User:Duae Quartunciae/W. Kehler/Issues

Background

This page was set up after Duae Quartunciae ran into some editorial conflicts, originally in a biography of Fritz Zwicky. In the process of editing that biography, Duae Quartunciae removed a considerable amount of material placed there earlier by members of a German Astronomy club, using anonymous IP addresses in the range 84.158.*.*. One member of the club apparently most involved in earlier work on the biography is W. Kehler. He took great exception to the changes Duae Quartunciae had applied. Conventional attempts to manage the dispute were not working, and this page was originally set up to have a place for an informal exchange to help deal with the conflict.

There is a larger disagreement extending over many articles and involving many other editors, all extending back before Duae Quartunciae joined wikipedia at all, though Duae Quartunciae has since become involved as an editor in some of them.

A first attempt at communication can be found at User:Duae Quartunciae/W. Kehler. That page become unmanageable, and this page is a second attempt. It has been written almost as a complete article, initially by Duae Quartunciae alone, incorporating some comments from two other users. It is now open for revision and editing by anyone who would like to help.

The page includes some strongly contrasting views. It is intended that the page identify plainly and contrast the differences; but that it does not attempt to resolve them. Therefore it should avoid long sequential arguments of point and counter-point; and instead have concise statements from different perspectives, presented side by side for comparison. If a disagreement is actually resolved (unlikely) then the corresponding section can be a simple statement of the points agreed.

The following subsections give brief introductions to notable participants in this discussion.

Duae Quartunciae

User Duae Quartunciae has a long history of involvement in various internet forums, starting with USENET in the late 1980s but only very recently on Wikipedia. He has a background in mathematics, computing and education, and an amateur background in science, sufficient to read and understand the work of others, but not to make new original contributions of his own. He is comfortable discussing physics at the level of a good undergraduate student.

—Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 23:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Duae Quartunciae has no major claim to defend here. He is, basically, an advocate for conventional ideas in physics as generally handled by the scientific establishment. He is familiar with the ideas of a number of dissidents, and loves reading about new ideas with potential to change what we know in drastic ways. He expects to see significant changes and developments in modern physics in the next few decades.

Duae Quartunciae is familiar with the work of various dissidents from conventional physics, and has read some of their work. He does not like to make a sharp division between establishment science on the one hand, and dissidents on the other. Disagreement has always been a vital part of how science works.

On the other hand, Duae Quartunciae also considers that many critics of modern science are working from a position of profound ignorance, and have no prospect whatever of contributing anything useful to our understanding of the natural world. Dissent views are diverse, and should be taken individually on their merits. Some ideas have no merits worth considering; some have a seed of insight buried in a mountain of confusion; and some are important prospects for research and investigation.

Duae Quartunciae supports the established procedures and guidelines of Wikipedia. He expects them to evolve. He sees some problems arising from the very open editing environment, especially for technical pages, which erodes their quality. He is actively considering ways in which this could be handled more effectively; but he has no official standing at all.

JimJast

User JimJast has been involved in the wikipedia for over three years. He has an interest in physics and relativity, although his particular views are not in line with the mainstream of modern physics. He brings considerable experience and background to this engagement, from the perspective of a critic of how relativity is presented in the conventional scientific establishment.

—Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 23:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Jim proposes the following issues for consideration.

1. I understand that W. Kehler would like to force Wikipedia's administrators to allow to write the truth about the universe instead of silly BB stories. I think that it isn't a viable proposition since Wikipedia's administrators don't want to allow to write the truth about the universe but to allow only what scientific journals write about the universe regardless whether it is truth or not. That's one problem.
2. Another problem is that for the time being the scientific journals can't write the truth and not because they don't want it but since they don't have a viable theory of gravitation. Einstein's gravitation (general relativity) has been replaced some decades ago by another theory (unfortunately of the same name) that includes an expanding universe and lately also the non conservation of energy. Since these two additional assumption are wrong most papers about gravitation when tested against these false assumptions have to be rejected by the referees as unscientific. So there is a deadlock and no way out unless the theory of gravitation gets back to Einstein's original form with stationary universe and the idea of a stationary universe becoms possible to write about it in a scientific paper and not automatically causing a rejection of the refereed paper as it happens now. How would you like to solve this problem?
3. What's in your opinion the issue of relativistic mass of a photon has to do with gravitation and BB?

Jim 15:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

German astronomy club and W. Kehler

User W. Kehler is a member of a German amateur astronomy club. Although originally accepting of conventional Big Bang cosmology, in 2006 he became a dissident, after meeting with prominent amateur astronomer John Dobson. His contributions to Wikipedia have been through a dynamic IP cluster, which is evidently also used by other members of the club and also by other German editors who have no involvement at all with these matters.

—Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 23:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

W. Kehler is not a native speaker of English. Other editors may try to help clarify some of his comments; no insult is intended by this. A proposal has been made on the talk page for one way to ensure a reliable and accurate clarification is obtained, using tables for the original text followed by a proposed clarification. The heading of such tables will have a footnote to where this convention is explained, like this.

W. Kehler has proposed the following points for consideration.

Original text on photon mass.

You wrote: you know non-zereo photon's mass. In USA incl. EN.WIKI mainly unknown, even erased in WIKI constantly as NONSENSE etc. BB not needs it because in 4D-spacetime the curvature makes the effect not needing it. But in our real 3D-world the 3D-PROJECTION-HYPERPLANE needs gravity and photon's real mass! Nearly all dissidents of BB use it. But BB-proponents say it does not exist. That makes the mentioned "war" one not understanding the BASIS of another.

• Photon mass. Duae Quartunciae wrote that he knows the non-zero photon relativistic mass. But this is being erased in the English wikipedia. The Big Bang does not need it, because it uses a curved 4D-spacetime; but in our real 3D-world, you do need gravity, and the photon's real mass. Nearly all dissidents of the Big Bang use it, but Big Bang proponents says it does not exist. The resulting dispute is a case of one side not understanding the BASIS of another.

Corr.: in section [[1]] you find as input for correction German citation of DE.WIKI, exactly saying the contrary to EN.WIKI according to photons (cited section) MASS: While in EN.WIKI only a Rest-mass exists in DE.WIKI a Rest mass makes no sense - with sophistical reason: why

Objected: What if an English issue of one scientifig paper says the contrary of its German issue? DeepBlueDiamond 14:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Original text on speaking for groups.
ANSWER FROM 84.158.242.81 15:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC) You got a Representative of WP:PHYS (we saw, this time not I). Reminder: WE act, not I Like you speak for THEM I represent my clubs, speak for THEM (or what remains of them all), ok?

• Speaking for groups. Duae Quartunciae has requested members of the Physics WikiProject to join in certain discussions. Just as he speaks for that group, so also W. Kehler speaks for the Germany astronomy club, or what remains of them.

Original text on fair handling of topics.
General, no special demand WE want a general (and not only a special) fair handling of topics. The matter is that competent people can be informed about what happens meanwhile against all basic WIKI-Principles and how they are meanwhile even perverted by false accusations in order to claim them.

• Fair handling of topics. Members of the German astronomy club want to see a general fair handling of all topics on wikipedia.

(Duae Quartunciae cannot understand the second sentence above, and requests help in clarifying the meaning.)

Original text on IP hunting.
Are here IP hunters acting instead of qualified users and admins? To know, how not only were chased meanwile even by a dynamic IP. All OUR work of THEM ALL personally was/were visibly insulted (we could not believe it from a good WIKI-time when JIM WALES still acted).

