Section III.1 of Wikipedia: A Techno-Cult of Ignorance

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

To Anti-Wikipedia 2: The Rise of the Latrines

THE WAYS & MEANS OF THE SCIENCE-PURIFICATION CABAL AT WIKIPEDIA

1. WAR OF ATTRITION IN ORDER TO INTENTIONALLY FALSIFY SCIENTIFIC SUBJECT-MATTER

The Wikipedia cabal conducts a gratuitous war of attrition against the legitimate - i.e. knowledgeable - contributors of any entry pertaining to scientific endeavors which dissent from established scientific dogma. The war is waged always by the same players, with occasional drop-by help from random admins called in to produce a better show of "consensus", and its sole purpose is to ultimately secure an unchecked reign over the entry so as to freely falsify its subject matter.

1.1. The methods in this war of attrition range from systematic petty harassment of knowledgeable contributors, to group collaboration in the falsification of FACTS, sometimes even simple facts. Example: The cabal repeatedly harassed informed contributors to the Aetherometry entry by questioning Paulo Correa's credentials (see Appendix 2). Almost every day there would be someone who "forgot" what Dr. Correa's degrees were, which academic institutions granted them, when and in what subject. When they were spelled out once again, they would either be declared irrelevant to Aetherometry (for those who know what Aetherometry is, it is obvious that a doctorate in Molecular and Cellular Biology and Hematology is poignantly relevant to Aetherometry; but the cabal wanted the degree to be in Aetherometry itself!), or the whole question of credentials would be declared irrelevant (since obviously the cabal's own credentials were neither more considerable, nor more relevant, than Dr. Correa's) - only to be brought up again the next day at the cabal's whim. However, repeated attempts to actually mention the Correas' credentials within the Aetherometry article always met with reversions from the cabal, either on the silly grounds of "irrelevance" or because "we don't doctor people" - even though the Wikipedia entry for William Connolley, for example, most definitely "doctors" him. In other words, somehow Correa's credentials were "relevant" as a means of harassment, but as actual information they were "irrelevant". Similarly the cabal blocked attempts to place "chemist" and "medical doctor", or the appropriate degrees instead, after the name of Randall Mills (check out Appendix 1 for the exemplary record of July 15 and 16 concerning the Hydrino Theory article).

1.2. A crucial technique of both systematic harassment and falsification is the Wikipedians' willful erasure of the linguistic tools for distinguishing between questions of sound scientific practice and questions of mainstream acceptance. It is a simple matter of both logic and fact that a scientific endeavor can be conducted in strict accordance with the scientific method, and yet not be accepted into mainstream or official science - either because it has never been submitted for acceptance, or because its conclusions are too divergent from 'the science of the day'. Conversely, there are many 'scientific findings' that have made it into the mainstream even though they were not presided over by the scientific method. It is easy to inform oneself of this distinction and anybody aspiring to an editorship of scientific articles for a public encyclopedia should consider it his or her obligation to do so, rather than take a leap of faith and accept as science all that is officially 'certified' as such. In the case of Wikipedia's "scientific editors", however, the problem is far more egregious than just the neglect of a critical epistemological obligation. The witch-hunt posse that descended upon the Aetherometry entry was given, by the "supporters" of the entry, ample opportunity to educate itself about the distinction. It quickly became obvious, however, that what the "supporters" were facing was neither ignorance nor naivete, but rather a kind of deep, systemic malice which no amount of "information" or "education" could impact. Many examples of this will follow. Here, to begin with, is a typical exchange involving the same William Connolley:

PC[Dr. Paulo Correa]'s career in Hematology and Oncology is obviously irrelevant (asserting that either has any real connection to a physics theory will only make your oddness index go up). It isn't even current - his last 1st author pub was in 1999. So, I've asked you to list his physics based pubs, in real journals, and you can produce none. This is why the theory gets dismissed (or more accurately, is never even noticed enough to be dismissed) by physicists. William M. Connolley, 12:32:46, 2005-07-18 (UTC).

How do you know why, or even if, the theory "gets dismissed"? Have you asked the Correas for the history of the theory? Have you
ever done any unconventional science? What makes you people so full of yourselves - is it hereditary or acquired? Or is there a special
Wikipedia training course in vengeful nerdiness? FrankZappo, 14:51, 18 July 2005

As I said, the theory doesn't even get dismissed - because it isn't in science journals, it never even gets noticed. And I'm still waiting for his physics pubs, which you assert exist, though you can't find them. William M. Connolley, 15:16:24, 2005-07-18 (UTC).

