User talk:Hdeasy

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)

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. --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 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)

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, 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, 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. .

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)

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?


 * $$ \left ( \frac{d \phi}{dr} \right ) ^2 + 32 \frac{c^2}{3}F \left( \frac{d \phi}{dr} + F \phi \right ) = 0, F = \frac{1}{r} \frac{h^2 + \gamma m^3 r}{h^2 - \gamma m^3 r}$$
 * --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)

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)

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)
 * Yeah - whooped the asses of the nay-sayers twice now! --hughey 11:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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. &mdash; 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)

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)

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, 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)

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)

Anti-gravity
Michael Busch has requested a straw poll of Anti-gravity. You may want to add your comments. Tcisco 00:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Martin Tajmar
An editor has nominated Martin Tajmar, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Freederick (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Heim51.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Heim51.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 22:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Heim theory


A tag has been placed on Heim theory, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

''Crackpot ideas don't need wiki articles. See the following discussions:http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/924/heim-theory-and-ftl, http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6151/how-did-these-guys-get-the-masses-from-heim-theory, The "theory" is just nonsense based on quack ideas and numerology. Wikipedia should' n'ot promote such nonsense quack rubbish.''

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Dimension10 (talk) 05:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Heim_theory for deletion == A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Heim_theory is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Heim_theory until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ==

Nomination of Heim_theory for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Heim_theory is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Heim_theory until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Disambiguation link notification for August 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Coulomb's law, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aberration (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Removed offending reference. --hughey (talk) 12:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of COMETA for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article COMETA is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/COMETA until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. LuckyLouie (talk) 20:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)