• IP hunting. Duae Quartunciae has made some attempt to identify edits from the dynamic IP cluster used by the German astronomy club, and has brought them to the attention of other editors in the Physics WikiProject. Is IP hunting a responsible action for users and admins? This hunt for IPs was insulting of the German astronomy group.

Original text on destruction of precious work.

Destruction of partly precious work We ALL were treated incredibly unfair like I myself. Meanwhile mainly indeed I myself finally act here rather single with our gratis club's phone. Actions, mainly with two still remaining elder Dr.-physics by phone. Indeed WE ALL (>6 directly acting) tried to make WIKI better, some of them had partly even sponsored it as a very good thing - by principle! But now? WE (instantly >90%) resign, fighting a WIKI windmill, as others said they did so already before...

• Destruction of precious work. A lot of hard work by different members of the astronomy club has been unfairly destroyed. They are all trying to make the wikipedia better, but are very discouraged at how their work is treated. W. Kehler is continuing to work on the wikipedia, while remaining in contact with some elderly well qualified scientists by phone.

W. Kehler has also made the following declarations.

Original text on various arguments.

Neither your nor my matter, ok? WE feel the matter as an object of WP:PHYS instead of your one. YOU PERSONALLY wrote "WE" instead of "I" (it means visibly then for WP:PHYS?). OUR group wanted and still want FAIRNESS from the other GROUP, (Wiki-Admins erasing blindly), being perhaps instantly at the longest part of a lever, where your part got meanwhile more leverage craft. WE find meanwhile - after this - your personal idea very bad. As you indicated, not our club but everyone for himself should act sole and I myself as well alone. I already was prepared to do so! But when I MYSELF wanted do so now, I was warned at this last moment by someone who had experienced that WP could hunt him (now us) then IP even better than done here by having erased completely all ERASED REALLY ARBITRARILY ALL WE WROTE! - BY PURE MIGHT? EVIDENCES OF REMAINING UNFAIRNESS? We want to present continuous unfairness now directly to JIM, as the GENERAL result. YOUR and MY personal meanings are out to that general topic. We ALL (not I) want(ed) FAIRNESS from your GROUP like dissidents wat this from BB-proponents. - ok? I got email that a dissident of the OPEN LETTER no more saw our ISSUE Do you even registrate meanwhile bare clicks to a topic? Greetings from the "few remaining ones" also by phone 84.158.242.81 15:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Unfair leverage. The Physics WikiProject is applying unfair leverage to force their point of view. Administrators are blinding erasing material by the Astronomy club. W. Kehler would like to appeal to Jimbo Wales for fairer treatment.

Wikipedia guidelines, policies and conduct

The following have been identified as issues where there is some disagreement relating to wikipedia guidelines or conduct. Editors are invited to present issues of dispute here, and to make a position statement of their own on the issues. This is not a talk page, or an extended debate. It is an attempt to clarify disagreements by having contrasting statements side by side.

Fairness in wikipedia

Duae Quartunciae statement on fairness in wikipedia

The closest wikipedia has to a fairness principle is spelled out in the Neutral point of view guideline. I endorse that guideline, and will continue to follow it to the best of my ability. In so far as Jim or Mr. Kehler believe that there is a fairness principle which means that their views should have equivalent standing with those of conventional established science, they are mistaken and fail to understand wikipedia.

It is not desirable for articles on one theory to describe all the alternative theories. Generally, every sufficiently notable theory should have its own article describing that theory. The most notable current theory for physical cosmology is the Big Bang, and there is a page on that theory. A notable alternative is the Steady state model, which also has its own article. Each article contains a link to the other, as appropriate. Both articles are in turn linked from physical cosmology. The additional prominence of the Big Bang model in wikipedia is a natural consequence of its additional prominence in science. The book A Different Approach to Cosmology, by Hoyle, Burbidge, and Narlikar, which DeepBlueDiamond has mentioned, is prominently listed within the article on the Steady state model, where it belongs. The book is not about Big Bang cosmology, so it does not belong in the Big Bang article.

DeepBlueDiamond statement on fairness in wikipedia

Please realize A Different Approach to Cosmology, Hoyle, Burbidge, Narlikar as the most serious called dissidents' book and consider all this as Science. Please, please, even if not convenient for your opinion as (the best named) objection against BB and see the first list of papers. See general problems of mainstream and conventional thinking as published now about DeepBlueDiamond 19:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Special interest groups in wikipedia

Duae Quartunciae statement on special interest groups

Any belief that I speak on behalf of the Physics Wikiproject is mistaken. If I occasionally make comments about the Physics Wikiproject, they are only descriptive, based only on personal assumptions and personal observations of tendencies within the group. My comments have no standing or authority. I merely signed up as an interested party; you could do the same if you wanted.

I appreciate that you are working in good faith and honestly perceive a deep problem within established physics community. I think you are wrong.

Wikipedia prefers all editors to work as individuals. The projects are simply groups of people with common interests. The differences you have with the physics group are not because the group is stacked against you; but because the group is not stacked at all.

DeepBlueDiamond statement on special interest groups

We assume that meanwhile already nearly all students are sole educated in Big Bang as the "only valid" theory. That is a mentally imposed kind of a fault with effects comparable with religiously founded, rigidly performing a kind of an Inquisition, more detailed objected by obove found OPEN LETTER signers. My personal experiences with consequences of mainstream and convential thinking about science is found in User:DeepBlueDiamond 3ff. It may not be important here but my mother nearly died cruelly in dictatorship's jail becaus father was an assistant of Canaris; known: by 12 years quite normal people were mentally deformed cruelly as a typical result of an "imposed mainstream". I mean that a mainstream can mentality deform within sufficient years even good people's mentality to become anyhow at least unfair by ignorance and pure lack of serious alternatives' knowledge.

Here was objected:

• Above linked scientific OPEN-LETTER "war", nearly all signers using gravity effects of photons,
• calculating the non-zero masses of photons,
• not understandable for people meaning that photons can have a zero-mass only with then no gravity effects (how can all "normal" in 3D only educated people understand Einstein effects?).

• Bare lack of knowledge about a here (also in EN.WIKI article photons,
• tried in vain to be enhanced,
• our proposals still found already as reminder to Photons in [[2]]).
• Main: Not found a - by us here all known! - generally so called PHOTON'S Relativistic mass.
• It must therefore be put in E.WIKI photons like e.g. in DE.WIKI found,
• to prevent struggles by ignorance and bad knowledge.
• What is knowledge has to be added
• here also in Relativistic mass
• because a calculation therin becomes indefinit the specially calculated photon's mass has to be taken
• ...like e.g. (cited what was in DE.WIKI or ES.WIKI or FR.WIKI found) as cited below.

WE ALL KNOW IT BUT NOT EN.WIKI-USERS:

• Like User:Duae Quartunciae also User:Jimbo Wales confirmed what User:DeepBlueDiamond objects: That mass is well-known not only to them but to people having studied it a bit formerly!
• How can it be that we all - as elder physicists - know them well but that it is not found here like even in other WIKIs, only in EN.WIKI ignored, but

WE CLAIM FAIR HANDLING: We assume meanwhile that this matter is not found by ignorance because a mainstream BB simply no more needs such photon's gravity by using 4D-spacetimes.

