User:Duae Quartunciae/W. Kehler/Issues

Background

This page was set up after Duae Quartunciae ran into some editorial conflicts with members of a German Astronomy club. 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.

This is not a talk page. Other editors may feel free to edit the page, but please do not just add insertions into the middle of another persons text. Instead, make your own contrasting statement as a distinct section. The page is intended to give a side by side comparison of strongly contrasting views.

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

German astronomy club and Kehler

User Kehler is a member of a German amateur astronomy club (not perfect in English, sorry). Although originally accepting of conventional Big Bang cosmology, in 2006 he became a dissident, after meeting with prominent amateur astronomer John Dobson, mainly objecting Big Bang with much applause by his words "How can anything come from nothing?" objecting also (ab)use of Einstein: Time and space like energy and mass are merged up, but: "definition in our physics, every concept in our physics, requires measurements of length, or of time, or of mass... And without the discrimination between length, time and mass we have no way to measure anything in physics" as found e.g. in The Equations of Maya and Dobson’s “Einstein’s Physics Of Illusion”. Not only - by old, well-known physicists - crucial evidence as given by [STRAUTMANN] already shows problems with Einstein's GR, by mathematics: It would violate the basic Principle of conservation of energy, already at the beginning of a Big bang (BB) of course. Such arguments are not banal, like (the necessary but unobserved) Dark energy, which are called "mysteries" instead of "problems" by BB-apologists. I could read meanwhile a few pages of A Different Approach to Cosmology, From a Static Universe through the Big Bang towards Reality by F. Hoyle, G. Burbidge University of California, San Diego and J. V. Narlikar Inter-University Centre for Astronomy and Astrophysics (IUCAA), Pune, India. It is worth while and could kill BB mysteries, indeed.

BASIC PROBLEM:

1. In WIKIPEDIA article photons (not only here) exist not any so called "relativistic mass of photons", well-known also by the 3 participants of the discussion here and others to be $m={\frac {h\nu }{c^{2}}}\,$
2. Main related problem: Total ignorance of that kind of a photon's mass - not only in article photons - provokes ignorance by lack of knowledge. In those articles photons have only a zero rest mass and people not know the other mass as used by serious scientists until now, with consequences:
3. Ignorance provokes a kind of a physicist's "war" (by banal reason as nearly always): Big-bang-dissidents reprimand and object a related kind of serious discrimination in OPEN LETTER TO THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY, Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004.
4. Nearly all of the signers utilize anyhow Gravitational effects of photons based on that non-zero photon's mass and Einstein effects, as shown very well in article Gravitational redshift where a light emitted by a super-massive Neutron star results in a redshift by such a Gravitation effect.
5. While such a field caused by a calculated by a singularity (the centre of gravity) is characterized by a Laplace equation an homogenous field of interstellar gas or other small particles is characterized by a growing Gravitational potential - defined by distributions of charges in a Poisson equation - resulting in a so called Tired light redshift, as calculated by Fritz Zwicky.
6. We copied exact citations of Zwicky from a basic linked PNAS-paper in a section "Tired light". Our resume showed his real theory instead of other's interpretations. We wrote about one month later a "rehabilitation" against pretenders saying that photons must blur, scatter and therefore his theory had to be replaced by the Big bang. We cited Feynman, how he wrote that photons in transparent matter like glass cannot be understood. Glass is crystal clear for photons without needing a crystal lattice (all pretended to be necessary by critics). We cited one "plagiarist" of Feynman's words meaning to know additionally a reason. We copied finally citations from a letter of Hubble with his meaning: Zwicky's theory is "less irrational" than Big bang. Such an important letter is a pure fact and cannot be objected in an encyclopaedia by a redactor's opinion as often done. All was denatured and finally erased.
7. Many serious scientists utilize Gravitational redshift effects, mostly found as a kind of Tired light, until now.
8. Einstein himself, found in WIKIPEDIA: "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"

A FEW OTHER BAD EXPERIENCES:

1. To an only strange seeming article antigravity we added known forces, compensating totally or partially gravity by magnets or electrostatic to declare that by principle it is no nonsense. Then we added many links of more and less serious material about the matter to declare it and inform readers at least about existing matter to make up their own opinion - erased.
2. In article Solutions of the Einstein field equations there exist until today no real mathematical solutions after a very good instruction how to find them. We put 6 well-known solutions like Schwarzschild solutions, the De Sitter universe, Geoffrey Burbidge's oscillating universe Halton Arp’s Intrinsic redshift, claiming the Superposition principle, etc. with a crucial demand to help to enhance the article [Real solutions]; instead erased with remark "recurring vandalism" (impertinent?), until this day remeining a stub.
3. Unfairness by Wikipedian administrators was reprimanded. Finally above named topics - commonly fixed as basic, prior topics even in an ISSUE - was put more and more backward or even erased.

