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

APPENDIX 1

From the history of the Hydrino Theory entry: the war of a two-member tag-team of Wikipedians against an attempt to call Dr. Randall Mills "Dr", "medical doctor", "chemist", or mention his degrees:

 Bold statement by Wikipedia Administrator PJacobi on the 'Hydrino Theory' Talk page:

It's irrelevant for the Hydrino theory that Randell Mills is Chemist, and Medical Doctor. (Him being an inventor has some relevanmce but it's hard to judge). Spare these details for the Randell Mills [entry]. Pjacobi 17:28, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPENDIX 2

Records of a recurring dispute of Dr. Correa's qualifications.  The repetition is aided by the fact that what is discussed at one time is later removed from the main Aetherometry Talk page into an archive, so that it can be discussed again, as if the collective memory were amnesiac:

1) Aetherometry Talk. Subject: To Guettarda, concerning Correa's degree

It was you guys who made a big deal out of questioning Correa's PhD and insinuating that he does not have scientific qualifications. So obviously stating his scientific qualifications must be an important piece of information. If you want, we can elaborate upon them in the article - provide the exact details of his doctoral work, a list of his publications in notable peer-reviewed journals, etc. - so the reader has all the requisite information. And if you honestly want to claim that a degree in molecular physics is irrelevant to biophysics, then you must be under some serious misconceptions. Do you know much about either field? 165.154.24.70, 19:19, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please do, it's important info. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten), 19:23, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Actually, Dr. Correa also has a Master's in Biophysics. Grotesquely funny. Helicoid.