Forgetting completely that and how Einstein was so glad to be confirmed by its Einstein effects in 3D, especially by "his" photon's gravity effect named Gravitational lensing and Gravitational redshift. He had to write many very simple structured books to make it in 3D understandable even for "normal people", being unable to imagine any 4D-spacetimes?

as we intendet to do so but rv also there: see reminder as linked above to PHOTON's TALK. Thus also not so well-educated people in GR and its 4D-spacetimes are enabled to understand some things better, even if their mind is too limited to understand 4D spacetimes.

In their 3D-world they can find (e.g. in above cited more "poor" 3D-NEWTONPHYSICS) already valid explanations if they only get knowledge that in 3D the photons (can) have mentioned non-zero mass. Can it be that more or less fanatic fans of BB even not want that serious alternatives to BB become well-known? That even Einstein hiself - proved even not having found "his" E=mc² could be attacked? And even the basis of GR violating THE basic principle of Physics: the Conservation of energy?

Thanks for your patience. DeepBlueDiamond 11:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

IP hunting

DeepBlueDiamond statement on IP hunting

I previously thought that a dynamic IP was generally banned at wikipedia. I was mistaken, I think; it is actually open IPs that are the problem. Sorry.

— User:Duae_Quartunciae in a page for W. Kehler

Since his WELCOME June 13, he erased what we wrote. It began at Zwicky.

Duae Quartunciae statement on IP hunting

I have removed and revised a lot of material by different editors, as a part of the normal process of article revision at Wikipedia. Some of my own material has also been revised and removed in its turn. Anything we write here is freely donated and available for all other editors to build upon, and sometimes to tear down. In particular, I removed a lot of very poor quality material from a Fritz Zwicky biography, after first indicating my concerns in the discussion page and inviting comment. The largest single replacement was not made until after a number of editors had joined in to confirm that it was a good idea to replace the material, and also after my own proposal was scrutinized and suggestions made for its own improvement.

Wikipedia is very open environment, where anyone can check the history of activity for other editors or for articles of interest. This is true for users who have an account, and also for users who prefer to work through their IP address.

The use of a dynamic IP address makes it a bit more difficult for people to monitor activity. But there are tools that allow one to look for 84.158.*.* contributions. See, for example, this database query. Note that it also returns edits not used by the astronomy club. Astronomy club edits all appear to be from 84.158.2??.*, but that pattern is not usable by the tool. An editor would have to edit the results themselves to remove other addresses. This is not difficult, though it does take a bit more time.

Looking for 84.158.2??.* edits is not an unwarranted imposition. It merely brings the IP range up to a comparable level of visibility that normal editors have. Every time I sign an edit, for example, I give a one click link to a log of all my contributions. So don't try to come crying to me about how horrible it is that I want to look at your contributions as well.

Another issue is that open IP addresses are not permitted to edit Wikipedia at all. Such IP addresses are blocked on detection, because they present impossible hurdles to the normal management processes of wikipedia. I confused open IP addresses with dynamic IP addresses when I was first looking into this. In fact, this is irrelevant to the German club, since they are using a dynamic range; not an open address. I had previously said that the Astronomy club IP range was likely to be blocked by wikimedia, but I was mistaken, and subsequently retracted that comment. My original remark is here July 24; and my correction is here July 25.

Note that blocking does nothing to existing edits at all; it is only a way to prevent future difficulties. It is applied with the normal interactions of editors working together don't resolve disruptive actions of problem editors. I don't see any need for a block to be applied at this point; and I have never advocated that all the astronomy club edits should be erased.

There has been a long history of problems with edits from the 84.158.2*.* range, extending well before I joined wikipedia. I have found the edits from that source to be consistently erroneous, in need of basic repair on English, and in conflict with wikipedia guidelines on neutrality and verifiability. No offense is intended by that. But there there has not been any campaign, as far as I know, to find and revert all your edits. Most of your edits get reverted in the normal course of editing in wikipedia, without any need for co-ordinated campaigns, because of their manifest inadequacies. There has been no administrator interventions to remove your edits, and all the complaints about unfairness and vandalism have fallen on deaf ears, because you have not shown anything that is in the slightest conflict with wikipedia principles.

Issues relating to physics and physicists

The following have been identified as issues where there is some disagreement relating to physics or physicists in general. Editors are invited to present issues of dispute here, and to make a position statement of their own on the issues. This is not a talk page, or an extended debate. It is an attempt to clarify disagreements by having contrasting statements side by side.

Photon mass

DeepBlueDiamond statement on photon mass

In order to save much time:

• It makes no sense to build upper floors of a house at first.
• I kindly ask you to read its awfully banal basis for a real "scientific war" in OPEN LETTER TO THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY, Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004, ~95% utilizing that - only in EN.WIKI ignored photons non-zero mass; please reflect what can be done by EN.WIKI for a better understanding of different meanings, their basis in order to get more fairness also here in WIKI:
• A banal in photons not found ambiguous "photon mass problem" causes ignorance and result in misunderstandings with mentioned simply incredible effects, see [[3]] with our clubs experiences in [[4]], and a few email commentt of dissidents in [[5]].
• Continued unfairness, even by taking not understood false links of EN.WIKI and DE.WIKI (not taking our given correct link to a German section about photon's mass). That German part is copied now, saying quasi in [[6]]. :

• See: ~95% BB-dissidents utilize until today that - in photons inexisting - mass m = hν/c^2
  

Bare lack of information provokes mentioned stupid "war" by a banal reason (like nearly always).

Special relativity implies that the energy for normal masses gets infinite at v=c.

By you mentioned articles refer to a NORMAL MASS resulting in an INDEFINIT PHOTON'S MASS at v=c!

Nevertheless a photon "produces" a mass very well by Planck's formula E=hf (or E=hν)

E=hf is seen by still most genial physicists like ZWICKY equal to Einstein's formula E=mc²

It gives ALL Photon's masses with Planck a ZERO-MASS even at f=0.

Written also multiply: Instead of by your links - not convenient - with citations about general masses you should take our(!) still valid link for “normal masses”: Multiply linked by us (obviously in vain) as direct section PHOTON'S MASSE in German WIKI to find directly the related indefinite solution for problems of a photon with v=c - exactly described in DE.WIKI - to understand it,

Copy of German wikipeda page Photon, section on Mass. Links are directed to the corresponding German page.

Die Ruhemasse eines Photons ist stets gleich Null. Diese Tatsache ergibt sich zum einen aus der unendlichen Reichweite der elektromagnetischen Wechselwirkung und zum anderen aus der Lichtgeschwindigkeit, mit der Photonen im Vakuum unterwegs sind (worauf sich die speziellen Relativitätstheorie stützt). Ersteres Argument geht davon aus, dass alle Arten von Teilchen nach einer bestimmten Zeit zerfallen; dies geschieht umso schneller, je schwerer die Teilchen sind. Aufgrund dieses Zusammenhanges ist beispielsweise die Reichweite der starken Wechselwirkung so gering. Die Pionen, welche als Austauschteilchen der starken Kernkraft aufgefasst werden können, sind sehr schwer und zerfallen daher bereits nach sehr kurzer Zeit. Daher wirkt die starke Wechselwirkung nur in einem Bereich, der der Größenordnung von Atomkernen entspricht. Da die elektromagnetische Wechselwirkung jedoch eine unendliche Reichweite hat, zerfallen Photonen niemals und können daher keine Ruhemasse tragen. Die spezielle Relativitätstheorie hingegen verbietet nicht nur das Erreichen der Lichtgeschwindigkeit für jedwedes mit Ruhemasse behaftete Objekt, sondern liefert auch den direkten mathematischen Nachweis. Die relativistische Gesamtenergie eines Teilchens lautet $E={\sqrt {(m_{0}c^{2})^{2}+(pc)^{2}}}$ Die Geschwindigkeit ist definiert als die Ableitung der Energie nach dem Impuls $v={\frac {dE}{dp}}={\frac {pc^{2}}{\sqrt {(m_{0}c^{2})^{2}+(pc)^{2}}}}=c$ wobei für Photonen v = c gilt. Diese Gleichung kann jedoch nur erfüllt sein, wenn der Term $(m_{0}c^{2})^{2}$ verschwindet, d. h. wenn die Ruhemasse m0 = 0 ist. Allerdings kann einem Photon eine relativistische Masse zugeordnet werden, da für die Energie eines Photons stets $E=h\nu$ gilt. Über die Beziehung der Energie zur Masse m = E/c² folgt $m={\frac {h\nu }{c^{2}}}\,.$ Diese Masse kann man als Möglichkeit interpretieren, massive Teilchen zu erzeugen. Ein Photon mit entsprechender Mindestenergie kann z. B. bei Wechselwirkung mit einem Atom über Paarerzeugung ein Teilchen-Antiteilchen-Paar erzeugen.

