User talk:Hdeasy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think my presence here is justified, as I have good academic qualifications and work at a space centre. --hughey 14:46, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 Heim 2 Burkhard Heim 3 Heim Theory 4 Article sources 5 Peer review 6 Subjetive consciousness 7 Heim theory (2) 8 Steorn 9 Contributions to the Burkhard Heim Article 10 Heim theory

[edit] Heim

I've made Heim-Theory a redirect to Burkhard Heim, as it had no content of its own. If you want to add content at a later point in time, you can use this link http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Heim-Theory&redirect=no to get access to the article. --Pjacobi 22:21, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)

Please have a look at Talk:Burkhard_Heim#Splitup_and_misc. --Pjacobi 12:26, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)

To put it bluntly, your new attempt was a rather weak article start, too. But let's try to expand on it. --Pjacobi 16:33, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)

In the interim I have given Talk:Burkhard_Heim#Splitup_and_misc a look and answered the points you raised there. Also, I re-did the Heim-theory initial aticle, removing the curtly dismissive phrase about being of little significance etc. and replacing it by a more reasoned discussion. Later, sections should be added with the essence of the actual theory. When times permits. But already 2005 looks like it could be the 'year of Heim', starting as it did with that Telepolis article, soon to be followed by the American institue of physics paper.--hughey 14:55, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have a responded at both talk pages. --Pjacobi 22:20, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)

[edit] Burkhard Heim

Thanks for going over the article Burkhard Heim and correcting the factual errors about the publication. I changed the inline comment so that it does not mention those particular sensitivities as the content of the page is replicated to other sites other than Wikipedia. I noticed that you added the page selector calculus recently. I made some changes to it, and if you have time, could you take a look at it? Also, I'd like to know how to get a copy of Heim's work which describes the core of his work. I'm finding it rather difficult to obtain a copy - everyone has told me that the book is not in print!

Do you think it would be a good idea to archive the discussion page for Burkhard Heim? It's rather long, and I think it should be summarized and resectioned properly so others can follow it. HappyCamper 19:44, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for rewriting that paragraph - your wording is much more appropriate and correct than mine. I didn't know that the proposal was actually a biography. Clearly, I must have misunderstood the discussion on the talk page, thinking that the book was something else entirely. HappyCamper 14:04, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the reply. On some other things...the site you gave me [1], do these 4 volumes cover all of Heim's work? I want to study the core of Heim's theory and get to the bottom of it all. Do you recommend these books then? Are these as close to the originals that he published (with the exception of the errors that were subsequently corrected)? Is this the same as the "2000 page" writeup that Heim tried to publish? I hope you don't mind all these questions... HappyCamper 14:36, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's encouraging to get feedback every now and then. I might add more stuff later. I added those two wiki tags to Heim Theory to hopefully get more help in writing the article.

I've wikified the article and removed one of the tags now. Please feel free to remove the other one if you like. I only added them because in a previous article I wrote, practically no one contributed until I put the pair of tags up! I was pleasantly surprised that after I put the tags up, a new user User:Pezezin came by and contributed to explaining what Hermetries are. This user sounds like someone who would be very interested in Heim...See his talk page and mine (at the bottom) for a brief discussion we had. HappyCamper 17:53, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hey again! I found one particular link you might want to check out...See the Heim theory page. It's the one about explaining the tensor elements. If you scroll to the middle of the page [2] , there's a 6 by 6 matrix that's coloured. I think the text is describing what the components of that tensor represent heuristically. If you have time, do you want to check it out?

I also found these pictures, but I can't read it. Maybe you can? It would be really nice if we could add these pictures to Wikipedia, I think. [3].

Oh yes, I also decided to use the reference desk. I added a question about obtaining biographical information on Burkhard Heim there. I'm hoping someone can answer soon.