He asks for physics publications, but when they are quoted (and a list of the Correas publications in Appendix 3 in non-mainstream scientific venues, some of them peer-reviewed, was repeatedly made available in the course of these wrangligs), he rejects them as not being "physics", because they are not references to mainstream journals. For Connolley and the rest of the Wikipedia cabal there can be no such thing as legitimate science - by the standards of scientific inquiry - that is dissident or pioneering. If it is not part of the mainstream, it must be in violation of the scientific method, crackpottery, something that makes one - in the words of Dragon's Flight - "feel icky". If it is not published in mainstream science publications, it cannot be called "published"; and even if it has appeared in peer-reviewed non-mainstream science publications, it is still... not published, because the term "non-mainstream science publication" is a contradiction in terms, and people who associate with such enterprises are not "peers". Yes, these are the Wikipedian criteria for determining facts, and William M Connolley, together with PJacobi, Theresa Knott, Freddie Salsbury and Guettarda, are there to relentlessly drill it in:

(Difference between revisions)

From this entirely surrealistic record, one can already discern the bizarre truth of the matter: whenever 'mainstream' is employed as a positive adjective, it has right and might; whenever 'mainstream' is employed by distinction from 'non-mainstream', it ceases to have any reality, let alone right or might. This is veritable Newspeak, or, properly, Wikispeak. Indeed, here is how PJacobi tells it, in his vote to delete the short-lived and always-already-doomed category "Non-mainstream Science" which had been created to provide an accurate classification for - well, non-mainstream science:

The whole concept of "Mainstream science" is bogus. Either it is considered science now or not. Obviously human knowledge will change over the centuries and judgements will change, but this is out of our reach. Category:Pseudophysics better captures the difference between Autodynamics and Special relativity. Delete. --Pjacobi, 08:12, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Let us, at this point, sketch a whirlwind history of the categorization of Aetherometry in Wikipedia. The Aetherometry entry was first created in response to a pre-existing request for such an entry (in itself a nice trap...), and the request was in the category "Applied Sciences". Consequently, the original author classified the article as "Applied Sciences", and also as "Philosophy". On the next day, the incomparable PJacobi recategorized the article to "Pseudoscience". Now "Pseudoscience", as a Wikipedia category, is defined (at least as of this writing) by the following piece of Wiki-babble:

This category comprises articles pertaining to fields of endeavor or bodies of knowledge that are both claimed by their proponents to be supported by scientific principles and the scientific method, and alleged by their critics or the mainstream scientific community to be inconsistent with such principles and method. The term itself is contested by a number of different groups for a number of different reasons — see the main article for more information.

There is no doubt that this babble, even though brief, has been forged by the typical Wikipedian process whereby every ox pulls the cart in his own direction. For what significant scientific theory has not, at one time or another, been alleged "by its critics" to be inconsistent with the scientific method? As defined, the category "Pseudoscience" would encompass all of science. And what of the "main article", which one is supposed to see for "more information"? Well, we have included its Sept 28, 2005, version as Appendix 16. This considerably longer "main article" is much more strident than the category definition, as it states right off the bat:

Pseudoscience is any body of knowledge, methodology, or practice that is erroneously regarded as scientific.

And thus, in the time it takes a Wikipedia reader to click on the link to the "main article", our hapless body of knowledge has passed from merely being alleged to be nonscientific by its critics or the mainstream, to being non-scientific, period. The allegation has been lifted to the status of truth, and regarding the body in question as being scientific has become just plain erroneous. The reader should also remark how Wikipedia elevates mainstream or official science to holiness - there can be no pseudoscience in official science; by definition, it is only science if it is official, mainstream, a current fad. So, what happened to all paradigms of mainstream science which were or are erroneously regarded as being scientific? The unmentionable...

The "main article" also contains the following piece of toadish didacticism:

Classifying pseudoscience

Pseudoscience fails to meet the criteria met by science generally (including the scientific method), and can be identified by a combination of these characteristics:
• by asserting claims or theories unconnected to previous experimental results;
• by asserting claims which cannot be verified or falsified (claims that violate falsifiability);
• by asserting claims which contradict experimentally established results;
• by failing to provide an experimental possibility of reproducible results;
• by failing to submit results to peer review prior to publicizing them (called "science by press conference")
• by claiming a theory predicts something that it does not;
• by claiming a theory predicts something that it has not been shown to predict;
• by violating Occam's Razor, the heuristic principle of choosing the explanation that requires the fewest additional assumptions when multiple viable explanations are possible (and the more egregious the violation, the more likely); or
• by a lack of progress toward additional evidence of its claims.
• by claims that the scientific authorities are engaged in a conspiracy to suppress a theory, often including accusations that these authorities have financial reasons, or other ulterior motives, for doing so.

