather than alleged evidence,
even the most respected articles on quantum mechanics don't go to that
extent (by noting paradoxes, and admitting their own flaws with the
current model), which this article doesn't do. Very misleading
presentation, and the introduction is skewed as well. Also,
discounting entries marked as irrelevant by google itself, it only has
196 google hits. If we let it stay on Wikipedia any longer its going
to be extremely counter-productive and detrimental to Wikipedia and
the world as a whole. Delete. Natalinasmpf , 23:29, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It is worth noting that several days later, after the Aetherometry
article was completely eviscerated by the cabal and rendered
nonsensical, and the supporters of Aetherometry, including the author
of the original entry, voted for its deletion, the cabal changed
strategies and decided to vote to keep the entry. And our little man -
or our minor - Natalinasmpf crossed out his own strident call to arms,
after which it looked thusly:
Advertising, pseudoscience, and a hoax. Its certainly not notable
either. It undermines the professionalism of Wikipedia, and would
contribute to the ignorance of the masses by corporate propagation of
snake oil material.Also, notice how half the terms it links to are
red, probably signifying it doesn't have any empirical scientific
concepts whatsoever? Its also not NPOV, and the presentation likes to
present all its allegations as truth, rather than alleged evidence,
even the most respected articles on quantum mechanics don't go to that
extent (by noting paradoxes, and admitting their own flaws with the
current model), which this article doesn't do. Very misleading
presentation, and the introduction is skewed as well. Also,
discounting entries marked as irrelevant by google itself, it only has
196 google hits. If we let it stay on Wikipedia any longer its going
to be extremely counter-productive and detrimental to Wikipedia and
the world as a whole. Delete.
But we are getting ahead of ourselves. Here is more of the early
Natalinasmpf:
Its certainly not notable either. It undermines the professionalism of
Wikipedia.
On the Talk page:
* [Aetherometry] only gets 4,000 google hits, most of which are
repetitive advertising messages, reduced to 200. Looks like a
commercial hoax and snake oil, to me. Get rid of it. Even if it was
notable, this article does not speak in a neutral language, does not
represent the scientific community, and severely undermines the
professionalism of Wikipedia. Seems like a hoax for donations. 23:36,
20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
* [To the presumed author of the entry:] Why would we want to harass
you? Most notably oh wait, you're not a mindless slav - oh, I mean
"employee" of the Correas are you, here to spread their corporate
propaganda? (...) Other members do not have to be at the exact time to
be represented, if things like vandalism and hoaxes are to be called,
and that's what vfd's are for, and that's why I'm calling for one on
this article. (...) You don't get my point. You can't cite the Correas
work as a source, because I am disputing THEIR work (...) As soon as
this theory gets into a copy of Nature, or something similar, then
tell me that it has a source. (...) I bet WMC [William M. Connolley]
could answer that for you, who has published numerous publications,
who have been checked with scientific peer review (...) I bet open
source doesn't fit you huh, little petit bourgeois? (...) You
challenged my factual ignorance, and I responded by citing the concept
of peer review, and by discounting YOUR sources. (...) You know what?
I think this is nothing but a hoax and a fraud to gain false
donations. I'm on the stage of reporting you people to the authorities
immediately (...) 00:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
In the Votes for Deletion:
* If you see the talk page, the original contributors seem to be
brainwashed follo...oh sorry, I mean "employees" of the Correas, who
are contributing material to this article, and with all the snazzy
(but meaningless terms). -- 02:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
In a hallucinatory addition to the article itself:
* 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. 00:23, 21 June 2005
On the Talk page:
* I'm on the verge of contacting the authorities to notify of fraud,
anyone with me? The difference is this: the current state of the
article, excluding the introduction, asserts its theories as truth,
without considering the other theories. Its completely POV, and
deletion is a possible solution. 21:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
* I allege this is charlantry - and presented a vfd to discuss it.