EXACTLY WHAT WE CLAIM TO BE INPUT IN EN.WIKI (or will you force DE.WIKI to erase it?)!

DE.WIKI means, trans. (e.g. 1st sentence): Zero Photon's REST MASS cannot really exists and why!

Duae Quartunciae statement on photon mass

The German Wikipedia, and the English wikipedia, and I, and most modern texts on relativity, all use the same terminology. We all understand and help to explain different terminology that was used in the past. There is no difference in the underlying physics; only in the words we prefer to use for describing it. This whole "dispute" is a storm in a tea cup, over comparatively inconsequential word usage.

I know that the relativistic mass of a photon is hf/c^2. This has never been in the slightest dispute, by anyone. We just tend to use the term "mass" for the intrinsic mass of the photon, rather than the relativistic mass. The intrinsic mass is zero.

The field equation for relativity, which is how we model gravity, uses a stress-energy tensor. Newtonian gravity, however, used mass. You can convert between mass and energy as you like; and it was very common in the past to calculate the relativistic mass of a photon from its energy, and use that as a measure of its effects on gravity. These days it is more common to treat energy as the fundamental quality for gravity, and so a mass gets represented as energy using E = mc^2, rather than taking the energy of a photon and representing it as a mass, using m = E/c^2. This is a matter of convention, and it's not hard to map from one set of terminology to the other when necessary.

The German wikipedia is using the same standard terminology that I use. There is no sentence in the German wikipedia that could possibly be translated "A ZERO REST MASS MAKES NO SENSE". In fact, it is just the reverse.

A photon has a zero rest mass (Photonen niemals und können daher keine Ruhemasse tragen). You can express the photon energy as a "relativistic mass" (kann einem Photon eine relativistische Masse zugeordnet werden, da für die Energie eines Photons stets). Follow the link in the German page for relativistic mass, and you will see, just as I have been saying all along, that the term "relativistic mass" reflects older terminological conventions (ist eine Interpretation verschiedener Gleichungen aus den Anfangstagen). We don't tend to use the term today (In der theoretischen Physik wird das Konzept der relativistischen Masse heute nicht mehr verwendet.)

Whether you speak of the energy as a relativistic mass or not is just terminology. Someone who understands the underlying physics, which in this case is not at all difficult, should have little trouble understanding either convention. An encyclopedia should be guided by modern usage. It should explain older usage. Someone who fails to grasp the physics will probably get confused by the changes in conventions over the years, but the difference emphatically does NOT correspond to differences in theories about gravity, or to errors in the science of those who use words a bit differently. To understand this you just need to get your head around the physics. Then the minor terminological differences take their proper perspective.

As an aside, the possibility of a very small non-zero rest mass for photons is something that is seriously considered. It would involve a significant change to current particle physics, but that's okay. The mass involved is tiny; far far smaller than the relativistic mass.

JimJast statement on photon mass

Actually I don't believe in what you (Duae Quartunciae) say that I believe. My response that you got was not meant for you but for W. Kehler and I just thought that you are the same person because of the slash between your names. One of you has written an e-mail to me asking for comments providing Wikipedia's space. I just typed questions to W. Kehler in.

I was asking him (not you) why he tries to assign so big a meaning to mass of photon while, as I suggested before, there is no ambiguity about it, meaning that the "rest mass" of photon is zero while its "inertial" (or "gravitational" or so called "relativistic mass") is ${\frac {h\nu }{c^{2}}}$.

BTW, some time ago I predicted that changing meaning of word "mass" from "inertial mass" to "rest mass" is going to screw up a lot of people (including astronomers and chemists) by creating an artificial issue of what mass really is since all the literature before that time (e.g. texts by Einstein and Feynman) used word "mass" in opposite sense. About 40 years later you may see that I was right :-).

In any case I propose to shorten this page by removing most of the stuff about "photon's mass" and just leave its definitions that I provided above so those who still don't know may learn. Jim 11:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Go right ahead Jim. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Delete this comment at the same time, and I'll see if I want to add any comment to what you can provide. Thanks —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 11:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Tired light and Einstein effect theories

DeepBlueDiamond statement on tired light and Einstein effect theories

Until most recently there exist many Tired Light models and others related to Einstein effects using by himself used formula "gravitational" or so called "relativistic mass":

${\frac {h\nu }{c^{2}}}$.

ORIGINAL ZWICKY:

1. PNAS, Zwicky original paper, link+content reverted
2. Hubble never committed himself to Big bang even as "irrational" named but Tired licht "less". A steady Falsification of history that Hubble had quasi proved anyhow Big bang - also in EN.WIKI.

A FEW TIRED LIGHT VERSIONS:

1. Prof. A.K.T. Assis supporting until now also Tired Light, e.g. History of the 2.7 K Temperature Prior to Penzias and Wilson and Big Bang and The Redshift Revisited
2. [Another look at the Pioneer anomaly]
3. Jim Jastrzebski (Univ.-Prof. in Poland) Physics of Illusion of Expanding Space, see also [7]
4. Ashmore's Tired Light (see there also his book Big-Bang Blasted claiming 30 BB-faults).

OTHERS, AT LEAST BASED ON A NON-ZERO PHOTON'S MASS and Einstein effects:

1. Einstein's Theory of Relativity versus Classical Mechanics, by Paul Marmet.
2. Halton Arp in many papers found, its newest an enhancement from 2007 Further Evidence that the Redshifts of AGN Galaxies May Contain Intrinsic Components, M.B. Bell1
3. Professors [Hoyle]], Geoffrey Burbidge and Margaret Burbidge, Prof. Narlikar in by many papers as the most serious called objection against BB in A Different Approach to Cosmology, Hoyle, Burbidge, Narlikar, cited:

