Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aetherometry

Aetherometry

• Current Tally: Keep: 16, Delete: 14, Merge/Redirect: 1

No attempt made to account for sockpuppets/new users. Dragons flight 17:56, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

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. [1] 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)

Possibly change of vote (I'm not sure yet). It is our noble mission indeed for mankind to make sure such theories get a proper critique, such that this article may always be cited in opposition to this theory to prevent people from being duped into believing this stuff for once and for all. If it's that notable, then such a theory in danger of cheating people must be addressed with the proper truth that this doesn't go well with actual science. -- Natalinasmpf 19:50, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All right, since you say you can't follow my comments if I split you paragraph, I am leaving your paragraph intact above and putting my comments down here.

Natalinasmpf: Advertising, pseudoscience, and a hoax.

FrankZappo: Isn't it slanderous to call people's work a "hoax" without any factual basis? Weird goings-on, this Wikipedia stuff. Exempt from ordinary laws, or what? And this is the guy that talks about "notifying the authorities".

Firstly, you address me wrong. How is it slanderous? From once glance, it looks very likely, considering how many violations with accepted quantum mechanics it has. I think many Wikipedians will be inclined to agree with me. I can call it a hoax if I want - at least I'm not making up some newfangled theory, presenting it as valid without peer review, asserting its truth, then trying to scam people out of donations. -- Natalinasmpf 21:16, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Natalinasmpf: Its certainly not notable either. It undermines the professionalism of Wikipedia,

FrankZappo: Wow, the professionalism of Wikipedia? This is the guy who calls others a "petit bourgeois"? Show me an ounce of professionalism in the current "discussion" of the Aetherometry entry.

Petit bourgeois was an eye for an eye remark. You should well see the context. Oh, citing hypocrisy (which I doubt it), is a logical fallacy.

Natalinasmpf: and would contribute to the ignorance of the masses by corporate propagation of snake oil material.

FrankZappo: Isn't it slanderous to refer to people's work as "snake oil" without any factual basis? And where does this "corporate" come from? Aetherometry now has a corporation? Wow! Who knew? - But doesn't that mean that it has hit the Mainstream and is worthy of inclusion in that Mainstay of Professionalism, the Wikipedia?

Looking at the company and "labs", the Correas has set up, it looks like those companies that goes around selling miracle pills, only now in the field of energy. How is slanderous? This is an encylopedia, I am accusing it of being snake oil. In contrast, I'm not making fraud, either. If its a corporation, it becomes commercial spam, not "hit the mainstream". There are plenty of corporations out there selling pseudoscience.

Natalinasmpf: Also, notice how half the terms it links to are red, probably signifying it doesn't have any empirical scientific concepts whatsoever?

FrankZappo: I am sorry, this is only my <27654th edit, but already I know that red has nothing to do with a concept being empirical, it just means that nobody thought of including it in Wikipedia, or that the name in the link does not match the name in the Wikipedia entry. I noticed, for example, that "material body" does not seem to have an entry in the Wikipedia, and yet I think you would agree the concept is quite empirical.

No, when there's overwhelmingly a lot of red links, its not that "no one has thought of including it", it means its such overwhelmingly a neologism, the very theory of Aetherometry is not basing itself on "previous concepts", like it claims (from Tesla et al) - its fabricating its own. Most fundamental particles have already been included, if you want to theorise that some of these fundamental particles have a new property, link their name, and call it "massfree" and whatnot, go get a cyclotron, or tracers and show evidence of it - after all, neutrinos themselves were discovered to have mass by their oscillations. That is empirical. Coming up with new particles one hasn't verified and presenting it as truth isn't.

Natalinasmpf: 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. [2] 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.