As for those extra tags...well, I think Wikipedians in general are very, very nice people :) Striving for NPOV is something that is quite possible with collaborative editing, and I really trust that it works. Even if the article doesn't end up being NPOV, I'm already happy to know that there are other people editing for Burkhard Heim too! My main concerns with the Heim pages right now are that his scientific and mathematical works will be presented properly not at the expense of his other POV. Plus, I ordered those four books. I'll get them in 5-8 weeks. HappyCamper 11:52, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

It's so nice to get that orange "You have new messages" tab at the top. Thank you for your kind words! :-) Actually I don't know any German at all, so it's going to take some time before I can actually translate anything. I've decided to take an introductory German course right now. BTW, I only found that site by sifting through hundreds of Google searches. Good information on Heim seems to be buried under a tremendous amount of "new age" stuff. HappyCamper 12:13, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Heim Theory

Are you aware of this paper by Heim? I have a hard copy of his paper "Recommendation of a way to a unified description of elementary particles" (Vorschlag eines Weges zur einheitlichen Beschreibung der Elementarteilchen) It is published in Zeitschrift für Naturforschung. Teil A, Physik, physikaliche Chemie, Kosmophysik, pages 233-243 of Bd. 32A Heft 1-7 1977 Jan.-Juli. HappyCamper 16:59, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I see. Well, my approach right now is not rely on the internet for references to Heim. I haven't exhausted all the Google links yet, but I think I'll have better luck finding reliable information by trying to dig up as many hard copies of his works and any archived material relating to him. It would give the articles Burkhard Heim and Heim theory more credibility for one thing, as the sources would be independent of the research group.

As for the paper, it will take me a long time to deciper it, but it begins with an English abstract which says that it's a summary of Heim's "voluminous work". It's mostly text with a few equations here and there. It also describes a 12 dimensional extension of his theory which includes quantum field theory. He also seems to give thanks to 3 researchers...Prof. Dr. H. P. Dürr, Dr. L. Bölkow, and Dipl.-Phys. I. v. Ludwiger. Heim also references 7 other papers. There's also an equation...do you recognize it?

--HappyCamper 22:46, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

No, I have no idea what the equation means. Yes, if you could look into the solutions to this, that would be great! HappyCamper 13:22, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for the translation. There is still something unclear about the equation though. What value is m supposed to represent? Does it mean that for a particular amount of mass "m", r'=h²/Gm³ gives the distance where gravitation goes to zero? HappyCamper 12:51, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article sources

May I ask where you are finding the information about his newspaper articles and TV reports (among other things)? I'm motivated to find their originals, and perhaps reference them properly in the article. They seem quite interesting, to say the least. Also, you seem to be very familar with Heim and the Heim Group. Have you met Heim before? HappyCamper 20:01, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Do you happen to have access to the journal Grenzgebiete der Wissenschaft? If you do, this can be a source of information that is "independent" of the heim-theory website. It seems to me that any material added to the existing Wikipedia articles with reference to the heim-theory site is still seen as somewhat less credible. I'm putting in extra effort to find more printed sources for the article.

To my dismay, I realized that the "mass formula" wasn't just one mass formula but multiple mass formulas. I'd like to do the calculations myself; it shouldn't be so difficult to do so. What formula should I be using? Or should I just wait for the textbooks to show up?

Also, the differential equation I gave you...I have re-derived all the results that Heim presented in his paper. If you are interested, I can type up the whole thing and send it to you (or post it somewhere for scrutiny). There are some problems with the equation though...see the heim theory talk page. Oh, and thanks for adding those entries to the table!! HappyCamper 15:40, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, I can send it to you by e-mail when I'm done with it...it looks like you don't have one configured on Wikipedia. Maybe send me an e-mail through Wikipedia, and we can go from there? Some of these discussions I'd like to move off of these publically accessible postings. HappyCamper 16:39, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review

Just to let you know, I have placed the Burkhard Heim article under peer review: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Burkhard_Heim --HappyCamper 14:05, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, it passed wioth flying colours, in the AfD peer review --hughey 15:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Subjetive consciousness

I found this via a link from the page on The Fourth Way. does this come from Fourth Way theory (pretty famiilar with it, but no expert) or some place else, if so, where? ***Ria777 14:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I forget how this link came about. I'm very interested in subjective consciousness and have edited bits and pieces of consciousness articels and even the soul. It was probably that way, as I have no particular knowledge of the 4th way. That's not where my interests lead me presently.hughey 20:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am more into Chalmers & co. - all started wit hteh Emperor"s New mind. --192.171.3.126 07:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heim theory (2)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