There's a very good argument, that if its charlantry, the stones
deserve to be cast. 17:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
* WMC [William M. Connolley] would agree with me that this article is
certainly not factual, and seeing the great numbers of papers he has
published...my relatives could be bothered, if this piece of
pseudoscience was even notable 17:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
* I have factual basis, Aetherometry, can't be true: this view being
supported by the scientific community at large, and I already have
given many reasons why its implausible, noting that it lacks peer
review. Slander? Hardly. It is very likely a hoax, and trying to get
the law on your side? Ironic, considering how this is a fraud and a
scam to cheat donations. Oh, you address me wrongly. -- 17:59, 24 Jun
2005 (UTC)
* [Concerning the subsections that were deleted by Connoley] That's an
example of splitting articles up. However, the sheer non-notability of
your scientific hoax doesn't seem to warrant that. 17:41, 24 Jun 2005
(UTC)
A comment in the entry's History:
* 21:41, 21 Jun 2005 Natalinasmpf (Yes, all of this is an extensive
fraud, your plans to subvert Wikipedia to gain donations for your "new
science has backfired)
On the Talk page:
* Just because I am an anarcho-communist does not disqualify my edits
if they are NPOV"; "WMC [William M. Connolley] and other contributors
can vouch for me. (...) WMC would agree with me (June 24)
* At most I accused your beloved Correas of fraud - but that's not
discrimination, that's just scientific skepticism. 21:59, 24 Jun 2005
(UTC)
* Hmm WMC [William M Connolley], I think the best thing is the ignore
this person, because obviously he can't seem to get the concept of
what science is. I don't think the rest of the Wikipedian community
will be too upset if we just ignore and revert his so called
"contributions" to try to assert Aetherometry as established fact, and
we can continue how to NPOV this along as normal. 20:57, 24 Jun 2005
(UTC)
* As for civility, I'm not sure, there's very good reason to call it a
hoax, but that's not being uncivil to users, more like. 02:49, 25 Jun
2005 (UTC)
* Even Theresa Knott, and many other admins have voiced contempt for
the subject, and I think the onus is on you to cite actual verified
evidence, not us. 01:25, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
* Much more, questioning is needed to dissolve fascism, and prevent
ignorance. Something that the Correas doesn't appear to be doing.
02:06, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
* The detractors, are named. Maybe you're accusing of weasel words -
but then again, you hardly name any other supporters too - you claim
engineers and medical scientists among other things have looked at it
- but I have hardly seen any reliable sources (ie. not within the
aetherometry website). Furthermore, even if I didn't have a degree, (a
lot of Wikipedians do), that doesn't disqualify me any further. But if
the Correas don't (and I'm questioning their degrees as frauds), then
it makes AN ARTICLE BEING WRITTEN about their theories less notable.
02:49, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
* However, the Correas are not contributors, so why should it matter
if I make an allegation on them? Furthermore, calling them cranks is
not a personal attack: its simply a dose of healthy skepticism. And if
you don't want to work with us, don't edit. However, if you do want to
get your aetherometry theory fairly represented, then do work with us,
and we'll work with you. (...) If I call a theory, or the Correas
snake oil and snake oil vendors respectively, that's hardly not
assuming good faith. 01:57, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
* When these admins have a conspicuously clean record elsewhere in
maintaining other scientific articles' (ie. tens of thousands), versus
one little article here, I'm thinking the bias is not on them. 02:24,
26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
In Votes for Deletion:
* Its obviously impossible to have an intelligent article when every
single pro-aetherometry fanatic and his or her acquaintances thinks he
or she can substantiate a questionable theory about physics without
having the slightest piece of evidence to cite....just look at the web
pages of these "scientists". What a calamity! Its a brave new
knowledge of the era founded by the Correas and all their snake oil
vending! -- 09:19, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What a wonderfully rabid young retard! The ideal mouthpiece to hide
behind. Zero need to back up a single of the libelous statements made
- and a clear string of examples of Wikipedia as public toilet.
7. Senior Wikipedians coach the self-proclaimed minor to suppress
factual information about Aetherometry
Looking in the Wikipedia backrooms, such as the User Talk pages, one
encounters mini-counseling sessions in which the "senior" members of
the Science Cabal coach the Singaporean minor to do the cabal's own
dirty work. We will provide four examples. The first is from
Natalinasmpf's User Talk page, under the subject "Helicoid":
* Hi N. You (correctly I think) said don't respond to Helcoid but then
got caught up again. Don't worry, no-one is taking her seriously,
there is no point responding, and certainly not at length. IMHO.
