Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:54, 24 June 2005

Aetherometry

Advertising, pseudoscience, and a hoax.

Isn't it slanderous to call people's work a "hoax" without any factual basis? Weird goings-on, this Misplaced Pages 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)

Its certainly not notable either. It undermines the professionalism of Misplaced Pages, and would contribute to the ignorance of the masses by corporate propagation of snake oil material.Also, notice how half the terms it links to are red, probably signifying it doesn't have any empirical scientific concepts whatsoever? Its also not NPOV, and the presentation likes to present all its allegations as truth, rather than alleged evidence, even the most respected articles on quantum mechanics don't go to that extent (by noting paradoxes, and admitting their own flaws with the current model), which this article doesn't do. Very misleading presentation, and the introduction is skewed as well. Also, discounting entries marked as irrelevant by google itself, it only has 196 google hits. If we let it stay on Misplaced Pages any longer its going to be extremely counter-productive and detrimental to Misplaced Pages and the world as a whole. Delete. Natalinasmpf 23:29, 20 Jun 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 , 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)
  • 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 , 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 . 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)
• 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)
    • 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 Misplaced Pages", 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)
• 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 Misplaced Pages entry for Aetherometry. Definitely Keep. Patrick.
  • 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)

• 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 Misplaced Pages. 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)