One thing undeniably implied by the above characterization, however, is that, by the Wikipedians' own stated standards, it is not possible to evaluate any endeavor as "pseudoscientific" without at least a modicum of knowledge and understanding of the endeavor. And yet neither PJacobi nor any of the other caballists that subsequently kept shoving Aetherometry into the "Pseudoscience" category, had even the slightest inkling of the nature, content, or methods of Aetherometry. And they were proud of this lack of inkling: after all, who would want to bother informing himself about the nature, contents or methods of a 'pseudoscience'? Ick.

(For rebuttal of the totally abusive Wikipedia classification of Aetherometry as a 'pseudoscience', see the original letter of the Correas to Jimbo Wales.)

To return to our history: after PJacobi's reclassification, the knowledgeable contributors - pejoratively dismissed as "supporters" of Aetherometry - attempted another reclassification, into the considerably more fitting category "Protoscience", whose Wikipedia definition reads:

In the philosophy of science, the term protoscience is used to describe a new area of scientific endeavor in the process of becoming established. While protoscience is often speculative, it is to be distinguished from pseudoscience by its adherence to the scientific method and standard practices of good science, most notably a willingness to be disproven by new evidence (if and when it appears), or supplanted by a more-predictive theory.

In spite, however, of the fact that none of the Wikipedia Science Police had any basis for either claiming that Aetherometry diverges from the scientific method, or for judging Aetherometry as unwilling to be disproven by evidence or supplanted by a more-predictive theory, the attempted reclassification into Protoscience repeatedly failed, and Aetherometry, by the hands of the Wikipedia cabal, kept being pushed back into the fake category of "Pseudoscience". This went on until July 1st, when a hitherto unheard-from Administrator by the username Linas suddenly decided to create - and put Aetherometry into - a new category, "Pseudophysics", whose description, after some rounds of collective editing, stabilized into the following piece of lameness:

This category consists of those theories and research endeavours in the areas of physics and astronomy which are considered as not in accordance with facts or reality by mainstream science. They have not undergone the critical review process needed in order to be accepted by the scientific community as actual, valid theories of nature (usually referred to as the peer review process). Many of these fields have some supporters and are notable in having been broadly popularized.

It was quickly pointed out by the "supporters" of Aetherometry that if the purpose of the new category was to capture the fact that the endeavors in question have not been accepted into the mainstream, then there was no reason why its name should be "pseudophysics" - the appropriate, truthful, factual name would simply be "non-mainstream science". However, as it applies to Aetherometry, mainstream or official science has not made any considerate judgements (when the Wikipedia cabal was pressed to reference any such official judgement, they could not provide a single reference). Hence, by the Wikipedians' definition itself, Aetherometry could not have belonged to this new category of Pseudophysics either.

The constructive contributors to the Aetherometry entry first proposed that the category "pseudophysics" should be renamed and redefined, and then, when no such administrative action seemed to be forthcoming, they created, on July 6th, a new category, "Non-mainstream Science", and recategorized into it a number of entries previously miscategorized as "Pseudoscience" or "Pseudophysics". It is interesting to note that after Aetherometry was put into the category "Non-mainstream Science", Linas actually put it, in addition, into "Pseudophysics" - even though "Non-mainstream Science" perfectly served the stated purpose of "Pseudophysics", as far as nonaccordance with mainstream science goes. Obviously the real purpose of the label "Pseudophysics" was to retain the pejorative label "pseudo", while its definition (which could always be changed later) pretended that the category captured the neutral fact of 'non-mainstreamness'. After that, the "constructive contributors" kept removing Aetherometry from "pseudophysics", pointing out that "non-mainstream science" was the correct name for the concept, while the Wikipedia cabalists kept putting it back. Finally, on July 11th, the cabalists decided to apply to the problem a Final Solution, by submitting the category "Non-mainstream Science" to a vote for deletion (a fate it shared on that day with such categories as "Super 12 teams", "Fuckers of the Legislative Council of Hong Kong", "Domestic Cricket Competitions in the United States", "Fictional Psychokineticists", and "Fictional Clergy and Religions"). The submitter was a hitherto unheard-from user Septentrionalis, aka Pmanderson, whose User page informs you, the reader, that you "will get more respect if you create your user page", and sports an image with the Wikipedia maxim "Be Bold in Updating Pages". True to this principle, this Wikipedian boldly lunged into "non-mainstream science":

This category contains two articles, one of which is already in Category:Pseudophysics. Since the other is also a physical theory, I suggest the category be merged into Category:Pseudophysics. (The defining quality of 'pseudophysics' is "have not undergone the critical review process needed in order to be accepted by the scientific community") --- Septentrionalis, 15:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