I don't see anything particulaly funny.So I'll ask for a few details. Where did he get the PhD from? what subject was the thesis in? What subject is the masters degree in, what university, what was the name of the supervisor? What batchelors degree does he have? Theresa Knott (ask the rotten), 19:37, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He obtained a Master's Degree in Biophysics in 1987 and a Doctoral Degree in Cellular and Molecular Biology in 1991, both from the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Toronto. His doctoral advisor was Dr. Arthur Axelrad. Together with Dr. Axelrad, he has published extensively in the fields of oncology and hematopoiesis - in Blood, and International Journal of Cell Cloning. They also authored two seminal patents on a novel serum-free, chemically-defined medium methodology, and its application to the study of marrow proliferative disorders, which has permitted new insight into the causation of Polycythemia vera, a pre-neoplastic disease.
I don't know about his batchelor's, his achievements in highschool, his sports trophies, or his triumphs as a boy scout. You will have to write to him and ask, I am afraid. 165.154.24.70, 20:05, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just curious then, not to question his credentials, but just to get the perception of him: any papers on apoptosis, or similar? Just cite papers to me, thanks, not his credentials/books, etc. just scientific papers. While we're at it, I just wanted to see a scientific paper, not a general book, on aetherometry. -- Natalinasmpf, 20:09, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea if he has written any papers on apoptosis.
As for papers on Aetherometry, go to the Aetherometry web page and check out the catalogs and abstracts. But since you must have already gone there and seen this, you must be asking something else. So perhaps when you say "scientific paper" you mean a paper in a mainstream-sanctioned scientific journals? I think we have already established, and nobody ever claimed otherwise, that Aetherometry is not a mainstream-sanctioned scientific discipline, and you won't find papers about it in Nature or Science or any other mainstream journal. So I am not sure what exactly you meant by your question. 165.154.24.44, 20:56, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I meant specific references, page number, line number, title of paper. You people keep citing me web pages with 20 other books or papers in there, which is not really a good way to cite a source. And then preferably, who has looked at it, and then also, who has seen it and criticised it, and any answer to the criticism, and direct citing of experiments (rather than saying, such and such experiment proves it so, describe the experiment, make a section about it). Part of the problem with the original article: it was in point form, not paragraph form. It wasn't really elaborated. 2) It unnecessarily obfuscates. It should try to use mainstream vocabulary as possible, or correlate it to that. 3) You can go at length about how massfree electrons or excitons have such and such property, but only with specific sources, not a generalised "go look at the web page". For example: If I claim that when x particle is excited, and y particle is present, they interact and give three z particles (which is of course, completely fictional and only for the sake of explanation), I would cite a specific scientific paper (title, author, date of publishing, reference number, page and line number), preferably several, and even more elaboration and evidence and proof. Not just, "go look at the website" as a source that this is true. If you're going to quote experiments, elaborate and reference it. Oh, if you people will edit other articles in here OTHER than aetherometry, or better, if the Correas decide to directly correspond here, then my respect for them will increase substantially. -- Natalinasmpf, 21:15, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Page and line numbers for what? Or do you mean just a random list of page and line numbers? Here is one: Page 5, line14; page 345, line 30. Hope this helps. 165.154.24.44, 22:38, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The page and line numbers for the scientific papers. Exact quotes, on what findings were found, and how the experiment went. Into this article. Directly. You know what I mean, and you've been evading it all along. -- Natalinasmpf, 22:45, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
