>Is there a section for psuedoscience?

Yes.  It’s called the Standard Model of particle physics.  See –

http://aetherometry.com/dark_energy.html

I am going to have to disagree with your response. You are quoting a source to prove how reputable that very same source is.

A dictionary.com search on aetherometry brought up nothing. A science-search.org listing categorizes it as “alternative”. A google search shows there is a good amount of controversy, including this paper.

Laura, you probably in this discussion are in the best position to describe to us succinctly what aetherometry really is, it’s history, and anything else you care to put down about it.

As I type I’m wearing a t-shirt with a picture of Curious George lieing happy on the floor after being too curious with a bottle of ether.

And, maybe that’s put me in a curious state about the metrics of the aether. I scanned a few of the articles linked to in the story before I voted but could not get a clear idea of what it was about. Nor what it really has to do with cold fusion.

So could you give us a brief description and history?

The breakthrough solution to the so-called ‘cold  fusion’ – or CF/LENR enigma – does not invoke any special or esoteric physics. If you know enough about accepted nuclear fusion processes, you will see that the Correa solution is entirely compatible with what is known – but puts what is known together in such a novel manner that, for the first time, there is an explanation as to why replication of the effect has been so difficult and unpredictable, and also an explanation to why those who claim it exists and those who claim it doesn’t are equally wrong in the way they have posed the problem.  (Note the DoE, too, was split in its decison. Note also that ‘cold fusion’ research goes on with a fury, with the problems the Correas have outlined,  in many of the giant US national laboratories, and worldwide, and in numerous multinational corporations, as well, such as Mitsubishi. )  While fascinating to see how massfree energy is involved in the fusion process that the Correas have made public, more importantly – it seems to me – is to realize that it was the same two scientists who have enunciated the analytical model of Aetherometry, that have also released the solution, both analytical and practical, to the CF/LENR enigma.

The science of Aetherometry arose from the critical experimental replication and exploration by the Correas of the scientific investigations of Hallwacks, Tesla, Tanberg, Kobbel, (K) Compton, Reich, Einsten, Quantum Mechanics, Field-emission theory, Aspden, and others.  The model that Aetherometry proposes offers an incisive and extraordinarily productive way around the Uncertainty Principle, and has permitted ‘fine-structure scale’ modeling of the atom, not just at the level of orbital electrons, but also at the level of the structure of nucleons.

Science must be judged on its merits – not on whether or not it’s been indexed by microsoft or google.  And by the way, it is a sad fact that almost all of the greatest new thoughts and theories in science have had to fight their way through the enormous opposition of vested interests  to make their voices heard  (I refer you back to the criticisms made in the “What is Dark Energy?” article I referred to in my last email).  To discard things without intelligent understanding – to only consider them if microsoft’s dictionary or google stats say it’s OK to do so, is not the way to push knowledge forward.

Laura

Laura, I’m rooting for you here to get this article posted but the tide is against you.  Neutral observation:  Your postings here are full of (1) intelligence and (2) buzzwords.  I suggest you try one more time, rewrite and resubmit the article, dropping most or all of  the references to scientific persecution and unsung brilliance, and just answer the question of interest that everybody wants to know in 25 words or less:  What’s aetherometry and why is it special?

Is it that little particles spinning around a core of other bound particles, with one particle having the ability to split that core and release great energy?  Is it that dual chains of mirror image components that are able to split and reform two identical chains, replicating the encoded information?  Is it that mass tells space how to curve, space tells mass how to move?  

Fission, DNA and relativity can all be explained in one single sentence with simple words that reveals how unique and revolutionary and insightful and beautiful and bold they truly are.  This is true of all the great scientific theories…well, sort of.    What’s aetherometry’s One Beautiful Sentence?  Go from there.

The term aetherometry really stuck in your craw didn’t it?  I know. The Michelson-Morley Experiment ended any further intelligent discussion of anything such as an aether.   Or did it?   What is Dark Energy?