Duae Quartunciae statement on tired light and Einstein effect theories

1. None of the tired light models mentioned use Einstein effects. The Einstein effect refers to gravitational lensing; and to the gravitational redshift in light emerging from a gravitational well. Zwicky in 1929 noted explicitly that the Einstein effect does not depend on distance, and so cannot address cosmological redshift. Zwicky was correct. None of the other papers DeepBlueDiamond cites use the Einstein effect either. This seems to be another case where DeepBlueDiamond simply lacks the background in physics to understand what any of these proposals are saying.
2. The Zwicky 1929 paper has never been removed from his biography. If DeepBlueDiamond understood this paper better, he might avoid trying to associate cosmological redshift with scattering processes from electrons or with the Einstein effect. Zwicky's paper explains, correctly, why both those approaches must fail.
3. DeepBlueDiamond's slurs about falsified history with respect to Edwin Hubble are without foundation. Hubble's skepticism of the expanding space explanation for redshift is well known and plainly stated in his Wikipedia biography.
4. Professor Assis does support the idea of tired light, but the cited paper gives no model for how it might occur. The Tired light article quite properly focuses on other papers which do suggest models.
5. DeepBlueDiamond cites the classic pioneer anomaly paper, by Anderson et. al. [8]. It is totally irrelevant here, because that paper makes no mention of tired light. The paper surveys a number of ways that people have tried to explain the anomaly, but the authors propose that the most likely cause is probably a systematic effect from the spacecraft, with a small force produced either by out gassing or by asymmetry in the dump of waste heat.
6. Jim Jastrzebski is a student, not a professor. His ideas have no acceptance, and have yet to be published in the scientific literature. Jim is supremely confident of his insight, and thinks that there must be some form of psychological block with everyone else that prevents his ideas from being recognized. Be that as it may, his ideas are not notable by the Wikipedia guidelines on verifiability and neutrality.
7. The ideas of "private researcher" Lyndon Ashmore are also not notable by Wikipedia guidelines. This was the model that received most prominence in old versions of the Zwicky biography, despite it being an example of the scattering process that Zwicky himself correctly described as hopeless, and despite it having no associated reliable sources. I have given a brief summary of the many trivial errors in Ashmore's physics in #Duae Quartunciae statement on Ashmore's model.
8. Paul Marmet does have a tired light model, but DeepBlueDiamond does not cite it correctly. DeepBlueDiamond cites a self-published book, which does not appear to address cosmological redshift at all. The book is an error filled criticism of Einstein's theory of relativity. Marmet's tired light proposals are similarly confused; and uninfluential even amongst the small number of scientists actively considering tired light mechanisms. Marmet proposes a kind of scattering process with regular matter of the very kind that Zwicky identifed as "hopeless" in 1929. The right place to mention Marmet's model would be the Tired light page; but Marmet's model is less notable than other more rational speculations already present in that page.
9. DeepBlueDiamond fails to understand Halton Arp's proposals. He cites Arp's paper on "intrinsic redshift", which is not a model for tired light at all, nor is it a way of explaining cosmological redshift. Arp basically rejects the simple redshift distance relation, and proposes that some of the redshift apparent in high-z objects is localized at the objects themselves.
10. DeepBlueDiamond cites an important book by Hoyle, Burbidge and Narlikar. This is already cited at the page where it belongs, on Steady state cosmology; but more importantly, it does not use a tired light model at all. DeepBlueDiamond again cites stuff without even the most superficial comprehension of what they are actually saying.

Lyndon Ashmore's tired light model

Lyndon Ashmore was mentioned in the Fritz Zwicky biography, for his model of tired light; and his tired light model has become a subject of some disagreement.

DeepBlueDiamond statement on Ashmore's model

CRUEL CONSISTENT UNFAIRNESS SHOWN: INVERTING WHAT WE WROTE, OBVIOUSLY TO BLAME OUR KNOWLEDGES:

A precendent answer by DeepBlueDiamond to show that FEYNMAN said what we wrote, then ASHMORE:

I put it precedently with Feynman to show how WIKI-Admin perverts a reality of our priorities:

Can Wiki-Admins really not "hear" (read) at all as Dr.Kießlinger wrote (linked), even not here?

How many times was said that Lyndon Asmore only repeated nearly copied what FEYNMAN said before?

see Our erased Tired-Light section, here copied as evidence:

==== Feynman's explanation, rehabilitation of Zwicky ====

* Feynman.R.”Q.E.D.- the strange story of light and matter”, Penguin,London,1990 p76 (ref. also in [[9]] p.5 [[10]], FEYNMAN, R.P. [1985] QED. The Strange Story of Light and Matter, Princeton University Press): He describes by Quantum mechanics the transmission of light through a transparent medium like glass simply as

“photons do nothing but go from one electron to another, and reflection and transmission are really the result of an electron (remark: in molecules) picking up a photon, ”scratching its head”, so to speak, and emitting a new photon.” In transparent solid matter - good glass produces no blurring and fuzzy light at all, as objected against Zwicky - the density of molecules is huge compared to thin interstellar gas. Like Photons continually absorbed and re-emitted by electrons in atoms of good, tansparent glass the photons of light travelling through interstellar molecules are very, very seldom but continually absorbed and re-emitted by electrons in the very thin interstellar plasma, withhout visibly losing speed like in massive glass. Feynman, in this book: "What I’m going to tell you is what we teach our physics students in the third or year of graduate school... It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don’t understand it…. You see my physics students don’t understand it that is because I don’t understand it. Nobody does."

* Even Einstein confessed that he could not understand it, see Quantum entanglement showing until recently that Schrödinger was right and not Einstein who famously derided entanglement as "spukhafte Fernwirkung" or "spooky action at a distance.").

* In the following link Lyndon Ashmore compares directly photons in glass with photons in interstellar gas:

==== Mössbauer effect prevents blurring ====

Ashmore's Tired Light Theory (Lyndon Ashmore February 5th 2005)

Precedent original citation as evidence: "Here I treat space as a transparent medium and apply the same physics to IG space as we know happens in transparent materials such as glass. In travelling through glass, light is continually absorbed and re-emitted and yet continues in a straight line. The 'principal of least time' ensures that this is so. The Mossbauer effect is a momentum effect and so linear momentum must be conserved. Electrons in a plasma have Coulomb forces acting between them and thus act collectively. Any tendency for the electron to stray from the original direction of the photon will be restricted by the other electrons."

Our words to it in ZWICKY "...declares Feynman's theory and Tired light to photons interacting or even colliding with electrons in intergalactic plasma, thus losing energy: The more interactions, the more lost energy, lower frequency and higher wavelength as redshift (e.g.: light from galaxies twice as far undergo statistically twice collisions with electrons of molecules, lose twice energy, reduce twice frequency and wavelength, increase twice redshift). But while in glass atoms and electrons are fixed within the whole glass block they cannot recoil. In interstellar plasma electrons are not fixed and are able to recoil on absorption and re-emission. Ashmore means: utilizing Mössbauer effect in determining redshifts a blurring is no problem (like in good glass). While other Tired light theories scatter by Compton effect to create a shift in wavelength a scatter by Mössbauer effect only produces a redshift if the photon is emitted at an angle to its original direction and Compton scatter would produce no redshift in forward direction, not needing an expanding Universe, "stretching" photons. Ashmores detailed calculations for tired light redshifts, see Photon Redshift Spread. Ashmore's Paradox declares the Hubble constant and other so called "Big bang evidences" simply by Tired light, e.g. Background radiation [[11]] and others - e.g. Halton Arps Quantized Redshifts - in [[12]]. DeepBlueDiamond 14:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Duae Quartunciae statement on Ashmore's model

The original Zwicky biography as at 03:31, 13 July 2007 contained two sections (quoted above by DeepBlueDiamond) that were the worst bits of total physical nonsense in the whole mess. The first section appealed to Richard Feynman, and the second appealed to the Mössbauer effect.