FrankZappo: Yup, I noticed this past Tuesday that the world started a descent into hell, and now I know why. FrankZappo 19:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please see WP:NPA, WP:CIV. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 20:01, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

• That's a very dark view on things, but yes, this scientific super-answer needs to be deleted post-haste. User:Humblefool 23:52, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete total b.s. Anti-gravitons? kinetons? Come on. --Etacar11 00:00, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh I just wanted to comment, I'm not against the idea of anti-gravitons myself, but the article seems to accept the premise of them without peer review, and assertingly, and without the fact that *gasp*, that's only a hypothesis and an unresolved model, so hence... -- Natalinasmpf 02:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, seems like a notable pseudoscience with 4,680 google hits. Google doesn't say anything about relevance, just similarity. Kappa 00:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But only 53 hits in Google Groups, see my comment below. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:48, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. 4,860 google hits is kind of poor for a scientific concept, don't you think? Compare quantum teleportation, and its google hits of 118,000 [3], which in itself is scientifically radical, but at least not a commercial hoax. And reduce that 4,680 hits for Aetherometry to 196 - most of it is just repetitive commercial spam, not actual scientific nor popular discussion. -- Natalinasmpf 00:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • "4,860 google hits is kind of poor for a scientific concept, don't you think?". No, in fact 100 google hits is plenty. Kappa 00:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Hey guys, the Google count went up, it's now at 5100 hits! That's an almost 5% increase in notability, in only 4 days. 66.217.179.112 17:40, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC) Actually, it was me, I forgot to log on. OldPatrick
  • Quantum teleportation is a bad analogy as that is a term used to describe a widely accepted and experimentally demonstrated process in quantum mechanics whereby the quantum state of one atom can be transferred to another over small but macroscopically significant distances. In that context, it is not at all radical. Oh, and for the record, I suspect they are zealots (true believers of what they are saying) rather than hoaxers or commericial scam artists. Dragons flight 01:08, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• I am going to hate myself for saying this, but rewrite. This is psuedoscience, quackery, and great number of other unflattering things, but unfortunately, I believe it is notable quackery. The Correas and followers have, through determined effort, managed to insinuated their ideas into thousands of websites [4] [5], and written multiple books, "research papers", and essays. They really do have PhDs supporting their work (though a list of the fields of study of those PhDs might be entertaining). Perhaps most importantly, this is not the first time I have encountered aetherometry. If it is something I have heard of before by chance, then odds are it is sufficiently widespread to be notable (lord help us all). That said, the version of the article that is ultimately kept needs serious NPOVing, in addition to stating the opinions of these believers, it needs to state the mainstream objections, and comments from critics such as [6]. Honestly, I rather hope this is deleted, but I can't really support that. Okay, now that I feel icky, I'm going away. Dragons flight 00:24, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

I just looked up the Wikipedia entry on pseudoscience. It says that a theory can be recognized as pseudoscience by these characteristics:

• by asserting claims or theories without first verifying them in experiments
• by asserting claims which cannot be verified or falsified (claims that violate falsifiability);
• by asserting claims without supporting experimental evidence;
• 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.

Now, I've read everything that the Coreeas have published, and I have to confess that I cannot figure out which of these characteristics Aetherometry is claimed to possess. What exactly is the basis for you calling it pseudoscience? I mean, you can call it anything you want, I am sure, but if you are trying to be truthful to boot, then what are your criteria? 66.217.179.112 17:54, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC) That was me too. OldPatrick