All along since when? And no, I have no idea what you mean. I am not the author of the original article, but the one you have in there now doesn't refer to any experiments or findings. It consists of 3 paragraphs. Are you suggesting the article should be longer, and I should be doing the work? Good luck.
BTW, I just looked at the Wikipedia article about Faraday, and I don't see a single page and line number in it. Is this some new rule you guys have introduced since then? 165.154.24.119, 23:25, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
See climate change. Yes, there are references with page and number cited, when they are broad. And yes, there are page numbers: "Faraday's Diary, ¶ 7718, 30 Sept. 1845 and ¶ 7504, 13 Sept. 1845" - and various other topics, because it has entered mainstream science. When it becomes fringe science, a direct citation must be established. Of course the article doesn't refer to experiments and findings: you are supposed to include it in. Stop being lazy. Since you are such a fervent zealot for aetherometry (or at least Helicoid is), insert it in! Just remember to make it NPOV, concise and relevant. The original text had heavy neutrality problems. It can be inserted back in - if you manage to neutralise the tone, verify its facts, add in references for NEW claims....-- Natalinasmpf, 23:36, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You're talking to me? You must be kidding. I voted for deleting the article. If you want to keep it, get to work. Make yourself knowledgeable on the subject. Become capable of producing information about it, not just destroying the information others have produced. Git! Git! 165.154.24.119, 23:54, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't really care what academic qualifications he has, to be honest; that tells us (and the reader) nothing either way. Details of his degrees shouldn't go into the article (that would be relevant to an article on him). Mel Etitis, 19:40, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am asking so as to be sure he has a degree. If he does then the title Dr is in order. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten), 19:43, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, Karada seems to disagree with you and took it out again. You guys should get your act together and not waste people's time. the question of Correa's degree was much harped upon during those past 6 days, so I think putting it into the article is indeed in order. 165.154.24.44, 21:18, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Everyone works as individuals here. I don't know any of the other editors here, I doub't if they know each other. There is no way we can get our "act together" in the way that you suggest. Wikipedia articles are always work in progress. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten), 21:27, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, of course; I'm not objectinbg to your question. Mel Etitis, 19:48, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


My main point was, in articles like this, we don't usually use "Dr. X" and "Dr. Y", so removing it conforms with normal style.

I was going by: Correa, PN (1991) "An improved serum-free medium for the growth of normal human circulating erythroid progenitor cells and its application to the study of erythropoiesis in Polycythemia vera", Ph.D. Thesis, University of Toronto, Canada.[10] (http://aetherometry.com/publications.html) Listed under haematology and oncology. But you say it's molecular physics? I see. Obviously you know more about it than the Correas. Maybe I should take my PhD issued by a department of "Plant Biology" and claim to be a medical expert. After all, it's "almost the same", just like haematology is "infinite energy". Guettarda, 19:50, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ha ha, now Knott puts up a reference to Demeo as criticism of the Correas. This fits well with you guys! from ignorance to a criticism by a pseudo-scientists who has no credentials on physics or biology or medicine! And who spoke of 'molecular physics'? Helicoid.