The proposal immediately garnered approval from many other bold hitherto unheard-from Wikipedians, notable amongst whom in moronic malice was a software developer from the Czech Republic whose User Page bears the motto "Whereof one has nothing to say, thereof one must stay silent". He nonetheless wrote:

Merge/delete. The used (highly inprecise) euphemism only tries to wash away reality. Pavel Vozenilek, 20:38, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

The "non-mainstream science" category (like "Fuckers of the Legislative Council of Hong Kong", but unlike "Domestic Cricket Competitions in the United States") was eliminated on July 18th, after which the dissenting-science entries (viz. Aetherometry, Autodynamics, Hydrino theory, Cold Fusion, etc) were summarily shipped back into Pseudoscience. Surrealistic, no? An "encyclopedia" by wackos and for wackos.

We would like to be very clear on why we are telling this story. It is not a story of "intolerance", "discrimination", or "violation of free speech". We do not believe that Wikipedia, because it is said to be a "community encyclopedia", should be more "inclusive" or more "embracing of diversity" than an old-fashioned mainstream print encyclopedia such as the Britannica. We have no opinion on what Wikipedia should or should not be, what it should include or exclude. But one thing we are certain of: for as long as its editorial process is under the de facto control of a gang of ignorant bullies intent on denying and erasing, in the public mind, the distinction between scientific principles and approval by institutional science, any claim by Wikipedia to being a source of information or knowledge about science is purely fraudulent. To impute that 'scientific' is only that which has been "voted in" by mainstream institutions, is to utterly misrepresent and falsify the nature of scientific inquiry and the history of science, i.e. science itself. It would be fine if Wikipedia had a policy of not publishing articles on science that has not been endorsed by the mainstream - after all, it does not have the necessary means to perform an independent evaluation of scientific claims. But what is not fine is that, in the absence of such a policy, Wikipedia's self-appointed "editors" use the "dissenting science" submissions, contributed unsuspectingly and in good will, to pursue a systematic, purposely confusionistic politics of public misinformation and misrepresentation, whose goal is to equate science and truth with that which is thought inside institutions of power, and to instill contempt and malice against any thought which lies outside of them. Unless Wikipedia rids itself of this cancerous "editorship", its reliability as a source of knowledge about science will be no different from that of a Stalinist or Nazi encyclopedia.

1.3. Some of the falsification carried out by Wikipedians are labyrinthic conundrums of byzantine 'thought' aided by Wikipedia's own confused and confusing, 'floating' definitions. It can, of course, be amusing to watch such falsifications, as Wikipedians utilize or discard them at will, according to what is advantageous at the moment. Consider the Wikipedia definition of Magazine:

A magazine is a periodical publication containing a variety of articles on various subjects. Magazines usually have articles on popular topics of interest to the general public and are written at the reading level of most of the population. An academic periodical featuring scholarly articles written in a more specialist register is usually called a "journal."

By this idiotic definition, the periodical Science that calls itself a magazine is not a magazine, but a journal. But Infinite Energy, which calls itself a magazine, is also not a magazine - but neither is it a journal... Find the logic in the following exchange from the Aetherometry Talk, titled "Inifinite [sic] Energy Magazine":

Compare [the Wikipedia definitions of] Magazine and Scientific journal. -- Pjacobi, June 30, 2005 16:19 (UTC)

Interesting. So this magazine is the only place its [Aetherometry's] theories have been published? If so then it doesn't need mainstream. · Katefan0^(scribble), June 30, 2005 16:24 (UTC)

I am sorry to say that according to the definitions in those articles, Infinite Energy is definitely not a magazine. Since the article about "scientific journals" associates them with academia, it looks like Infinite Energy does not have any adequate categorization within the painfully narrow world that is Wikipedia. What do you call a periodically-appearing publication that has specialized articles in a single field, is not geared towards a "popular" level of understanding, and that publishes scientific articles that would be rejected by the mainstream because they are in a "taboo" subject? Me, I call it a non-mainstream scientific journal, and since Wikipedia has nothing to say on the subject, it's my POV against yours. DrHyde, 30 June 2005 16:31 (UTC)

But doesn't it call itself a magazine? It says so on the website: The Magazine of [etc etc]. · Katefan0^(scribble), June 30, 2005 16:37 (UTC)

Yup, it calls itself a magazine. But it sure ain't a magazine according to the description of "magazine" in the Wikipedia. And, at least in Eugene Mallove's time (which is when the Correas published there), its main purpose was to publish specialized scientific papers of the kind that normally would be published, peer-reviewed, discussed, etc. in maintream scientific journals, if the "peer review" process was not so prejudicial against entire fields of inquiry. In Mallove's time, Infinite Energy had its own peer-review process involving members of its own Scientific Advisory Board. DrHyde, 30 June 2005 17:02 (UTC)

