LetterToJimboWales26Jul.html

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

Letter to Jimbo Wales requesting the removal of the Aetherometry entry from Wikipedia (July 27)

Dear Mr. Jimbo Wales -

We, the undersigned, come by this means to request that the entry 'Aetherometry' be removed from Wikipedia. A reasoned argument would be too extensive and unnecessary when a simple demonstration of the fact that the topic/entry does not qualify by Wikipedia's own standards suffices. These standards include the section defined as:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ANo_original_research
What is excluded from articles

A simple comparison with the criteria for such exclusions clearly identifies the Aetherometry entry as amongst those that should be excluded by Wikipedia policy:

A Wikipedia entry (including any part of an article) counts as original research if it proposes ideas, that is:

it introduces a theory or method of solution; or
it introduces original ideas; or
it defines new terms; or
it provides new definitions of old terms; or
it introduces an original argument purporting to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position described in the article; or
it introduces neologisms.

All of the above may be acceptable content once they have become a permanent feature of the public landscape. For example:

the ideas have been accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal; or
the ideas have become newsworthy: they have been independently reported in newspapers or news stories (such as the cold fusion story).

If you have an idea that you think should become part of the corpus of knowledge that is Wikipedia, the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet, and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan manner.

The fact that we exclude something does not necessarily mean that material is bad – Wikipedia is simply not the proper venue for it. We would have to turn away even Pulitzer-level journalism and Nobel-level science if its authors tried to publish it first on Wikipedia.

As the creators and inventors/discoverers of Aetherometry, we can categorically state that the entry Aetherometry should count as original research because:

Aetherometry introduces a novel theory and several new methods for the solution of accepted scientific problems or questions;
Aetherometry introduces original ideas;
Aetherometry defines new terms, concepts and functions;
Aetherometry provides new definitions of old terms like mass and energy;
Aetherometry introduces many original arguments that claim to refute and overcome conventional, mainstream science;
Aetherometry introduces neologisms, beginning with the name Aetherometry;
The experiments and ideas behind Aetherometry have been peer-reviewed by credentialed peers, patent examiners and test-evaluators, and published in alternative physics publications, but not submitted to any mainstream science publications, and thus have not been peer-reviewed by mainstream journals.

Moreover, keeping the present entry in its highly contentious form is neither accurate nor fair to our extensive work, ie Aetherometry, nor is it of any discernible service to the public. In light of these simple facts, we hereby request that the entry be immediately and entirely removed.

Sincerely,

Paulo Correa, MSc, PhD
Alexandra Correa, HBA

PS - Our request is to remove the entry "Aetherometry", but we would like you to note that we also specifically object to the abusive and present classification of Aetherometry in a locked Wikipedia entry, as Pseudoscience. A short confrontation of the terms employed in the Wikipedia classification of Pseudoscience (in bold below) with respect to Aetherometry, easily illustrates the fact that this classification is, in the case of Aetherometry, purely slanderous libel:

1. Asserting claims without supporting experimental evidence:
    All the non-speculative claims asserted by Aetherometry have been backed by experiments; these are experiments that were published in non-mainstream scientific publications and in various instances reviewed by a variety of peers, but predominantly independent ones.
    The list of all these experiments was present in Dr. Askanas's original submission to Wikipedia, under Experimental Aetherometry, but this was vandalized and suppressed in a shockingly fascistic fashion. The archived record of this process is a public disgrace. Dr. E. Mallove's description of many of these experiments was equally discarded. So were the abstracts of many of these papers collected at www.aetherometry.com by a small, independent scientific publisher (Akronos Publishing), under the rubric of 'vanity press'. Deliberate suppression of information makes it appears that there is no experimental evidence for Aetherometry.

2. Asserting claims which contradict experimentally established results
    No claim of Aetherometry contradicts established results, even if many claims or findings of Aetherometry contradict official, institutional, established, mainstream interpretations of established results. An example in point is: to claim that a demonstrable, massfree dynamic Aether exists is not in direct contradiction with any established results - since the Aether that was abrogated by established results was a ponderable, stationary, luminiferous Aether.

3. Failing to provide an experimental possibility of reproducible results
    Again, the extensive list of all the experiments backing up Aetherometry was present in Dr. Askanas's original submission, under Experimental Aetherometry, but was suppressed. The argument that some of these findings are in publications which must be purchased is specious, since all mainstream and non-mainstream science publications must also be purchased - through magazine subscription, through governmental allocation of tax dollars, etc. A list of independent authors and references citing Aetherometry in the entry itself, was also equally removed, as was a list of peers, examiners and test-evaluators. Every attempt was made to discredit not only our work but the work of any evaluator sufficiently courageous to have made his/her observations known.

4. Violating Occam's Razor (the principle of choosing the simplest explanation when multiple viable explanations are possible)
    This hardly applies, when Aetherometry presents explanations that are significantly simpler than many of the conventional models for well established facts. Indeed, Aetherometry claims to follow strictly the Ockham's razor principle. Yet we should note that there is nothing in this principle that precludes the identification, isolation or addition of complexifying variables which can demonstrably be proven as real and verifiable.

Lastly, we should like to mention that many of the results of Aetherometry have been submitted to peer-reviewed publications and conferences, just not publications or conferences organized by mainstream publications.

Next:: Reply from Jimbo Wales
To the full document: Wikipedia: A Techno-Cult of Ignorance