And we're supposed to take you on your word? Just because they asserted a theory in a book doesn't make it correct. I don't see experimental evidence anywhere, other than claiming they have it (ie. I don't see reports where it was reproduced in say, a scientific journal, verifications et al), a scientific paper cited, (rather than just an advocacy website, ie. in pdf form, complete with verifiable addreses which one can contact), with page and line number cited...oh yes, it does violate Occam's razor. It has failed to submit results to rigorous peer review, as well. Mind you, I would have severely bashed Einstein as well had he tried to assert his theory of relativity as fact without submitting them to rigorous peer review first. But fortuately, he did. -- Natalinasmpf 18:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Look, if Wikipedia simply does not want articles about scientific efforts that have not been published in mainstream journals, why not say so to begin with? As far as I can see, nobody ever defended Aetherometry by claiming it was accepted by the mainstream. Why all this broohaha? I suspect that if the original author had just been told to begin with, "Look, this has not been accepted by the mainstream, so Wikipedia is not a place for it", he or she would have withdrawn and nobody's time would have been wasted. And no, you have no idea whether or not Aetherometry violates Occam's razor, because you have no idea what experimental data it is trying to explain. And the results have been available for peer review for at least 4 years now, so the statement "it has failed to submit results to rigorous peer review" is not accurate either. OldPatrick 19:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That isn't the point. We're not even sure of these "scientific efforts" are notable. Wikipedia does not have to include articles about every single attempt to try to find some "free energy" source in the world. For example, Stephen Hawking has his entry on Hawking radiation existing because 1) it was notable 2) it is sent through peer review, even though its very controversial, and only 70% accepted by the mainstream (as a figure of speech). It may submit results for "peer review", but unless it suddenly accumulated enough review to verify it as evidence (like results reproduced over and over again, documented, and resubmitted), then its not "rigorous". "I have no idea what experimental data it is trying to explain"? If you mean the original information here, yes I do, unless you want to be Helicoid and allege that "I haven't read the material". - but if you mean because the results haven't been published, then duly right, it shouldn't be here if its not going to be verified anyway. Unless you're Helicoid's sockpuppet? -- Natalinasmpf 19:55, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• As Natalinasmpf notes, only 196 unique Googles. Non-notable pseudoscience. Delete without prejudice against recreation iff it can be shown that this is a notable crank theory and the article is written or re-written to convey that idea. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 00:17, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment See also Adams motor. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:11, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep as Neologism: For no other reason, the term should remain as an article. Re-written, yes. However deletion of an article, if only a concept, is truly UN- encyclopedic.... and perfectly UN- scientific. This very discussion around VfD, should return to the "discussion" page right behind the word's article itself. People who post a banner like this would be much more constructive to the effort of article editing and encyclopedia creation, if your words both Pro and Con were kept closer to the article itself. Not in this far off corner, removed from healthy debate. Everything said above has a real and undeleted place in Talk:Aetherometry. Why not try it sometime, instead of effortless deletion? On very good "authority"; WikiPedia is not running out of cyber-storage-space to have 10K words written about Aetherometry. Would one of you like to offer an explanation of the word as simply a concept? (Ya'll sound like some Microsoft ninnies who thinks "00" cost too much in memory space. Have you heard? There's plenty of room for even this CRAZY article) - Anon who can prove it. — (Unsigned comment by 68.110.237.166; user's 8th edit.)
  • Neologisms aren't encyclopedic. And while, in general principle, I agree with you that articles ought to be considered for their subject rather than their content, allowing this hoax masquerading as valid science to remain is a disservice to the reader. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 01:29, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

"Hoax masquerading as valid science?" How would you know? Please see WP:NPA, WP:CIV. FrankZappo 20:54, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ironic. That isn't a personal attack, nor being uncivil by the way. Its a perfectly legitimate allegation. Stop trying to evade the argument. -- Natalinasmpf 21:16, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • • Neologisms aren't original research unless contributors actually make them up themselves. Kappa 02:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • 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). -- Natalinasmpf 02:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the main article (which needs to be shortened and NPOVed) and delete all its spin-offs. --Rlandmann 02:44, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - Issues on which I would readily change my vote: (1) Neologism: is there another term that accurately enfolds this theory? Please don't respond with "hoax" or "pseudoscience". If there is such a term, I'll change my vote to Merge. If not, it is self-consistent (if dubious) theory with no other reasonable title. (2) Is this original research? If so, delete it under that. (3) Why Vfd and not NPOV Dispute Tag? It sounds as if there is a legitimate discussion going on (enough right here to keep a talk page happy). If the overwhelming tide is against the theory, post the (verifiable, peer reviewed) rebuttals and change the lead to accurately reflect an NPOV. (4) "Dangerous", et al: If we delete all of the pages that reviewers would call "dangerous" and "crank", or that "undermine the professionalism of Wikipedia", the Christian Fundamentalists and the Humanists alone could cull 99% of the project, since about everything one believes is "dangerous" in the others' view. Happy to change my vote for a strong argument on any of these, but right now the debate above does more to prove why we should KEEP the page than why we should delete. Kevin/Last1in 03:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) - Changed to Keep20050624/2256z
• Oy, Keep per Dragon's Flight. Notable pseudoscience needs to be debunked, even if it gives me a headache, and it can't be debunked without being defined. Xoloz 06:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep, for the reasons User:Dragons flight gave. Delete the daughter articles, and a massive re-write of the main article would be mandatory for keeping. And it will be PITA on my watch list all the time thereafter. Sigh. --Pjacobi 06:57, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

Changed to delete. It may be relevant enough to get an article some time, but the current article is worse than a blank sheet of paper, for writing a NPOV treatment of Aetherometry. --Pjacobi 16:05, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