Wikipedia article are not acceptable sources for material in Wikipedia. Too self-referential. Guettarda, 30 June 2005 16:49 (UTC)

Well, they seem to be quoted as "authority", or discarded as "self-referential", opportunistically. Jacobi sends me to them, and you disqualify them. Could give a person a headache. DrHyde, 30 June 2005 17:02 (UTC)

Whether its called a mag or not is fairly irrelevant. Science calls itselfa magazine - but by any normal defn its effectively a journal. And whatever it might call itself, IE isn't a science source. William M. Connolley, 2005-06-30 17:18:21 (UTC).

There you have it: no matter where and how they move the ball, it's always in just the right place to confirm a malicious original contention. The house always wins. And when they 'win' with their burlesque rotating tag-team shell games, it's never by the force of intelligent discourse, but always by nothing more than the sheer disgust and exhaustion of the enemy.

1.4. The Wikipedia falsification of facts is a remarkable sociological phenomenon. In part, it results from the attrition of legitimate contributors, and in part it is the result of intentional and systematic alteration of what was written. Both procedures are carried out as a constant guerrilla war on the topic at hand. More importantly, the process of falsification is part of a determined degradation of information, as if in Wikipedia the entropy of information was perpetually in pursuit of a bureaucratically organized maximum. The following short snippet from the history of the Aetherometry entry illustrates how such work of slow demolition removes factual and informational content:

cur) (last) 15:49, 18 July 2005 Natalinasmpf (rv edit against the issue mentioned at talk page)
(cur) (last) 15:39, 18 July 2005 4.233.125.1
(cur) (last) 12:32, 18 July 2005 Kbdank71 (recat)
(cur) (last) 00:14, 18 July 2005 The Anome (The Correas' website provides a set of references to aetherometry research (linked below), which includes the names of a number of their supporters and endorsers.)
(cur) (last) 00:11, 18 July 2005 The Anome (rm Tesla bit from Reich para)
(cur) (last) 18:30, 17 July 2005 Mel Etitis (rm unnecessary qualifications (see Talk))

Falsifying the entry's subject-matter is another form of pure parody and vilification. Here are some typical false attributions made to Aetherometry, in order to lampoon the subject:

"By definition the mass of one atom C12 is 12/NA gram, so its mass-equivalent wavelength is exactly 12 centimetres! Isn't this amazing? The very atom which defines organic life can be expressed as exactly 0.12 times the base unit of the Metric system! Shouldn't god's own country immediately switch to metric?" Pjacobi, 16:35, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)

"But if it's based on 12 doesn't that mean that God wants you to use the Imperial system?" Guettarda, 18:37, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Sorry, but more reading of Aetherometry pages made me think, that by application of Ockham's razor, the whole theory can only be joke. So I reacted in line with this." Pjacobi, 18:42, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)

"The process followed by the Correas has some superficial similarty with the scientific method, but only as a farce. And I'm somewhat suspicious abou science nuts, who don't see the large, flashing signs of bad physics, like physical constants of exactly 0.12m". Pjacobi, June 28, 2005 08:46 (UTC)

A farce, rather, is when someone pulls supposed "facts" out of thin air and pretends to have extracted them through "reading". It is a preferred Wikipedia form of disinformation. PJacobi imputes to Aetherometry the convention that is dominant in mainstream physics, that carbon 12 has a mass of exactly 12.000 (etc) mass units, as if Aetherometry had 'discovered' it, or proven that it was more than a convention, by turning it into 12 exact centimeters... Yet, the truth is that in the mass units scale of Aetherometry (which is neither the carbon 12 nor the oxygen 16 conventions), carbon comes up with a slight mass excess (not 12.000, but 12.0076, whether in aetherometric mass units or in centimeters), exactly because the aetherometric scale is based on the aetherometric structure of the proton. But the ham PJacobi is unconcerned about facts, so he invents his own - and, presto, with the servile Guettarda serving as crutch, Aetherometry is made to claim that carbon 12 has a mass-equivalent wavelength of exactly 12 centimeters... Dimwits. Such is the pseudoscience 'manufactured' by Wikipedians.