Your edit comment "only an idiot born yesterday would maintain that" seems like a mild attack. I can see why it might be considered category:pseudoscience, although I agree with you that the evidence is weak. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply: Without a well defined theory one cannot use experimental results to confirm that theory. Accupuncture can cure migrane, but that fact is not evidence for the ideas that led to accupuncture being developed thousands of years ago. Count Iblis 16:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Rubbish! . Enjoy.--hughey 17:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Steorn

Hi! Thanks for your contributions to the Steorn article. I had to remove this last comment, though:

There are rumours that the real reason for withholding the identities of the universities is that they were all Irish, and they feared accusations of partisanship. Thus it was felt better to advertise for a more international jury.

We can't include uncited rumours in Wikipedia articles. If we have a verifiable and reliable source that can be cited, then it can be included. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 21:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Re "economic fools". Can you rephrase that in a slightly more encyclopedic way? :-) -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 18:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contributions to the Burkhard Heim Article

Thank you for the comments about my contributions to the Heim article. I hope the scientific community does not overlook the fact that Heim's initial work was directed towards field propulsion. His progress report (Heim, 1956) to the Gravity Research Foundation is available in German and English and may serve as a useful comparison with the papers by Dröscher & Häuser, von Ludwiger, and Tajmar. With respect to America's response to Heim back in the fifties<http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18925391.200>, it should be noted that an aerospace firm, General Dynamics/Astronautics of San Diego, California, had requested the translation of the propulsion survey by A. R. Weyl (1959a) that had included an assessment of Heim's work. Tcisco 19:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I was just tracking down various leads through the libraries. The True magazine article by Donald Keyhoe referred to the report by A. R. Weyl in Aeronautics. That is all he said. No volume numbers, no year, nothing. Even though Keyhoe had been the leading authority on attempts by the Air Force to discredit reports about flying saucers, his integrity had been impeccable - I believed he had reported Weyl's assessments of Heim as faithfully as he had compiled UFO reports. Subsequently, my wife and I walked through the snow to the Transportation Library of Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, to track down that lead. She had completed therapy for cancer and had asked to tag along. The librarian could not locate the article with her card catalog and data base. I asked her to direct me to the Aeronautics stacks. She said it would take me a month to search through all those periodicals. To our amazement, I found the two articles by Weyl within twenty minutes! She asked me a lot of questions and I answered them in terms of the research I was doing then for my dissertation in biblical eschatology. The third article by Weyl was discovered while surfing the defense technical information website (DTIC). I had "stumbled" into Heim's four 1959 papers while surfing the Internet. I discovered Sigma's report about Heim after I had obtained a copy of his book. Watson's master thesis about Heim was discovered when I had purchased a copy of it to review his history of gravity control propulsion theories. His thesis cited Heim's progress report to the Gravity Research Foundation. I obtained copies of it in German and the English translation from its president, George Rideout. The papers I had cited in Anti-gravity by Cleaver were discovered in spite of one of the librarians at the John Creerar Library of the University of Chicago. He claimed they did not possess the early copies of the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society. I removed it from their stacks and showed it to him. Digging up the old references has been fun. My wife, daughter, son, and the family of his former fiancee have contributed to my collection of gravity control propulsion history papers. Tcisco 06:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heim theory

I've been toying with the idea of nominating Heim theory as a good article candidate. It seems to meet most of the criteria; it is comprehensive, well referenced, and has been fairly stable recently. The text might need some editing, though. Specifically:

1. A section needs to be added on the proposed propulsion applications, as a lot of published papers refer to this aspect of the theory. The Good Article criteria call for a comprehensive treatment, but currently the propulsion topic gets hardly any mention in the article (even though it appears in several of the listed references).
2. One of the criteria calls for images. A good relevant image can be found in one of the papers published on HT: Spacetime Physics and Advanced Propulsion Concepts, Fig. 3 "Six Fundamental Physical Forces". I'm considering writing HTRG asking for release of this image under GFDL, so that it can be included on Wikipedia.

I'm writing to ask your opinion on this. The article has been known to provoke minor controversy in the past, so I am somewhat apprehensive about taking this step unless I can get some support. What do you think? Should I take the plunge, or just let the sleeping can of worms lie? Freederick 16:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)