• Keep notable pseudo-science. JamesBurns 06:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable. -ÅfÇ++ 07:11, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Will be a complete waste of time. William M. Connolley 21:18, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC).
• I don't know where you deletion-mavens are coming from, but it sure ain't from actually studying the stuff. I have been reading the Correas' research papers ever since they first started publishing them in 2001. As is clear to anybody who actually takes the trouble of reading them, it is most certainly solid scientific work, is absolutely fascinating, and most likely a lot of it is correct (and, like with any new science, a lot of it may also be in error). I think the number of Google hits is a pretty poor criterion for judging the merit of a science, no? One would imagine that a "community encyclopedia" would be precisely the place where new scientific ideas coming from outside institutional science would find a hospitable home, and where people could come to learn about them. What's the point of having a "community encyclopedia" if all it does is self-censor itself to look "respectable" in the eyes of the mainstream? I am very happy that somebody finally took the trouble to write a Wikipedia entry for Aetherometry. Definitely Keep. Patrick.
• Delete. Changing my vote after seeing what is becoming of this article. OldPatrick 19:39, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • 66.217.178.48's first edit. --Etacar11 14:50, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Also (I hardly need to add, but I will anyway): wiki is most definitely *not* a friendly home for new theories. If the theory has no home outside wiki, it doesn't belong in wiki. William M. Connolley 18:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC).
    • Same old Patrick here (with his second edit). I am not sure what you mean by "has no home outside wiki". Aetherometry has a huge webpage, with something like 50 monographs publicly available on it. It certainly is not a homeless stray in need of a home, you know. What I meant was that one (or at least old Patrick here) would expect a "community encyclopedia" to be hospitable to non-institutional science. As far as I can see, though, even the Assume good faith policy was bypassed in this case. I'll do the three twiddles this time. Patrick. 66.217.178.106

You misunderstand. "Community encyclopedia" does not mean "lower standards". In this case, Aetherometry doesn't even fit the bar. It has to be a notable theory, first, and even more if its pseudoscientific and Wikipedians have already pointed out great gaping holes in its logic. It is hospitable to knowledge that benefits the community and the international reader. Generally, something informative. Something counter-productive like Aetherometry doesn't fit the goal, because its sheer lack of notability doesn't even seem to justify its existence. And if it were notable, the encyclopedia's job is to give an NPOV look at it. Even if survived, the page has to go under tremendous cleanup, and to represent the theory as probably very unlikely. -- Natalinasmpf 22:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Forgive old Patrick here, but I am beginning to suspect that you are confusing Aetherometry with something else. Either this, or I seriously missed something. What are the great gaping holes that the Wikipedians have pointed out in the logic of Aetherometry? Could you list them for me? Also, I have to confess that I thought the original article was a lot more informative than the one that's there now. And I would think that a theory that results in a number of actual, working, new energy technologies would be a good candidate for something that benefits the community, rather than for something that should be called counter-productive. And I am curious about this statement that "its sheer lack of notability doesn't even seem to justify its existence". You mean only notable things have a right to exist? Poor old Patrick, I better go get myself some notability, otherwise I can't justify my existence. OldPatrick 18:58, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, you're missing the entire point. Better to say nothing, than to say something which might lead people down the wrong path. As for the "great gaping holes", it conflicts with quantum mechanics because it doesn't attribute some of the phenomena described in aetherometry to a "massfree/massbound" model, but something entirely different. I also note there isn't any clear correlation and compatability with the uncertainty principle either, and also a failure to cite, proper, verified evidence (ie. not a web page on an advocacy website, but an actual scientific paper, page by page, line by line)....emphasis - SPECIFIC paper, SPECIFIC page, SPECIFIC line. As for the "original article being more informative", its disputed: that information is horrendously wrong, or at least allegedly wrong, so I don't see how it benefits the community. It has to be NPOV'ed first, making wild claims just because it fills up the page doesn't make it "more informative". If I made a page about some snake oil product and proceeded to insert 200 kilobytes of information how it could benefit mankind, does it really benfit mankind? Oh, you're totally wrong on one count - "existence" - existence of having article. You're right, you better go get yourself some notability, or you can't justify your existence of having an OldPatrick article. Whoops, I see that article you created about yourself was already deleted. See Wikipedia:autobiography.