Here is another example of wanton parody, also from the Aetherometry Talk:

Here are some experiments that caught my eye: "The Aetherometric Weight-Neutralizer (AWN) is a tunable, target-directed device that can be used for short-range weight-cancellation of an object of known chemical composition. With a power consumption of a few watts, first-generation devices can induce weight-loss of objects weighing in the 100 mg range, by employing a homogenous ambipolar energy beam." ; The Aetherometric Anti-Gravitator; Power from Nuclear Fusion in Table-Top Reactors; "Aether Motor/Converter (AMC). Its development drew upon the lost and misunderstood investigations of Nikola Tesla and upon Wilhelm Reich's 'Orgone Motor'. The AMC operates by extracting Massfree Energy from Faraday cage-like enclosures or resonant cavities, living beings, the ground, vacua (Reich's Vacor tube principle), and atmospheric antennas." Lots more just as interesting at http://www.massfree.com/Technologies.html. GangofOne, 4 July 2005 07:27 (UTC)

Sounds exciting. If genuine, it would have been submitted to Nature or Science. Since it hasn't been, the conclusion is obvious... come back when you have some genuine references to genuine journals. & its "Dr Connolley" to you. William M. Connolley, 2005-07-04 11:19:35 (UTC).

Exciting? That word doesn't even nearly describe how fantantastic this machine sounds. Cancelling out weight! Extracting energy from the vacuum! Extracting some kind of weird lifeforce energy from living things! You betcha it would get into science or nature! Why if I invented this thing I'd be hammering on scientists doors all over the place. " Don't say a word until you look at what this thing can do". The fact that it hasn't even been submitted to a journal is a bit dissapoining [sic] though. Could it be that the Correas are perhaps er exaggerating or even outright lying? Without someone else repeating their results it's very difficult to tell for sure. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke), 4 July 2005 20:23 (UTC)

Ah, the pseudoscientific argument of "would have been". How do you know what would have been? 209.183.20.136, 4 July 2005 14:04 (UTC)

You are atroll, and you're now reduced to vandalising the page. William M. Connolley, 2005-07-04 16:43:05 (UTC).

Next: RAMPANT ADMINISTRATOR BIAS
Previous: BRIEF HISTORY & RECORD OF THE AETHEROMETRY ENTRY IN WIKIPEDIA

Revision as of 15:58, 30 June 2005 DrHyde Older edit		Revision as of 16:06, 30 June 2005 William M. Connolley published, not peer-reviewed. rm mainstream. Newer edit

	[[Eugene Mallove]] was a public supporter of aetherometry, and was one of the founding members of the International Society of Friends of Aetherometry.		[[Eugene Mallove]] was a public supporter of aetherometry, and was one of the founding members of the International Society of Friends of Aetherometry.

-	Aetherometry has not been [[peer review]]ed in any mainstream scientific journals.	+	Aetherometry has not been published in any scientific journals.

Revision as of 16:11, 30 June 2005 DrHyde If Connolley thinks Infinite Energy is not a scientific journal, that's his POV. Older edit		Revision as of 16:18, 30 June 2005 Pjacobi rv - It's a magazine, even by self-labelling Newer edit

	[[Eugene Mallove]] was a public supporter of aetherometry, and was one of the founding members of the International Society of Friends of Aetherometry.		[[Eugene Mallove]] was a public supporter of aetherometry, and was one of the founding members of the International Society of Friends of Aetherometry.

-	Aetherometry has not been published in any mainstream scientific journals.	+	Aetherometry has not been published in any scientific journals.

Revision as of 16:32, 30 June 2005 DrHyde Whether or not Infinite Energy is a scientific journal is one POV against another. Older edit		Revision as of 16:35, 30 June 2005 Guettarda rv nonsense - visit IE's website! Newer edit

	[[Eugene Mallove]] was a public supporter of aetherometry, and was one of the founding members of the International Society of Friends of Aetherometry.		[[Eugene Mallove]] was a public supporter of aetherometry, and was one of the founding members of the International Society of Friends of Aetherometry.

-	Aetherometry has not been published in any mainstream scientific journals.	+	Aetherometry has not been published in any scientific journals.

Revision as of 20:01, 3 July 2005 216.254.161.129 Aetherometry is not a soccer club Older edit		Revision as of 20:03, 3 July 2005 William M. Connolley This isn't a page about IE (is it?) and IE isn't a sci journal. Simplify. Newer edit

	[[Eugene Mallove]], founder of ''Infinite Energy'' magazine, was a public supporter of aetherometry, and was one of the founding members of the International Society of Friends of Aetherometry.		[[Eugene Mallove]], founder of ''Infinite Energy'' magazine, was a public supporter of aetherometry, and was one of the founding members of the International Society of Friends of Aetherometry.

-	Papers about aetherometry have not been published in any major scientific journals, although articles about aetherometry have been published in ''Infinite Energy'', which specializes in unorthodox topics such as cold fusion, "vast energy sources from the vacuum state", and energy sources requiring "significant extensions to the Second Law of Thermodynamics" .	+	Papers about aetherometry have not been published in any scientific journals.