OK, enough teasing.  Let’s separate the two issues at stake here:

1) The announcement concerns a breakthrough in cold fusion – and it does so without recourse to aetherometric theory. So let’s formulate the announcement for sciscoop short and sweet this way:

A solution to the enigma of Cold Fusion?  Researchers claim critical breakthrough in nuclear fusion.  The Correa deuterium-tetrad/3He-3He fusion pathway.  
http://aetherometry.com/correa_nuclear_fusion.html

End of announcement.  How’s that for short and sweet?

2.)  You asked for your own edification, I presume, ‘What is Aetherometry?’  which was not a necessary question to know the answer to, in order to read the ‘Correa Solution to the Cold Fusion Enigma’, which stands on its own, but a separate one.  And I could say, as the article you linked to does, “Listen buddy, if I could explain it in fifty words or less, it wouldn’t be worth a Nobel Prize” – which, by the way,  I happen to believe it is.  Have you, by any chance, read any of it?  The entire content of the Aetherometry website is devoted to introducing the new science of an exacting metrics of the aether (or of dark energy, if you prefer, or massfree energy, if you prefer that one, though the Correas chose to use the term that was historically given to ‘Dark Energy’ before the  term was coined by baffled researchers, you might want to note).  What  aetherometry claims to have untangled in modern physical theory is synopsized at http://aetherometry.com/milestones.html

Best,
Laura

Wow, Laura, I’d love to get you and Cal in a room alone and just watch the fur fly.  All either of you know is attack, attack, attack when it comes to discourse.

First off, the term aetherometry doesn’t “stick in my craw”.  Why should it?   Why should you think it does?  I have no idea what it means, and I’ve said nothing critical about it.  The M&M experiment was critical for its time over a century ago but I certainly don’t think it’s the final word on ANYTHING and in fact I DO believe there has to be an ether of some sort – that seems to be the whole point of what superstrings are, down below the Planck length.  So, I am open minded about new ideas on the ether.  Be careful you don’t poison the fertile field of my mind.

Second, if the Correas have come up with a breakthrough explanation for cold fusion in the form of a nuclear reaction involving deuterium tetrads, let’s talk about the tetrads more.  Focus, baby, focus.  Let the deuterium tetrad idea sink or swim on its own and don’t prejudice people with allusions to the proposers’ other controversial theries and opposition against them that will only incite immediate distractions.

Finally, I HAVE tried to wade through that mess of words on the Correra site about aetherometry and I come away far more confused than convinced.  It seems to be presented as the underlying reason for every single scientific phenomenon known to humanity, but I can’t find a good explanation of JUST WHAT IT IS.  

Examples of exactly what I’m talking about:  ”The critical break is precisely this: Reich used the word ‘orgone’ hesitantly in an inductive experimental fashion, but failed to construct for it the accurate concept. In the mouths of his followers it would become, instead, a catch-all phrase lacking any clear definition…..[In the Correras definition] photons are, simply put, farts. But to imagine that the Aether in its entirety is composed only of farts is really, we have to say, an idea for farts. And we could also say that this is precisely what’s wrong with Physics. The aether is not composed of farts, it is not composed of photons and it is not electromagnetic. And it is not static a fortiori. The Aether is composed of the Imponderable Dark where there is only pure motion in a smooth space, whether that motion is electrified or not. Everything else arises from it…. It is here we find the naked reality of the Aether as massfree latent energy. Beyond the darkness lies the Dark. If the Animate energy of the Aether is the Dark and the domain of ambipolar electricity, the very domain shared by OR and DOR, there is still a darker, deeper abyss, the Inanimate. It is the greatest of all molecules – since it composes the very envelope of Space and Time that we perceive as the essence of our existence in the world around us.”

Huh?

Again, focus, baby, focus – and just stay on track.  Without talking about my craw, without trying to be cutsie short and sweet, without talking about the Correras or their site or their explanations for everything else in the known Universe, write me one or more mainstream clear, consise Wikipedia paragraphs that begins with the words “Aetherometry is…”