William M. Connolley 22:03, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC).
* You can always raise the issue of "personal attacks" at WP:AN/I
[Administrator's Noticeboard: Incidents] or WP:RFC [Requests for
Comments], especially if they persist or get especially vicious. No
personal attacks is Wikipedia policy. Good job keeping cool in the
face of provocation. Keep cool, do your best to ignore them and prove
(as you have done quite well) that age is not the best indicator of
maturity. Guettarda 22:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
* Be careful - you are at risk of breaking the 3RR [Three-Revert
Rule]. Guettarda 01:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Duly noted. What he did was insert spiteful comments like changing
"dectractors" into "detractors who have not read the material", so I
assumed that could be called vandalism, and not violating the 3RR. --
Natalinasmpf 01:23, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Removing the personal attacks aren't covered by the 3rr, feel free to
remove them. However, you also reverted other material. The matter has
been raised by pjacobi on WP:AN/I - other people will get involved. It
isn't the end of the world if things stand for a few minutes. I don't
want you to get yourself blocked. Be patient. Guettarda 01:27, 25 Jun
2005 (UTC)
* Helicoid's legal threats break another Wikipedia policy, but
taunting him/her only lowers you to his/her level. Having the last
word isn't the same as winning an argument. Sometimes the best way to
win a fight is simply to say nothing and show you are the bigger
person. Guettarda 02:07, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Here's Theresa Knott, touching base with her cohorts after a long day
of protecting the world from the pernicious keystrokes of User
Helicoid:
* I've got to go to bed (should have done so hours ago) Looks like
he's gone for the moment, I'll chack on things in the morning. Theresa
Knott 03:02, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
And here's our minor himself, reacting to Helicoid's quoting of the
above snippets on the Aetherometry Talk page:
* You're being unreasonable. I can't contribute because I'm
"underage"? The talk was never "backroom", by the way, what, if I make
a request for arbitration and RFC, that would be backroom too?
Apparently you haven't seen the administrator's noticeboard. They are
all avenues for discussion, not "backroom" talk. -- Natalinasmpf
02:42, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Of course, the existence of these 'avenues for discussion' is never
revealed to newcomers who have made the mistake of - in good faith -
contributing material to Wikipedia. And they do, in fact, constitute
layers upon layers of labyrinthic backrooms of which only those who
make Wikipedia their lives are aware, and where they seem to spend
virtually all their waking hours. Like in the tale of the sorcerers'
apprentice, a malicious discussion which a newcomer imagines is being
conducted on one page, suddenly balloons out, to be continued
(unbeknownst to the newcomer) on - who knows how many?? - other pages,
all labeled with indecipherable Wikipedian acronyms recognizable only
to the inner circles of Wikipedia devotees. But like the Talk pages
associated with articles, these pages are search-engine indexed, and
may now, suddenly, pop up on search engine results - propagating
gratuitious slander ad infinitum. Wikipedians know full well that
search-engines will find their malicious comments - and relish the
fact that they are employing Wikipedia as a vehicle to publicly air
their attacks as well as their promotions:
* [From the Aetherometry Talk page:] OK, the Google spider did its job
and our article is now indexed, in the moment it's the 4th hit when
searching for "Aetherometry". Now we should better fulfill our noble
mission. -- Pjacobi, June 28, 2005 15:46 (UTC)
The second example comes from Karada's User Talk page, again under the
title "Helicoid":
* I see you've encountered Helicoid. I don't know how to proceed with
him, because he's engaging in trolling behaviour, personal attacks,
violation of the NPOV policy, rejection of the concept of peer review,
and a whole host of other things. Seeing as you just came upon it,
what is your view? -- Natalinasmpf, 23:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, if he goes on escalating in this way, he's likely to get banned
by an admin. However, I must recuse myself from doing it, because I'm
involved in editing the article, and by extension, in the controversy.
If he just treads water, a Request for Comments might be appropriate.