Revision as of 04:45, 4 July 2005 Theresa knott let's try that again (I must have been editing and old version before) Older edit		Revision as of 12:43, 4 July 2005 William M. Connolley Separate out not-pub from those who have. Listing medical Drs as reviewing plasma physics must be an embarassment to Aetherometry, though. Newer edit

	[[Eugene Mallove]], founder of ''Infinite Energy'' magazine, was a public supporter of aetherometry, and was one of the founding members of the International Society of Friends of Aetherometry.		[[Eugene Mallove]], founder of ''Infinite Energy'' magazine, was a public supporter of aetherometry, and was one of the founding members of the International Society of Friends of Aetherometry.

-	Papers about aetherometry have not been published in any mainstream science publications. However, work in Aetherometry, including plasma physics, biophysics and technology-tests, has been independently reviewed by the following scientists and medical doctors: Eugene Mallove (PhD), Harold Aspden (PhD, P. Eng), Uri Soudak (P. Eng, MSc), Dr. M. Askanas (PhD), Professor Emeritus A. Axelrad (MD, PhD), Professor Emeritus William Tiller (PhD), Luis Balula (M.Arch, PhD), Howard Brinton (MD), Vitaly Bard (MD), Lev Sapogin (PhD), George Egely (PhD), Prof. Emeritus Herman Branover (PhD).	+	Papers about aetherometry have not been published in any scientific journals.

Revision as of 04:28, 5 July 2005 Theresa knott whoops! Older edit		Revision as of 10:57, 5 July 2005 William M. Connolley rm "mainstream" Newer edit

	[[Eugene Mallove]], founder of ''Infinite Energy'' magazine, was a public supporter of aetherometry, and was one of the founding members of the International Society of Friends of Aetherometry.		[[Eugene Mallove]], founder of ''Infinite Energy'' magazine, was a public supporter of aetherometry, and was one of the founding members of the International Society of Friends of Aetherometry.

-	Papers about aetherometry have not been published in any mainstream scientific journals.	+	Papers about aetherometry have not been published in any scientific journals.

Revision as of 17:13, 5 July 2005 4.240.78.8 Remove misleading category title. Needs renaming. Older edit		Revision as of 18:11, 5 July 2005 Pjacobi Reverted edits by 4.240.78.8 to last version by William M. Connolley Newer edit


-	Papers about aetherometry have not been published in any mainstream scientific journals.	+	Papers about aetherometry have not been published in any scientific journals.

Revision as of 18:19, 5 July 2005 TTLightningRod Because one can't possibly know the "non-contents" of all journals. Inclusion of "mainstream" is NPOV. Older edit		Revision as of 18:20, 5 July 2005 Pjacobi Reverted edits by TTLightningRod to last version by Pjacobi Newer edit


-	Papers about aetherometry have not been published in mainstream scientific journals.	+	Papers about aetherometry have not been published in any scientific journals.

Revision as of 22:32, 5 July 2005 216.254.163.67 Older edit	Revision as of 22:34, 5 July 2005 Pjacobi Reverted edits by 216.254.163.67 to last version by Theresa knott Newer edit

	+
	+	Papers about aetherometry have not been published in any scientific journals.

Revision as of 03:02, 14 July 2005 216.254.166.86 Aetherometry has been published in nonmainstream scientific publications Older edit		Revision as of 03:06, 14 July 2005 Salsb Newer edit


-	No papers about aetherometry have been published in mainstream scientific publications.	+	No papers about aetherometry have been published in scientific publications.

Revision as of 10:44, 15 July 2005 TTLightningRod Proper skeptical review, should proceed friendship. To suggest otherwise, insinuates severe ethical breach on the part of the reviewer, or bad faith on the part of the editor. Older edit	Revision as of 11:56, 15 July 2005 William M. Connolley Restore No papers about aetherometry have been published in any scientific journals. This is an important fact that needs to be in there. Newer edit

	+
	+	No papers about aetherometry have been published in any scientific journals.

Revision as of 13:40, 15 July 2005 TTLightningRod There is more than one ''scientific community'', why not highlight this distinction? Are the contributors here unfamiliar with the growing rift at say, NASA? Is it really necessary to enumerate them h Older edit		Revision as of 14:08, 15 July 2005 William M. Connolley Don't need weaselly "although". Sci lit is separeate from Akronos - don't want them to share para Newer edit


-	Although no papers on aetherometry have been published in scientific journals, work in Aetherometry has appeared in a number of non-mainstream journals such as Infinite Energy magazine. Most of the research papers and books in aetherometry are published by Akronos Publishing, a Canadian publishing house in which Paulo Correa and Alexandra Correa are partners. This approach bypasses the established [[peer review]] system employed by mainstream scientific journals, and is therefor frowned upon by a large section of the scientific community.	+	No papers on aetherometry have been published in scientific journals