I just came across it in a web search so added it in. I'll check out his credentials. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten), 20:38, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He claims to have a PhD from University of Kansas Theresa Knott (ask the rotten), 20:46, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He also claims to have obtained negative results when repeating the correas experiments. This is kinda important don't you think? Theresa Knott (ask the rotten), 20:50, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To tell you the truth, I don't. DeMeo's PhD is in geography, he is a self-styled "Reichian authority", and he has a very strong agenda of his own. "Critics" with agendas are a dime a dozen. To glorify them by referring to them is not my idea of "encyclopedic information". But if DeMeo must for some reason be cited, then the debunking of his "critique" should be cited too. 165.154.24.44
Then cite it. Nothing's stopping you. The point is to be succint, and to keep NPOV, but you could mention it. The idea is, we can rebuild this article to quite a lengthy one if its relevant and stays to the point throughout. Which the original version sadly, did not do, it did elaborate heavily on its desired model, but an extensive explanation requires extensive sources. If however, you can provide extensive sources.... -- Natalinasmpf 21:15, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
A very recent PhD on geography - is that how peer review works in Wikipedia? By the way, did you know that Demeo distributed his critique without warning the Correas and in violation of the legal obligations he had contracted with them? No? Check the rebuttals written up by the Correas and their entire correspondence. Now notice, people of this planet, that physicists, engineers, medical doctors, biologists are disqualified if they publish at Akronos Publishing, or if they write positive words about Aetherometry. But the first come droopy-cat found by googling and definitely pseudo-scientific (certifiable even) can pose as critic of a biophysicist and a molecular and cellular biologist. Your minds, Karada, Knott, juvenile delinquent, etc, sure run in mysterious and ridiculous ways. Helicoid (not banned yet)
  • So now I'm a "juvenile delinquent"? You obviously want to discriminate against users who you find their personal characteristics such as age unacceptable, which is just as relevant as anything else as colour of skin, nationality and race, you bigot. such I suppose posting on Wikipedia makes me a delinquent? Go check the proper definition. What legal obligations? Anyone can reserve the right to criticise whoever and whatever they want. He is not obligated to withhold his comments just because it would be detrimental for the Correas. As for "physicists, medical doctors", et al. I would like to see each of their contributions/reviews on the subject, so that it may be cited as well, rather than just claiming "they have looked at it". As for alleging HE is pseudoscientific, then I reserve the right to call aetherometry snake oil without being accused of slander. Ridiculous ways? Do you know how a wiki works? -- Natalinasmpf, 21:41, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • As I said above, the orgone motor was demostrated by the Correas to James DeMeo, DeMeo's comments: http://www.orgonelab.org/correas.htm . Correa's response, for the record. http://www.aetherometry.com/demeo.html http://www.aetherometry.com/demeo_response2.html GangofOne, 21:21, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I asked this earlier, but it seems to have got lost, so I ask again. Let's consider http://aetherometry.com/axelrad_letter.html by Dr Axelrod of U of Toronto , Correa's PhD advisor. Here he witnesses the "Aether Motor". "The realization of what we were looking at was mind-boggling. Here before our eyes was what I was brought up to believe to be absolutely impossible! The implications were also enormous - a world of literally free energy without pollution by a 'product readily producible by available equipment and processes at a cost that allows mass marketing for multiple applications'." He also mentions others who have seen and believed. But there's something truely strange about that, that they haven't got a wider circle of scientists to look at it. Sure there is plenty of unthinking resistance , as documented in Axelrod's letter, but if they keep trying, especially with some media help, than their fortunes could be quickly made. Yet we don't hear anything about it except for a few webpages and _Infinite Energy_ and such. Why is that? GangofOne, 21:25, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not privy to their business interests, though if you go to massfree.com you can see for yourself that certain technologies are under commercialization. Maybe they are waiting for patents, maybe they are negotiating, maybe they are fishing, maybe they are convinced that knowledge in the hands of people like the Wikipedians we have seen here at work is dangerous, or that they don't deserve it because of their inferior mental caliber, or maybe they are afraid for their lives, or maybe what-have-you. Since you seem to have some knowledge of them, why don't you explain it yourself? Helicoid.
    • My knowledge of their business is only what I read on their site. I do not know the Correas. Do you? GangofOne, 22:20, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • My dear GangofOne, the idea of "fortunes quickly being made" by inventors in the way you suggest is another one of your Star Trek phantasies. What answer can one give, in this world, to a question that comes from a phanasy world? One can only marvel. 165.154.24.44
    • Many people have made fortunes, why can't the Correas be among them? GangofOne, 22:20, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Why, does one now have to have made a fortune in order to make it into the Wikipedia? Which Wikipedia policy states that? 165.154.24.44 22:38, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • True scientists do not patent their findings, as it is contrary to the very principles of peer review, although perhaps for protection purposes against counter-patents to prevent other companies from taking away the right for it to be in the public domain. -- Natalinasmpf 21:46, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Is there no end to these childish idiocies? If true scientists did not patent, then Einstein, Szilard, and a pillion others would not be scientists. I guess scientists are prep school educators with a BSc in physics... Helicoid