• Delete. Self-publicity. -- The Anome 21:34, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, self-promotion and original research. If I were convinced that aetherometry were an important and well-established theory/discipline within the perpetual motion, free energy, and "overunity" community, I'd vote weak keep and cleanup. However, using my "ratio of Google Web to Google Groups" test, I find a big discrepancy between the seemingly impressive 5000 hits in Google and the meager 53 hits in Google Groups. On most topics, Google Groups will have 1/5 to 1/10 the number of hits as you get on a Google Web search. However, Web hit counts are easily and frequently inflated by "search engine optimization" and vigorous self-promotion. Google Group hits can be inflated too, but few promoters bother because it is harder and of little economic importance. Now, the USENET newsgroups are veritable hotbeds of discussion of nontraditional-science, fringe science, and pseudoscience. "Tesla" gets 175,000 hits in Groups. "Homeopathy" gets 20,000. "Perpetual motion," exact phrase, gets 63,900, and "Overunity" gets 1760. In this context, 53 hits is a very small number and suggests to me that aetherometry is not accepted as a standard theory within the perpetual motion/free energy/overunity community. Will change my vote if someone convinces me otherwise. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Changing vote to: Merge and redirect to Aether. I decided that I'd ask Tim Harwood what he thought, since he attempted to build a kind of Adams motor. He has not convinced me that Aetherometry has much standing within the community that believes in the Aether sensu H. Aspden. But he argues the Aether is an important enough theory to merit some coverage in Wikipedia. I accept that. But we do have such an article, and it is Aether. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:30, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Article "Aether", as distinct from luminiferous aether, as distinct from aether drag hypothesis as distinct from aetherometry. There is a tremendous amount of material to read on all of these. Merge? How? TTLightningRod

• Delete. Original research, neologism, not notable, advertising, vanity, kookery, you name it. There's so much wrong with this article it's not worth trying to clean up. --Carnildo 23:57, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dpbsmith: As I read, and try to edit, I do not see a clear assertion that aetherometry is held as "perpetual motion/free energy/overunity". If it was, I would agree that it is vastly marginal to science, and even pseudoscientific. What I would then suggest, is that the subject may be a worthy field of study for not claiming "free energy". Therefor your search analysis may lend more weight to simply a fringe science trying to find its rightful vocabulary. (our job as wikipedians) your thoughts? TTLightningRod 00:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Compare and contrast aether with vacuum energy. Unlike aetherometry, quantum mechanics asserts that vacuum energy on the whole is a closed system - if it contributes "matter" to the physical universe through virtual particles, stuff like black holes for example, require expenditure of energy in order to separate the virtual particle pairs. This ends up not producing any energy. It seems that aetherometry, while not explicitly being a "free energy" science, asserts that there is a source of energy easily tapped into, or far more available than it really is. -- Natalinasmpf 01:00, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. My reason is that there is a clear demand for an aether page from a section of the WIKi community, and we seem to go through posting, VFD, on a very regular basis, on this subject. I just think the constant VFD is getting boring. Timharwoodx 00:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable kookery, original research, vanity. Quale 04:25, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, pseudoscience, yes; but it's a decades old accumulation of stuff, mostly connected with other pseudoscientific trends that are ongoing and have been for decades, that is, Reich, Free energy, aether theories, etc. and there are articles on these if only to warn/inform the readers of what they are, and place it in the historical scheme of such things. "Aetherometry" may be an obscure name, but the effort behind it is massive, (if only 2 people) and I suspect it will keep popping up in various places (in the wider culture of the net), so better to have something about it that is balanced (ie, after the rewrite). It's not your flash in mind delusion, but rather a long standing one. IE notable. cf User:Dragons flight comments. (I also think not impossible they may stumble on something new and valuble, but fear they will be too ignorant to recognize it as they rant on about the aether and their persecutions.)GangofOne 08:20, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Have you guys considered actually informing yourselves on this stuff before you start voting one way or another? So far, you don't seem to be able to tell the Aether from theories about the Aether, science ficttion from science, a "kind of Adams motor" from any other "kind of" Adams motor, one Aether theory from another, an Aether theory from cold fusion, and your ass from a hole in the ground. I propose that the article should be kept at least until you self-appointed editors have read it and educated yourselves. FrankZappo 15:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Second edit of User:FrankZappo. And may be classified as personal attack. And I've read enough to bang my head against the monitor, see Talk:Aetherometry. --Pjacobi 16:03, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