Lyndon Ashmore has developed his own model for a tired light effect, involving an interaction of photons with electrons in the plasmas of deep space. He has produced a website lyndonashmore.com, and written a self-published book, and got one paper into a notorious fringe journal. You can confirm all my remarks here by reading the preprint of his "paper": Recoil Interaction Between Photons and The Electrons In The Plasma Of Intergalactic Space Leading To The Hubble Constant And CMB. He has no notability in the world of science at all. He is a high school physics teacher who does this as a hobby.

His ideas are trivially — and I do mean trivially — impossible. The paper is riddled with elementary errors. Kehler has kicked up an enormous fuss about "defamation" when I expressed my view of this as crank physics. Kehler needs to learn the difference between defamation of a person, and comments on a physical theory.

Ashmore takes some ideas from the interaction of photons with a solid lattice, misunderstands it even in its own context, and then applies the mangled confusion without rhyme or reason to the interaction of photons with free electrons in deep space. Ashmore speaks of what he calls a double Mössbauer effect. The "double" refers to an electron "absorbing" a photon, and then "re-emitting" the photon. (I'm not kidding.) Ashmore suggests that the photon somehow proceeds with reduced energy and no change in direction; with the electron eventually radiating away the extra energy in what Ashmore calls "Bremsstrahlung".

In reality, the Mössbauer effect occurs when photons are scattered by atoms in a solid lattice, in such a way that the entire lattice recoils from the interaction. Since the lattice is so much more massive than the photon, there is effectively no loss of energy from the photon, and it can be scattered at any angle with the same frequency. This is in contrast to recoil from a single particle, in which case a small amount of energy is transferred to the particle, giving a red shift to the photon, dependent on the scattering angle. Also important to the Mössbauer effect is that scattering depends on the photon having an energy that matches energy levels for electrons in the lattice, so that the scattered photon continues to have that same matching energy for further scattering within the lattice.

• Ashmore has taken interactions that depend crucially upon electrons being bound to atoms with particular energy levels, and applied them to free electrons in diffuse plasma.
• Ashmore has taken the "no recoil" aspect of the Mössbauer effect, meaning that the lattice does not recoil, and taken it as meaning the photon does not change direction. He has it backwards; with a Mössbauer effect, photons are scattered at any angle you like, with no redshift.
• Ashmore speaks of "bremsstrahlung", which is radiation from an accelerated charge. He speaks of the electron having been given some energy by the interaction, which it then gives up as it is somehow decelerated back to rest. (I am not kidding. He does say "brought to rest" in the context of intergalactic plasmas.)
• Ashmore has never done a balanced budget of energy and momentum for his proposed photon electron interaction. He proposes that the photon gives up a small amount of energy to the electron, but with no change of direction. It is impossible to balance the energy and momentum in this interaction.
• This only touches on the more obvious errors. There are plenty more. The original Ashmore paradox fails simple dimension analysis. Ashmore applies form factors for a hydrogen atom to a free electron. He confuses motions of an individual electron with density waves in a large region of plasma. The discussion is riddled with very basic errors of this kind.

Ashmore also cites some basic texts, especially a relativity text by French, and the Feynman lectures. Neither of these books say anything remotely corresponding to Ashmore's claims. The parts of theory that Ashmore quotes he gets fundamentally wrong. In the case of French, he mixes up a fixed energy level in an atom with photon energies ranging over the entire spectrum. In the case of Feynman he mixes up light transmission in a refractive material with no redshift, and equates it with his redshift model.

In 1929 Fritz Zwicky explicitly identified scattering processes from electrons or ions as unable to explain cosmological redshift for precisely the energy momentum related reasons that Ashmore gets so badly wrong. Zwicky was absolutely correct to reject these processes as hopeless.

The Ashmore issue is a litmus test for basic competence in physics. If someone defends the validity of Ashmore's ideas without having read them, then they are just making trouble. If someone defends the validity of Ashmore's ideas after having read them, then they don't understand elementary physics.

Scientific journals at present cannot write the truth

Duae Quartunciae statement on truth in scientific journals

This ludicrous claim is without the slightest merit.

I'm being a bit emphatic here; but I don't actually intend to attack persons individually. I appreciate how Jim affirms his claim in the face of my reaction; and I am content to leave this as two different perspectives, side by side.

Pragmatically, however, it is not going to make a difference whether journals are able to publish the "truth" or not. By its very nature, wikipedia is unable to address this problem, even if you think there is a problem. An encyclopedia is inherently conservative, and primarily reflects established knowledge with all its imperfections. The guidelines of no original research and verifiability ensure that wikipedia will continue to reflect the same features of the conventional scientific establishment that you deem so untruthful.

JimJast statement on truth in scientific journals

"This ludicrous claim is without the slightest merit."

I spent over 20 years thinking exactly as you did. Finally I realised that the statement you criticize is true. And it occured to me only after I started studying Philip Zimbardo's psychology books. That's why I shared my knowledge with you. If you need more evidence than my explanation in the discussed text ask questions.

Just one question, in all seriousness. Does Zimbardo himself share your view? —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 13:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I surely hope so. At least this is what I concluded from his studies of the human brain.

The interesting thing though is that even you seem to follow directly the psychological experiments that Zimbardo's writing about. It is that people for whom it really doesn't matter tend to believe the experts. You may tend to think that the universe is expanding because for you it doesn't matter and in your opinion experts should know their stuff. What they don't know they investigate and write about it in scientific journals (in your opinion). You tend to overlook the mechanisms that prevent them from doing it.

Yet the curvature of spacetime implies that poynting vector transfered along a different geodesic results in vector of different direction. And this implies that energy can't be conserved globally in a curved spacetime (in an expanding universe) so either the spacetime is intrinsically flat and the universe is not expending or the conservation of energy doesn't hold. In a regular science it would close the argument. But now comes J. A. Wheeler and asks himself: how God could create the universe if He or She couldn't create energy? So anyone investigating the issue has to admit that the energy can be created from nothing This is what Wheeler's students have to believe in. And you still call them physicists? Feynman didn't despite being Wheeler's student himself. He called them "dopes" instead (see What Do You Care What Other People Think?.

But there exists also a better reason why not to believe experts. It turns out that "outdated" (according to experts, who assumed the expanson as a separate postulate of general relativity) Einsteins ancient theory explains all cosmological events known to date (2007) within one standard deviation or better and no expert ever studies this theory that has been replaced by a "theory" in which expansion is an additional postulate. A theory that can't predict even one of those strange things that Einsein's original theory predicts. The BB folks just postulate dark energy and advise the legitimate physicists to look for it to save the BB. Jim 17:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

* Prof. Paul Marmets Newton Physics against Einstein, proves what you say. He objected e.g. well-founded what you wrote in same sense: "energy can't be conserved globally in a curved spacetime". You'll find it more exactly in his link [Strautmann] (you'll find also there Einstein as big plagiarizer: even "his" E=mc² was a much older stuff).

* By User:Duae_Quartunciae depreciated (linked) Lyndon Ashmore objected in 30 BB-faults also this by you objected fault (Newton Physics red again to Classical mechanics). DeepBlueDiamond 18:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

* We'd linked and cited your hint What Do You Care What Other People Think?; Fenyman again (like all cited with links) in [[13]].

* Please realize what we put in to bare stubs, enhanced firstly by well-konown GR-solutions in [[14]] but rv to stubs.