    • Let me remnind you that Einstein did not submit patents for his theory of relativity, nor did he copyright his theory..."childish idiocies"? Patents undermine science. Patents, patents on information especially (ie. software patents) destroy the free flow of information, by placing a price on information, preventing communication between scientists, and is only suitable for capitalists who want to make money off hoarding information. It does not provide an incentive to contribute to science in any way. Taking credit for research is one thing. Patenting information is another. -- Natalinasmpf ,22:14, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Huh? There is no such thing as a patent or copyright for a theory. What are you taking about? 165.154.24.44 22:27, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Of course not. Copyrighting and patenting scientific discoveries isn't the behaviour of a true scientist - but you can patent and copyright scientific concepts, akinly you haven't heard of software patents (which is in the realm of computer science) - or the corporations who patent genes...of course, your friend Helicoid asserts that Einstein and a whole host of other scientists wouldn't be scientists without patents. Natalinasmpf
    • You don't know that Helicoid is the anon's friend. Don't tar with the same brush. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten), 22:49, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • All these anonymous edits have the same editing styles and sentence structure flaws: seems rather suspicious. I in fact think they are roughly the same person. Of course, I am not accusing sockpuppetry yet, but I think they are closely acquainted, but "friend" was more sarcastic than anything else. -- Natalinasmpf, 22:56, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I've never claimed to be a scientist. I do however know a little physics. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten), 22:04, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Well they do, especially nowadays. But the thing to remember is - a patent proves nothing. Free energy machines are a dime a dozen. None of them have ever worked. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten), 21:50, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Little wonder since unlike what you and the juvenile delinquent here suppose energy cannot be produced. Helicoid, still here.
    • Energy can't be produced. It can only be converted. Of course, I am nitpicking, and out of spite, just to show you how irrational your statements are. -- Natalinasmpf, 22:14, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • What's more if energy could be produced out of nothing then the fact that you and I didn't believe it wouldn't stop a free energy machine from working. Yet no such machine has ever worked, no "inventor" or "scientist" has ever become fantastically wealthy. (Which they certainly would do as they could undercut all competition) Theresa Knott (ask the rotten), 22:21, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Calling Natalinasmpf a juvenile deliquent is a completely unacceptable personal attack. You have been asked repeatedly not to make personal attacks. Yet you persist. Stop now or you will be blocked for disruption. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten), 22:04, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Good to see cop action without complaint. But why are you not impartial in these threats? And why only I answer your questions and you don't answer mine? And why is it calling him a delinquent more offensive than he calling others hoaxes or frauds? You cannot contain the power that you wield, eh? Deleuze used to say it gives people a hard on. But maybe Natalinasmpf's daddy is a donor to this Wikipedia project of gratuitous vilification. Who knows? Right? Maybe the Singapore government? Muzzle me again, or get on with the program. I will not put up with fascists, and I know fascists don't put up with me. Helicoid.
    • Impartial? Oh firstly, you still address my persona worngly. Of course, I doubt you'd notice. The people I criticise, namely Correas et al, have yet to be contributors to Wikipedia, so its hardly a personal attack: I'm not doing business with them. I'm not debating with them. I am criticising them, and doubting their credibility. Power to wield? As for "muzzling", you were blocked for your revert warring, and you know it - not because of your support of aetherometry. -- Natalinasmpf, 22:48, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • You are more than a bit strange.If only you weren't so deliberately unpleasent to people you'd be quite funny Theresa Knott (ask the rotten), 22:31, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Thank you. but I'm most funny when being unpleasant to biased fanatics, wouldn't you say? Now answer: why are the italics again back on the main entry? Helicoid
    • To point out to the reader that this [the Reich-Einstein experiment] wasn't a published collaborative experiment. (By published I mean in a proper journal) Einstein didn't collaborate at all. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten), 22:41, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I can see that you and I, Knott, have a bourgeoning relationship here. My turn to teach once more (I luv that stuff!, with and without cane; old school, you know): Einstein agreed to perform the experiment with Reich. That's a fact. He also confirmed the results. Another fact. He also did not object or make any legal threats to Reich, when the latter's private research institute published the correspondence and the facts. These are facts. Now, who are you to judge what is a proper venue for publication? Or whether the name of an experiment that has been published in 7 or 8 references written by people with far more qualifications than yourself, is right or not? It is cynical to want to accept only as facts that which are already accepted as facts. It is circular. Discovery in science would die if you did that. Facts must fight for acceptance within a system loaded by power, money interests, technological advantages. Most facts that are accepted today by institutional science began humbly, without peer-support and peer-review. They are the repressed of a properly Oedipal Science, as Guattari and Deleuze concluded a few decades back. Helicoid