I am sorry, did I miss something? I don't see a single piece of evidence in Talk:Aetherometry that you have actually read through the article, let alone tried to understand it. All I see are counts of Google hits, statements about how a degree in molecular biology is irrelevant to work in biophysics, and other deep ponderings on that same level. Where, as they used to say in my youth, is the beef? FrankZappo 16:17, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't see a single piece of evidence supporting Aetherometry either. Sorry, citing the Correas work doesn't count, because that's basically a piece of work citing itself as a source. Tried to understand it? There is nothing to understand - this work contradicts itself so much I highly doubt it, especially with its definition of "energy without inertia". I cite logical arguments discounting YOUR evidence, and as such that counts as evidence as in such. Perhaps you should also think about the fact that many Wikipedians work in similar fields, and have as much authority to discount the theory as the Correas do to support it? -- Natalinasmpf 17:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry to say that what you wrote above seems totally confused. If you want evidence for the claims of Aetherometry, then you have to start by reading through, and understanding, the experimental and methodological work that lays down this evidence - in exactly the same way as people wanting to understand Faraday's claims had to start by reading, or seeing demonstrations of, Faradays experiments. How else would you know, about any scientific endeavour, what it is that is being claimed and why? And no, people who know nothing about Aetherometry do not have any authority to discount it. Aetherometry represents the result of over 20 years of painstaking experimental and theoretical work. One does not gain "authority" to make any judgement about it simply by virtue of "working in a similar field". The only authority comes from studying the work, reproducing the experiments, thinking through the theoretical claims, etc. It is no different with Aetherometry than with any science. You're being silly. FrankZappo 19:42, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Isn't it slanderous to call people's work a "hoax" without any factual basis? Weird goings-on, this Wikipedia stuff. Exempt from ordinary laws, or what? And this is the guy that talks about "notifying the authorities". FrankZappo 17:54, 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. -- Natalinasmpf 17:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

careful. makeing legal threats on wikipedia is against policy.Geni 01:41, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All that you have a factual basis for is saying that Aetherometry is not recognized by the scientific community at large. This is absolutely not a basis for concluding that it is a hoax, a scam, or a cheat. First of all, aetherometry could be largely correct, but has not yet been recognized as such. Secondly, aetherometry could be largely or totally wrong without being a hoax - there are a lot of erroneous scientific claims being worked on inside and outside of scientific institutions all over the world, every day of every week. Science progresses through error, you know. You have absolutely no basis for the claims you make, and you are defaming the reputation of people you know nothing about, simply because somebody put up an entry about their work in the Wikipedia. this just doesn't compute.

More interestingly, you seem to have an ignorant and naive view of the "scientific community" and of "peer review". Do you really think that the process whereby official science pemits something to "pass" is not permeated by politics and entrenched interests? You should read some case histories of how the so-called "peers" in scientific institutions treat those who try to think "outside the box". Do you know that Halton Arp has been banned from being able to do work - or even enter an observatory - in the US? Do you know that Eric Laithwaite was ostracised by his "scientific peers" when he made experimental discoveries that did not jive with the official theories of rotary motion? Examples abound, but of course they don't get much talked about. Even the Wikipedia entry for Halton Arp has been cleansed of all "controversial" material. I would recommend, however, that you educate yourself about the realities of the "scientific review" process before you put it on such a pedestal. FrankZappo 20:11, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep: Even though the article remains in near complete shambles no small thanks to a number of so-called wikipedians with a demonstrated hostile point of view against the very first word. (The edit history of these three pages tells a very clear story.) The main body of the attempted article appears to have much to say if only legitimate nondeletionist edits could proceed.