Revision as of 19:58, 15 July 2005 216.254.165.207 Older edit		Revision as of 20:39, 15 July 2005 Salsb restoring reference to lack of peer review, and lack of publication Newer edit


-	Work in Aetherometry has not been published in mainstream scientific publications, but has appeared in a number of non-mainstream journals such as Infinite Energy magazine. Most of the research papers and books in aetherometry are published by Akronos Publishing, a Canadian publishing house in which Paulo Correa and Alexandra Correa are partners.	+	No papers on aetherometry have been published in scientific journals.

Revision as of 05:31, 16 July 2005 4.232.6.35 See articles on Tesla at aetherometry.com Older edit		Revision as of 08:27, 16 July 2005 Theresa knott Putting " not in a scientific journal" back in. This both true and important, so please stop removing it Newer edit


-	Work in Aetherometry has not been published in mainstream scientific publications, but has appeared in a number of non-mainstream journals such as Infinite Energy magazine. Most of the research papers and books in aetherometry are published by Akronos Publishing, a Canadian publishing house in which Paulo Correa and Alexandra Correa are partners.	+	Work in Aetherometry has not been published in scientific journals; thereby bypassing the [[peer-review]] process that these journals use. This means that aetherometry is ignored by the scientific community.

Revision as of 14:32, 16 July 2005 4.233.125.162 Statement in untrue and POV and will continue to be replaced. Hope others will continue to replace it. Older edit		Revision as of 14:43, 16 July 2005 Guettarda Anon asked that others continue to replace his untrue and POV statements - will oblige - back to TK's version Newer edit
	[[Eugene Mallove]], founder of ''Infinite Energy'' magazine, was a public supporter of aetherometry, and was one of the founding members of the International Society of Friends of Aetherometry.		[[Eugene Mallove]], founder of ''Infinite Energy'' magazine, was a public supporter of aetherometry, and was one of the founding members of the International Society of Friends of Aetherometry.

-	Work in Aetherometry has not been published in mainstream scientific publications, but has appeared in a number of non-mainstream journals such as Infinite Energy magazine. Most of the research papers and books in aetherometry are published by Akronos Publishing, a Canadian publishing house in which Paulo Correa and Alexandra Correa are partners.	+	Work in Aetherometry has not been published in scientific journals; thereby bypassing the [[peer-review]] process that these journals use. This means that aetherometry is ignored by the scientific community.

Revision as of 17:01, 16 July 2005 4.249.18.157 Older edit		Revision as of 18:17, 16 July 2005 William M. Connolley Delete De Broglie: irrelevant. Re-insert no-sci-publ. Newer edit


-	Work in Aetherometry has not been published in mainstream scientific publications, but has appeared in a number of non-mainstream journals such as Infinite Energy magazine. Most of the research papers and books in aetherometry are published by Akronos Publishing, a Canadian publishing house in which Paulo Correa and Alexandra Correa are partners.	+	Work in Aetherometry has not been published in scientific publications

Revision as of 20:01, 16 July 2005 Salsb rv back to Karada undoing 4.2 Older edit		Revision as of 20:03, 16 July 2005 Salsb mostly rv back to Karada undoing 4.2... fourth reversion in 3 hrs Newer edit


-	Work in Aetherometry has not been published in [[peer-reviewed]] scientific publications, and appears to be ignored by mainstream science. Most of the published material on aetherometry has been published by Akronos Publishing, a Canadian publishing house in which Paulo Correa and Alexandra Correa are partners, or in Eugene Mallove's magazine ''Infinite Energy''.	+	Work in Aetherometry has not been published in [[peer-reviewed]] scientific publications, and appears to be ignored by scientists. Most of the published material on aetherometry has been published by Akronos Publishing, a Canadian publishing house in which Paulo Correa and Alexandra Correa are partners, or in Eugene Mallove's magazine ''Infinite Energy''.

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


-	Papers, books and DVDs in Aetherometry has been published by Akronos Publishing, a Canadian publishing house in which Paulo Correa and Alexandra Correa are partners, or in Eugene Mallove's magazine ''Infinite Energy'', but not in mainstream scientific publications.	+	Papers, books and DVDs in Aetherometry has been published by Akronos Publishing, a Canadian publishing house in which Paulo Correa and Alexandra Correa are partners, or in Eugene Mallove's magazine ''Infinite Energy'', but not in mainstream scientific publications. Therefore they have not undergone the strict peer review system that mainstream science demands. This means that aetherometry has been largly ignored by the scientific community.