    • 2) Aetherometry Talk. Subject: Correa's PhD

    Since I had nothing better to do today I downloaded and looked through Correa's PhD. And, contrary to what the anon insisted, it was granted in neither molecular physics, nor is it in biophysics. And even Paulo's best friend Helicoid couldn't get the department right. It happens to have been granted by the Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology, University of Toronto. And as far as its laying the groundwork for aetherometry, it's interesting to read what Correa has to say in terms of "future work":

    Two main areas of future work can be envisioned as a result of our findings: 1) investigation of the expression of the Type I IGF-I receptor gene and tis protein products in normal and PV erythroid progenitors; and 2) investigation of the possible modulation exerted by the IGF-I binding proteins on the IGF-I-dependent erythropoetic mechanism.

    So no, his PhD appears to be no more relevant to aetherometry than mine is. Guettarda, 28 June 2005 04:05 (UTC)

    Oh Illustrious Guettarda, you babble. The Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology is in the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Toronto, and the degree is in the area of Molecular Biology. Aetherometry claims an intimate relationship between massfree energy and the functioning of living systems, so a degree in Biology is quite prominently relevant to it. And I would imagine that after over 20 years of experimental and theoretical research in an area a person could be considered be competent enough in it, no? By your reasoning John McCarthy would have to be considered not sufficiently competent to be an authority in Lisp. DrHyde
    Read this page & the article history - the anon who insisted in putting the "Dr" in their said molecular physics. And while you're at it, read the dissertation. My comment only goes to the relevance of the "Dr" (which is not normally in an article ike this anyway). Show me where in the dissertaion he even begins to speculate about things like this, show me where aetherometry in any way derives from the skills or expertise demonstrated in the PhD, and I will withdraw my complaint. The anon argued that it is relevant. The reasoning goes something like this. My PhD is in biology. Aetherometry "is" relevant to biology. Therefore, I am more of an expert in aetherometry than someone without a PhD. That reasoning is fallacious. Similarly, Correa's PhD says nothing (for or against) his credentials when it comes to aetherometry. Thus, it is irrelevant. I may babble, but I do not go off on unconnected tangents about speech pathology. Guettarda, 28 June 2005 14:32 (UTC)
    What is your problem? (as if I needed to ask.) Aetherometry did not exist when Correa got his Ph.D., so he couldn't have a PhD in it. The Anon said Correa's degree was in Molecular Biology; there is no such thing as Molecular Physics. The PhD question was first brought up by you, the so-called "Wikipedia community (oy vey, may the gods protect me from such communities), so apparently whether or not Correa has a PhD is considered relevant - you guys brought it up as relevant, not any Anon. And finally and terminally, the Correas are the creators of Aetherometry. This makes them prominent and unequalled experts in it. Let me repeat this: DR. PAULO CORREA AND ALEXANDRA CORREA ARE THE CREATORS OF AETHEROMETRY. Aetherometry encompasses the results of over 20 years of their still ongoing work. Aetherometry did not exist when Correa got his PhD, and is at present not recognized by mainstream science, so EVEN NOW one could not get one's PhD in it. DrHyde

    Maybe you should read what I wrote, read what's higher up this page, and look at the history of the article. It was not first brought up by me. See [a bunch of references to earlier parts of the Talk page] . As for: "The Anon said Correa's degree was in Molecular Biology; there is no such thing as Molecular Physics" - just look up the page: "And if you honestly want to claim that a degree in molecular physics is irrelevant to biophysics, then you must be under some serious misconceptions. Do you know much about either field? 165.154.24.70 19:19, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)".

    Obviously no-one could get a PhD is aetherometry - though I'd say the blame for that starts with the failure of the proponents to publish anything in a real journal. Publishing a frineg idea requires rigour. If you provide the rigour, someone will publish it - maybe not Nature, but you work your way down the line. All kinds of crap gets published. The bar is pretty low. If the only place you can publish is in a magazine (IE) then there is something majorly wrong with your methodology. Again, your rant is off-topic. For one, it isn't normal to call people "Dr X" in articles (except bios). I know there are exceptions, but standard practise is to not do so. More importantly, since Correa's PhD does not have bearing on the field (based on what is written in his dissertation), sticking it in looks like an attempt to use credentials in one field to prove credibility in another. Which is dishonest. Hence my flippant comments about my own - all I was saying is that a PhD in field X does not give you any extra credibility in field Y.

    So what is "my problem (as if you need to ask)"? That I'm fed up with trolls and revert wars? Guilty! That I find insultive and incivil people annoying? Guilty? That I go to the talk page before engaging in revert wars? Please do tell. Guettarda, 28 June 2005 15:23 (UTC)

    Ah, yes, indeed, one of the Anons mistyped and said "molecular physics", as contrasted with several other people who correctly said "molecular biology". And has it ever occurred to you that people may have better things to do with their lives than try to be accepted by the mainstream?.

    If you are fed up with trolls and revert wars, then DELETE the article. If you think Aetherometry is junk, then DELETE the article. If you cannot muster respect for it, its creators, or the people who know something about it, the DELETE the article. If you cannot spend the time learning about the topic, then DELETE the article. 'Stop wasting your time and other people's time. Do the honorable and reasonable thing. DELETE the article. DrHyde

    1. I have no opinion on aetherometry.
    2. I cannot delete an article against community consensus
    3. If you are so stresed out about this, why waste your time here? Find something useful to expand. Go find some "open tasks" or join a wikiproject. There are over 600,000 article in Wikipedia - find one to work on that doesn't stress you out to so much. Guettarda, 28 June 2005 17:04 (UTC)

    My PhD is utterly irrelevant. Having read Correa's - so is his. Please cite something in his dissertation upon which aetherometry is bulit (I have a copy of it right here, so please be specific). Guettarda 29 June 2005 03:48 (UTC)