If he really won't stop being abusive, shout for an admin, and one
will generally magically appear. If not, let me know, and I'll see how
I can help. -- Karada, 23:52, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Note that any opposition to the administrators' willful mishandling of
the entry gets 'officially' labeled as 'trolling behavior',
''violation of NPOV policy', 'vandalism', etc. - so that any future
such mishandling will appear to be in strict compliance with Wikipedia
stated policy rules. Administrators are then at liberty to repeatedly
revert the entry to their own version of it, to block the opposing
user, or to lock in place a properly mangled version of the entry -
all of which were repeatedly done in the case of Aetherometry. And,
should the opposition prove a bit recalcitrant, ever new
Administrators will magically keep materializing to perform a constant
war of attrition and harassment on the entry and its contributors
until, inevitably, the cabal wins. (Further on the topic of
manipulation of minors, see also section III.3.1 where the services of
a CesarB, who suddenly comes out of the woodwork, are employed to
delete the original Aetherometry entry.)
The third example comes from the User Talk page of William M.
Connolley. Title: "It only gets worse":
* If you want to increase your Wiki pain, I suggest these candidates
for your watch list:
* Aetherometry
* Aetherometric Technologies
* Experimental Aetherometry
* Aetherometric Theory of Synchronicity
Pjacobi 18:59, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
Sigh. Still (in pursuit of the sanity of wiki and the promotion of
science not non-science) I'm prepared to try to help. It would be nice
if the admins were prepared to help by applying the 3RR rule... there
is some curious reluctance there that I simply don't understand. My
suggestions:
Create a "complete and utter b*ll*cks" tag: "this article is total
twaddle; having said that, we're prepared to let the wackos have their
say: read on at your peril..." and then leave the rest of it alone.
Fun, but... that sort of article really needs to be...
Put them up for VFD
Make certain articles only editable by registered users. Is this
possible? It might help.
William M. Connolley 22:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC).
I've been bold. I've made the last 3 into redirects to the first. It
looks to me like these are just commercial spam, anyway.
It IS commercial spam, and probably snake oil too, and
pseudoscience...it reminds me of all the "activated oxygen" links you
find on google, and conspiracy theories about no landing on Mars. I'm
going to put it up on vfd. I'm normally an inclusionist, but this
article would well undermine the professionalism of Wikipedia, and we
also do not need more ignorance and corporate propaganda being thrust
onto the masses. -- Natalinasmpf 23:23, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
* I give up. I've tried reasoning with some of the Aetherometry
supporters, but obviously they think my "disputes of validity of the
theory are not substantial", and they think their (indirect citation)
of sources of Tesla and Reich is far more valid than peer review. --
Natalinasmpf 18:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Don't give up. We need people to keep wiki sane. But also, don't
expect too much (as I perhaps did over GW [Global Warming]). Just
because you're right doesn't mean your views will prevail... come and
help at Nikola Tesla. William M. Connolley 18:55, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC).
Hmm, Helicoid now proceeds to go around to everyone who disagrees with
him/her, and labelling them a "mao-mao", even to me, which is
incredibly ironic given my views. He or she thinks that criticism of
the reliability/validity of a scientific theory is censorship. Should
I try explaining this, or will it just not be worth it? --
Natalinasmpf 22:44, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This coaching of a minor to have him be the standard-bearer that gets
the flak is particularly insidious. Witness how, elsewhere on the
same webpage, Connolley insinuates that the Correas are not
scientists, allaying the fears of potential injustice in the mind of
the minor with incorrigible lies about the nature of scientific
disputes and about the courage which the Correas have shown in
defending themselves openly from other such attacks by ignorant,
misinformed and malicious people. This exchange bears the title "An
inquiry on the communication protocols of the scientific community":
* I was reading [...] the supposed rebuttal to DeMeo's claims by the
Correas, and I was rather...shocked. Do competing scientists always
react to each other's works in this way? I assumed that those holding
significant degrees would have been selected for civility tendencies
and courtesy, and there was a fair degree of civil protocol in the
scientific community. I'm just wondering if this kind of mudslinging
is commonplace, (as I have never witnessed it to this extent before),
or it's something only confined to the Correas and their critics.