To agree or disagree with the theory, concept, idea, model, experimental findings, reference material and cross checkable links to a multitude of third party citations (the "holy" peer review); that is not the job of wikipedia. To confirm that those components are included, (which they clearly were in this case) is the job of wikipedians if they would merely read the content. (even should they now have to read the deleted portions saved in the history)

What I find far more striking to the last 24 hours, is that several people, well spoken and initially extending the polite "assume good faith" tact, by going to great length to address howling accusation of "hoax and charlatanry", as would seem humanly possible. Not one, or two but several people have attempted to work upon the main body article. (Again the edit history shows) A steady, and tirelessly unproductive effort of comment-less deletion and belittlement. Little more than a few capitals and commas, compared to the real effort performed by the initially polite individuals. Now? It's an all out brawl, resisted at length by the initial posters and straggling but real support, for an article simply entitled, Aetherometry. TTLightningRod

• Natalinasmpf's arguments have convinced me to change my vote... to Keep. I still think the concept is hokum (ala Cold fusion or even the Sokal Affair), but ask Tesla, Galileo, and Darwin about "peer review" as applied to new areas of science. More importantly, take a good long look at the career of Wegener before assuming a theory is unworthy of interest because YOU and the mainstream scientists you learned from don't like it or find it "implausible". He died in ignominy thirty years before the "mainstream" realized he was essentially correct. For a physics version, try Murray Gell-Mann, whose Eightfold Way was "widely considered self-evidently nonsensical." Vote keep if you believe in quarks. Kevin/Last1in 21:58, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm on the verge of voting keep myself. I voted delete before because I wasn't sure the article could be salvaged. I just need it to be represented NPOV - and mind you, for every 100 fringe theories there are, only 1 of them are bound to be fruitful. Peer review just picks them out. Its just the way things are. It was just at first glance, it looked awfully like a hoax and commercial spam to me. -- Natalinasmpf 22:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. The clean up notice should stay in place until the article meets Wikipedia criterion. Perhaps even a disclaimer type of notice at the beginning would help allay the angst felt by many at Wikipedia about this subject getting coverage here. "Note that the following article is considered too speculative and on the fringe by a significant portion of Wikipedia participants, and was nearly deleted for that reason. It is in process of being brought into conformity with Wikipedia's neutral point of view and other encyclopedic criteria. -- Sterlingda 23:56, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I'm all for having notable crackpot theories in but this isn't notable. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 01:08, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not enough notable crank theory. They should establish themselves elsewhere. Pavel Vozenilek 01:38, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, agree with Natalinasmpf.-gadfium 02:36, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hey, you're behind the times. Agreeing with Natalinasmpf doesn't mean what it used to, you know - it now means that you're on the verge of voting "keep". Get with it, man. Also, what happened here? Three slam-dunk "delete" votes in a row! Did Connelley go and bring in reinforcements? Maybe I'll go and see if I can bring in my uncle Bob to vote. OldPatrick

Depends. I haven't changed my vote yet. Oh, its not that "Connolley went and brought in reinforcements" - for goodness sake, its on the front of the votes for deletion page. Maybe you haven't seen: Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/2005 June 20? Being a community encylopedia, you shouldn't be surprised if a whole host of other people turn up. There's nothing peculiar about three delete votes in a row, either. Bringing in your uncle by the way, its called a sockpuppetry. -- Natalinasmpf 07:01, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I'm Helicoid, the poor devil responsible for this storm, this vote, and I have not voted yet. How do you tally my vote, if I vote to keep my entry or any reasonable fac-simile, but vote to delete the pure vandalized abortion that now stands on the altar of sheer aprioristic intolerance in this Wikipedia? Does NPOV say it is 16 to 10?Helicoid 04:07, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Then you would be voting Keep. As for whether its "aproristic intolerance", I find that quite funny, considering that other professional encylopedias would have rejected your entry in the first place. You really take things for granted. Unless you happened to be desperate to advertise your views? OH NO! It backfired didn't it? You originally wanted this for a niche to publish your views, well guess what, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Maybe you can go to Wikicities or something, instead.-- Natalinasmpf 07:01, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, topic is of no significance. Wikipedia is not a platform for crackpot theories--nixie 14:01, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. What the hell. --Alterego 19:31, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Oh brother. Now - look at that! -Aetherometry has become a "belief system". There is just no end to the entertainment, is there. When I voted to "keep", I didn't vote to keep whetever idiocy you-all choose to spout into the article, I voted to keep an article that provided accurate and cogent information on what Aetherometry actually is, not on what any Tom Dick and Harry may think it is. So here is my vote, spelled out:

Keep the article in its original form and work on it; otherwise , Delete. FrankZappo 21:50, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)