* Not any opinion we put anywhere, all seriously by first and second class links prooved citations as in "our" Fritz Zwicky, poor English but good content, wrote Halton Arp, all well-founded in [[15]], rv as "crank", "silly" named. DeepBlueDiamond 21:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

DeepBlueDiamond statement on truth in scientific journals

Please look simply into my (enhanced) User page with crucial experiences especially to that related matter, see 3ff. in DeepBlueDiamond 11:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Issues relating to particular articles

The following have been identified as issues where there is some disagreement relating to particular pages on wikipedia, and the what has been added or removed for them. Editors are invited to present issues of dispute here, and to make a position statement of their own on the issues. This is not a talk page, or an extended debate. It is an attempt to clarify disagreements by having contrasting statements side by side.

---

Miscellaneous exchanges

Everything below this line is unstructured. There may some material here that could be used in producing position statements on the various issues considered above. For the time being, however, I'm leaving the content here; though I may apply edits to clean it up. Ultimately, I'd like it moved away from this page entirely; perhaps to the earlier discussion page at User:Duae Quartunciae/W. Kehler.

Old material on IP address hunting. Click 'show' to view.

Wikipedia is very open environment, where anyone can check the history of activity for other editors or for articles of interest. This is true for users who have an account, and also for users who prefer just to work through their IP address.

The use of a dynamic IP address just makes it a bit more difficult for people to monitor activity. But there are tools that allow one to look for 84.158.*.* contributions. See, for example, this database query. It identifies 2750 edits from IP addresses 84.158.*.* over the last two and a bit years. Many of them are not the astronomy club, but most of the ones since May 2007 are from the astronomy club, and this is enough to help monitor your contributions.

Try 84.158,2*.* to get at least a little bit more about what OUR club did DeepBlueDiamond 12:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You can't do that with this tool, unfortunately. But thanks for pointing this out, as it can be a useful additional step taken by hand to remove the irrelevant stuff. Hopefully this is now all beside the point, and if you are satisfied on the IP issue, I don't mind deleting this whole section on "IP hunting". It's up to you. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 13:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

We were warned since 2006 and in Email lists: even 2 Professor's assistants felt themselves IP-hunted, reverted even when writing about their own matter (person?) and own theory similarly all having totally resigned in WIKI.

Other club friend (Dr.phys) tried to input something in DE.WIKI by an unique but anyhow in WIKI anyhow wasted IP, multiply rv in minutes. I saw to that IP hundreds things he never could write...

Since your fist WIKI-WELCOME (June 13) you was active to select our work! To erase all??? DeepBlueDiamond 15:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not an unwarranted imposition. It merely brings the IP range up to a comparable level of visibility that normal editors have. Everytime I sign an edit, for example, I give a one click link to a log of all my contributions. So don't try to come crying to me about how horrible it is that I want to look at your contributions as well.

There has been a long history of problems with edits from that range of IP addresses, extending well before I joined wikipedia. I have found the edits from that source to be consistently erroneous, in need of basic repair on English, and in conflict with wikipedia guidelines on neutrality and verifiability.

Sorry, all in my absence done was linked and cited in detail without any OWN OPINION as you do. DeepBlueDiamond 15:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

...No offense is intended by that. There has not been any campaign, as far as I know, to find and revert all your edits. Most of your edits get reverted in the normal course of editing in wikipedia, without any need for co-ordinated campaigns, because of their manifest inadequacies. There has been an effort to let your contributions have a similar level of visibly as is normally the case for other editors.

Did I not read: you falsly meant that such IPs shall be always erased? Must I search it? DeepBlueDiamond 15:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not think you ever read me say that. I certainly have said that most of your edits have a lot of problems; and that they often introduce errors, and that they do usually get reverted when people notice them. I have not said that your edits should always be reverted. I do certainly think they should also be looked at. Quite apart from anything else, your English means that someone needs to check for grammar. The place to look for my comments would be in the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics pages. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 16:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read what you wrote exactly as - we felt an IP-hunter - written by you in [[16]]:

I previously thought that a dynamic IP was generally banned at wikipedia. I was mistaken, I think; it is actually open IPs that are the problem. Sorry.

— User:Duae_Quartunciae in a page for W. Kehler

DeepBlueDiamond 16:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, open IPs should be blocked. That's Wikipedia policy, and has nothing to do with my views. Note that blocked is very different from reverted. The blocking of open IPs is already policy at Wikimedia; but since you are using a dynamic IP rather than an open IP, this restriction does not apply to you. I had originally mixed up dynamic IP and open IP, but that was a technical error on my part. It was never a case of my making policy decisions, nor was it ever a case of just blocking you because of your edits. The issue was the nature of the IP address in use. Also make sure you understand the difference between blocking and reverting. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 16:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

That's life. You have a major problem understanding how to work with the community here, and how to work with consensus. You don't have any right to insist your edits must remain in place, or to object that they are being examined and reviewed. Every edit is able to be reviewed and removed by every other editor. There has been no case at all of administrator interventions to remove your edits, and all your complaints about unfairness and vandalism have fallen on deaf ears, because you have not shown anything that is in the slightest conflict with wikipedia principles.

Until 2006 my friends, as I myself, had made some ten never erased or reverted contributions.

Kehler's precedent answer

I kindly ask you to read please directly our issue http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Duae_Quartunciae/W._Kehler#A_list_of_issues to realize why and how we felt ourself (like even Professor's assistents told us formerly) really "IP-chased" (or ID-chased): Simply all reverted by principe without seeing its content:

Even the most poor articles could not be significantly enhanced by us, e.g.:

1. In both - visibly not as good rated - articles about Solutions of the Einstein field equations and Exact solutions related to basic General relativity even the most well-known solutions are not found until today. We put in six well-known [[17]] also rv. One even takes contravariant Einstein tensors while all others write them correctly covariant (we dared to name this a shame for WP:PHYS).
2. We meant: In a strange thing like Anti gravity people can only get bare information about it to decide themselves what they believe and what not. But all more or less serious links were erased. Introduction also erased with well-known physics: Electrostatic and magnetic forces can of course act against gravity: A thin condensator's plane can fly at high voltage e.g. about another plane with the same pole; superconductors can fly about a metallic plane; antipoled magnets as well, for "normal" people's understanding that antigravity is not a completly stupid thing.
3. Especially we objected that we found multiply in articles BARE MEANINGS of redactors, not only according to first modifications of "our" (for the first time by us ~85% enhanced) article about Fritz Zwicky within our former not perfect but seriously cited and linked section Tired light.
4. Like already in the first sentence in article Tired light after index our corrections were rv: The admin insisted in redactor's MEANING (see after index at first): By a Compton effect Tired light MUST always scatter and blur.
5. Nowhere was realized that and how Feynman had declared for amorphous glass (as most commonly known transparent matter) that there exist quantum effect exceptions that even he could not declare or teach his students. We had linked and cited him e.g. in "our" Zwicky's tired light section.
6. By us linked (multiply depreciated) Lyndon Ashmore had simply repeated the same stuff, as formerly cited by us as well with his link.
7. FALSIFIED HISTORY: Hubble nearly everywhere claimed to have proved Big Bang had in reality only discovered a correct basis: A relation between redshift and distance. But this is also declared by other theories correctly, especially by Tired light even better say their proponents. We had correctly cited and linked his words; summary:

• Hubble even "never committed himself" to Big bang and even meant, (as written by himself with two serious links by us cided, erased rv) that Zwicky's Tired light would be "less irrational" than BB.
• Such facts cannot be lately "declared" by meanings and finally erased by any redactors different meanings against our by citations well-foundet serious links for our fair "Zwicky's rehabilitation".