Noting that probably half the language would probably not be something
eligible as a legal document, I always thought that even scientists
with opposite views, competing projects et al always treated each
other cordially and while criticising each other's work (as any good
peer reviewer would do) at every turn, I always assumed that personal
attacks were out of bounds. I'm just confirming that this is something
confined to the Correas right, and not the rest of the scientific
community, I hope? -- Natalinasmpf 1 July 2005 11:37 (UTC)
You say the Correas ... and not the rest of the scientific community
and I think the mistake you're making is to think that the C's *are*
part of the sci community. What evidence is there for this? They claim
a Phd - they may even have one, but from where and for what? - but
you don't put your credentials on a paper. In scientific journals
everyone is always polite, of course, with only a very few
exceptions. William M. Connolley 2005-07-0119:02:10 (UTC).
The fourth example comes from the History record associated with the
Aetherometry article, and shows just a short snippet of the tag-team
alterations implemented by the cabal - with the Singaporean minor
eagerly in the forefront - always with the objective of reviling,
demeaning, slandering, libeling Aetherometry, of mutilating facts, and
creating, out of thin air, false facts, false statements, imaginary
allegations, in a word, lies, Wikipedia lies. One could swear one was
dealing with the Stasi. Note also the presence of warning banners (the
Aetherometry article has, in the course of its history, experienced a
large variety of them), in this case "{{OriginalResearch}}" and
"{{Cleanup}}".
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 13:36, 21 June 2005
TTLightningRod
← Older edit Revision as of 21:37, 21 June 2005
Natalinasmpf
commenting out the so called "concepts" until I can NPOV (read:
totally rebut and dismantle their arguments) it
Newer edit →
Line 9: Line 9:
{{cleanup}} {{cleanup}}
- '''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]], + '''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 [[dubious]].
Revision as of 21:38, 21 June 2005
Natalinasmpf
formatting
← Older edit 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
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
[[dubious]]. + '''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]].
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]].
standard disclaimer
← Older edit Revision as of 15:44, 24 June 2005
Pjacobi
shortened intro, removed POV
Newer edit →
Line 24: Line 24:
Deleuze]]. Other influences include Deleuze]]. Other influences
include
Dr. [[Harold Aspden]]'s physical theories, and the new-energy
pioneer Dr. [[Harold Aspden]]'s physical theories, and the new-energy
pioneer
- Dr.[[Eugene Mallove]], who verified many of the Correas' inventions
and + Dr.[[Eugene Mallove]].
- became their intimate friend. +
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]].
________________________________________
← 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 →
← Older edit Revision as of 19:45, 24 June 2005
William M. Connolley
Rm unsupported assertions of verification/confirmation. There is more
to do.
Newer edit →
Line 13: Line 13:
'''Aetherometry''' is a [[neologism]] coined by Dr. [[Paulo Correa]]
and [[Alexandra Correa]] to describe their alternative open system,
which addresses many scientific fields ( such as [[physics]],
[[chemistry]], [[biophysics]]) and many controversial fields (such as
orgonomy, '''Aetherometry''' is a [[neologism]] coined by Dr. [[Paulo
Correa]] and [[Alexandra Correa]] to describe their alternative open
system, which addresses 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 the
theories of Dr. [[Wilhelm Reich]] and [[Gilles Deleuze]]. One should
note however, that the way Aetherometry treats the work of these
thinkers is at variance with other interpretations - as is always the
case with every new thought or system. Other influences include Dr.
[[Harold Aspden]]'s Aether theory, and Dr.[[Eugene Mallove]]'s defense
of alternative energy. Mallove himself confirmed in many public
conferences and in many publications the verification of several of
the Correas' inventions. Aetherometry has largely been ignored by the
[[scientific community]], because it has not been published in peer
reviewed journals. + 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 the theories of Dr. [[Wilhelm Reich]] and [[Gilles Deleuze]].
One should note however, that the way Aetherometry treats the work of
these thinkers is at variance with other interpretations - as is
always the case with every new thought or system. Other influences
include Dr. [[Harold Aspden]]'s Aether theory, and Dr.[[Eugene
Mallove]]'s defense of alternative energy.