    Wow. What a gem of misdirection. When I say that my PhD is irrelevant (as is Correa's, having read his PhD), you ask me to prove that my PhD is relevant. I never questioned Correa's PhD...but then, you aren't reading what I write anyway. Higher and higher every day till over the mast at noon; the wedding guest here beat his breast, for he hears the loud bassoon. If you had read what I said, you would know that I already have a copy of Correa's PhD. But credentials in one field do not translate into credentials in another. Even if, as you seem so fervently to believe, aetherometry is the answer to every field of knowledge, that relationship is non-orthogonal. The expertice that is took to get a PhD aren't relevant to aetherometry. You say his MSc is in biophysics (luckily for you, since it's not on UMI, you can say whatever you like...just like you did with the PhD before I went and got myself a copy). Were you calling him "Dr. Correa" based on his MSc? If not, then it has absolutely no bearing to the discussion. But who am I fooling. Go find some people who are stupid enough to be convinced by yelling and name calling. Maybe you are used to people who are afraid of you, or who are awed by whatever credentials you allude to...never get specific about, just imply that they somehow trump everyone else's. Go find some people whose insecurities run deeper. So which one of you is Paulo and which one is Alexandra? Or are you all the same person? Guettarda, 29 June 2005 03:48 (UTC)

    I'm paulo; I'm alexandra; I'm malgosia; I'm esmeralda; I'm carlos; I'm the stars; I'm god; I'm all the names of history; I'm all the sock puppets; perhaps I am also all the puppet admins. Aren't you a little confused? Yes, what is your PhD in? Let's have it. Helicoid.

    3) Partial list of the repeated modifications performed by members of the Wikipedia science-purification cabal to remove Dr. Paulo Correa's credentials, repeatedly demanded and questioned in Aetherometry Talk, from the Aetherometry article




    Revision as of 21:45, 16 July 2005
    216.254.159.249

    ← Older edit    		 Revision as of 21:46, 16 July 2005
    Pjacobi
    Reverted edits by 216.254.159.249 to last version by Salsb
    Newer edit →
    Line 1: Line 1:
    - "'''Aetherometry'''" is a term coined by Dr. Paulo Correa, PhD, 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'''" is a term coined by 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.




    Revision as of 21:48, 16 July 2005
    216.254.159.249
    Rv Jacobi's constant vandalism
    ← Older edit    		 Revision as of 21:48, 16 July 2005
    Pjacobi
    Reverted edits by 216.254.159.249 to last version by Pjacobi
    Newer edit →
    Line 1: Line 1:
    - "'''Aetherometry'''" is a term coined by Dr. Paulo Correa, PhD, 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'''" is a term coined by 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.

    Revision as of 22:01, 16 July 2005
    Rich Farmbrough

    ← Older edit    		 Revision as of 22:17, 16 July 2005
    Theresa knott
    pretty extensive edit
    Newer edit →
    Line 1: Line 1:
    - "'''Aetherometry'''" is a term coined by Dr. Paulo Correa, PhD, 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'''" is a term coined by Paulo Correa, PhD, 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.

    Revision as of 13:59, 17 July 2005
    The Anome
    sp.
    ← Older edit    		 Revision as of 16:26, 17 July 2005
    Mel Etitis
    tidied summary
    Newer edit →
    Line 1: Line 1:
    - "'''Aetherometry'''" is a term coined by Paulo Correa, PhD, 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'''" is a term coined by Paulo 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.

    Revision as of 17:33, 17 July 2005
    209.29.97.61
    the fake minor and anarchist is back; check the Dr in Wiliam M Connolley's Wikipedia entry for a man that technically is not a PhD...If credentials matter, then they matter; facts are facts.
    ← Older edit    		 Revision as of 18:30, 17 July 2005
    Mel Etitis
    rm unnecessary qualifications (see Talk)
    Newer edit →

    		{{cleanup}}
    		{{cleanup}}




    - "'''Aetherometry'''" is a term coined by biophysicist and molecular biologist Paulo Correa (MSc, PhD) 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'''" 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.

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