Main problem fixed:

1. By no means the rather serious acting WIKI-Admin of the (very well rated) photons article could be moved to accept at least the existance of a NON-ZERO Photon's relativistic mass (see Talk).
2. Here we saw the basic problem of mentioned (linked as OPEN LETTER) Scientist's "war": Without accepting such a mass and its gravity nearly all BB-dissident's theories cannot be understood.
3. We realized then that only EN.WIKI has this special problem nearly consistently we could simply not understand it at all - by pure ignorance provoking misunderstanding, depreciations, even defamation.
4. Thus WIKI could help - at least by more WP:NEUTRALITY and without input bare redactors meanings - a more understanding for and between different scientist's and their theories: understanding them with a serious basis as we meant.

First email-answers were put now into section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Duae_Quartunciae/W._Kehler#I_N_V_I_T_A_T_I_O_N_:_PLEASE_CLICK_AND_PUT_YOUR_COMMENT_HERE

• A new article Big Bang religion should be another step: The article Big bang itself shows in a last section how many religion support it and how excited especially PIUS XII was that the holy bible was proved now by a religious aspect ("there will be light and there was light").
• BB was named by my contrapart himself A MYSTERY directly related to there needed dark energy (sorry: mysteries are no physics) - as one problem only. In relation Anti gravity is no problem.
• We linked e.g. how even serious (by Feynman enhanced) Quantum mechanics theories must subordinate themselves to BB (in Wiki citations given) claming to have had made an error of 120 decades (10^-120!!!), implicitly also found in WIKI-article about the Einstein's constant.

W.Kehler with a new - only personal - ID with the petition not to "beat him" for what he writes also for other's intention DeepBlueDiamond 15:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Equivalence claimed by Einstein but in EN.WIKI photons article negated

""It follows from the theory of relativity that mass and energy are both different manifestations of the same thing - a somewhat unfamiliar conception for the average man. ...the mass and energy in fact were equivalent." - Albert Einstein Source: "The Quotable Einstein", Princeton University Press, Princeton New Jersey (1996), also in the Einstein film produced by Nova Television, 1979"

I think I must not give more evidences that Einstein not liked but accepted Planck's formula E=hf as equivalent to (his) E=mc² especially proved by his Einstein effects proving a photon's mass. Above written formula is mentioned everywhere - only in EN.WIKI still missed - as multiply cited, linked and named. In DE.WIKY it is even correctly declared as the only valid kind of photons' mass depending on frequency, only getting a zero-mass at f=0. DeepBlueDiamond 20:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Our forgotten Talk: priority was the non-zero photon's mass

Our reminder cited in [[18]]:

Difference of rest mass and relativistic mass is not found - only here in engl. WIKI please look e.g. quite correctly (not only) in German WIKI link, [MASSE].

• UNIVERSITY MUENCHEN: [[19]]

Trans. "A confirmation of Einstein’s photon’s-mass was succeeded by physicists Rebka and Pound in an "earthly" experiment, as reported in the year 1960 in the following text passage...":

• ORIGINAL ENGLISH: "In 1960, R. Pound and G. Rebka, Jr. at Harvard University conducted experiments which photons (gamma rays) emitted at the top of a 22.57 m high apparatus were absorbed at the bottom, and photons emitted at the bottom of the apparatus were absorbed at the top. The experiment showed that photons which had been emitted at the top had a higher frequency upon reaching the bottom than the photons which were emitted at the bottom. And photons which were emitted at the bottom had a lower frequency upon reaching the top than the photons emitted at the top. These results are an important part of the experimental evidence supporting general relativity theory which predicts the observed "redshifts" and "blueshifts."

• And e.g. cited ESA, Europen Space Agency are certainly no stupids if they have to calculate satelites' way in space and have learnt from Pioneer anomaly in
• [[20]]: "1. Introduction: It is well known that the mass of the photon and graviton in vacuum must be nonzero. The first limit is given by Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle1 and the second by the measurement of the cosmological constant in our universe2-4."

Duae Quartunciae on photon mass

I have deleted this whole section to help size under control. Here is a permanent link to the deleted section: [21]. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 16:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Not understood but continuous depreciations instead of physics

No serious(!) answer about what was said again and again now also in [[22]].

No knowledge about (related) Physics

until now you have not at all understood or read multiply linked problem about related disambiguous banal photon's masses problem - as steadily discussed as banal reason for a "scientists' war" as declared multiply and finally also by WIKI's ADMINS IGNORANCE and their INABILITY TO HEAR (or READ):

Dr.Kießlinger declared (him) physics and "THE" WIKI-problem

...meanwhile, as even by 2 Professor's (in WIKI written by their assistants, rv) meanwhile steadily experienced as THE WIKI-Admin's problem of bare ignorance in [[23]] meaning what we all feel and experienced:

"How can one explain this situation Wikipedia administrators?
I don't know, because they are not able to listen."

Not perfectly trans. email: "The reason of the contradiction exists because these physicists don't know, that there exist two masses according to the special relativity theory: a longitudinale and a transversal kind of a mass effect, one applicable to forces in movement direction, the other crosswise (remark: transversal!) to it."

Jim Jastrzebski wrote and declared (him!) the physics

"The relativistic mass of the photon is hf/c^2 as it has always been (which is known to most high school students) so what are you trying to prove or just to do sending me thus about the BB and the mass of photon?" [[24]]. Let's once answer in the same bad style according to what Jim quite clearly means:

"which is known to most high school students" of the world, obviously was not learnt here at all!

DeepBlueDiamond 11:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This whole section, including Jim's own additions, has been moved to the discussion pages. Here is a permanent link to the deleted section: [25] —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 16:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

What Halton Arp wrote me about our former Fritz Zwicky

Instead of again such disqualifying words like "crank" or "silly" physics also of Lyndon Ashmore meaning obviously all others have no knowledge about physics but also this WIKI-ADMIN. Please look what Halton Arp wrote me about our former Fritz Zwicky as erased tired light section, see [[26]]

Or what serious Papers write now about dying Big bang

Not only there named three linked in OPEN LETTER named Professors kill the Big bang slowly in [[27]]! Instead of reading multiple links, e.g. German University (in Engl.), the ESA or what linked Physics-Professors wrote or at least a serious book about that physics, depreciations continue as formerly against us (cited "krank" and "silly" physics) [28].

Or what is written in WIKI (also about this problem), see [[29]]

9. “In fact, gravity is in many ways a much better quantum field theory than the Standard Model, since it appears to be valid all the way up to its cutoff at the Planck scale. (By comparison, the Standard Model is expected to break down above its cutoff at the much smaller TeV scale.)” [[30]].

Instead again continuous depreciations about our + my physics

Not read or understood anything (blind or deaf as Dr.Kießlinger meant?), User:Duae_Quartunciae continues his depreciations as e.g. in LINK TO PROVE PURE DEPRECIATION of us and especially according to Lyndon Ashmore who had only resumed (but declared as his theory!?) what Feynman had already written about transparent matter like amorphous glass. DeepBlueDiamond 11:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

That statement about Ashmore and Feynman does not make the slightest scrap of sense. Nothing in Feynman's excellent lectures on the transmission of light bears the slightest resemblance to Ashmore's proposal for a redshift of photons by interaction with free electrons in intergalactic plasma without any change of direction. I have put up a new section with a quick introduction to the errors in Ashmore's model. See #Lyndon Ashmore's tired light model, above. Cheers —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 02:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)