Here proved by examples: IP-Hunting and Administrator's censorship

1. In [[1]] a friend of mine had tried in vain to add some well-known Big bang faults; today he came back to tell me: since that time we were "IP-hunted", all we wrote was erased. Then we tried to eliminate the problen as written section Unserious redaction and censorship. Then we tried an objective redaction to that matter in a formerly quasi stub Fritz Zwicky finally a serious rehabilitation against opinions of redactors.

RESULT: Redactor's meanings, even if "executed" by erasing serious facts, links, papers, theories may be accepted in (more or less bad) newspapers but are not at all allowed in a serious encyclopaedia. Such a censorship has to be eliminated anyhow as a kind of WP:NOR not only against bad users but also against unseriously acting administrators.

Last revision: DeepBlueDiamond 12:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

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 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.

Jim proposes the following issues for consideration.

1. I understand that 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.
2. 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 the expanding universe and non conservation of energy as its assumptions. Since these two additional assumptions 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 becomes possible to write about it in a scientific paper and not automatically causing a rejection of the refereed paper as it happens now.

Jim 15:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

DeepBlueDiamond

User User:DeepBlueDiamond studied at first and mainly physics at University Darmstadt, University-graduated engineer, main object "signal analysis and coding", 3 scientific publications mainly to own basic patents. Educated in Assembler, Fortran, Pascal then Cobol and Basic (of course), then mainly employed as System- and Organisation-Administrator and Programmer in a company with ~2,000 employees, finally Chief-assistant in a medium company, then promoting one year last patent successfully, then undeserved accident (impeded, slow recuperation since >10 years, right side still seriously affected (e.g. a too slow right hand provokes many faults in writing), abilities more or less "forgotten" as well, indeed incl. English by lack of needed experience for (partly much more) than only one decade. DeepBlueDiamond 09:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

In our mentioned club with associated 2 other clubs are many Doctors of different branches (>20) incl. Dr.pys. and graduated physicists of course, some in contact with a few Univ.-Professors also of physics. My crucial problem is that here mainly active elder pensioners, doctors and professors too seldom are theirselves able to use a computer; meanwhile nearly all got tired to fight here windmills or even to support WIKIPEDIA any more as formerly and mainly with success (not rv). DeepBlueDiamond 09:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC) c

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

Understanding the official wikipedia policies and guidelines is essential to working effectively with the wikipedia community.

• Neutral point of view is the core wikipedia fairness policy. I continue to follow it to the best of my ability.
• Undue weight is part of the official neutral point of view policy. Neutrality is not a way to fix up a bias in the rest of the world. Views are given the same weight in the encyclopedia as they have in the rest of the world.
• Fringe theories is a wikipedia content guideline. The prominence of an idea in wikipedia is not based on whether it is true or not, but on the level of recognition in mainstream publications. You cannot use wikipedia as a way of giving prominence to an issue that you think is unfairly treated in the mainstream.
• No original research means you can't use wikipedia as a way to publish your ideas. It may only refer to ideas already published elsewhere.
• No original synthesis is a part of the core no original research policy. You may not make your own novel interpretations of sources you are citing.
• Verifiability means that claims in a wikipedia article should be verified by citation to a reliable source.

DeepBlueDiamond has a lot to say about "administrators", but I don't think there has been any administrator involvement at all. Everything that has occurred has been the normal process of editing by ordinary editors.

No one is perfect; and editors often to do the wrong thing according to wikipedia principles. For example, DeepBlueDiamond has noted that some editors referred to him as a "vandal", for continuing to add material against consensus. In that case, DeepBlueDiamond was failing to following wikipedia consensus guidelines; and other editors were failing to follow Assume Good Faith guidelines. There is a whole dispute resolution process to manage these things, and administrators only get involved when there is a need to step in a ban someone for being intransigent, or to protect a page against repeated badly-considered edits.

DeepBlueDiamond thinks he has followed these guidelines, and the fault is with others. He's wrong about that. His edits have been consistently inadequate because of WP:POV, WP:OR, and WP:V. He's got major problems with WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT. His behaviour consistently violates WP:CIVIL.

Wikipedia is the wrong place to try and fix general problems of mainstream and conventional thinking. It is an encyclopedia, and so it mainly reflects mainstream and conventional thinking.

DeepBlueDiamond statement on fairness in wikipedia

Not any of those principles were violated by us but consistently by WIKIPEDIA administrators. If bare pretenders - especially never having graduated in astronomy, physics or similar branches - dare here to permanently input here only their pure opinions as pretended "facts" and if this was corrected (not only by us) any revision of a correction of opinions itself violates here WP:NOR in a sense of a redactor's censorship.

Example: Such pretenders dared and dare furthermore here steadily to write against Zwicky's TIRED LIGHT that photons must(!) blur and scatter in interstellar gas. We dared to object, citing FEYNMAN who wrote about transparent matter like glass: Photons behaviour obey Quantum mechanics and such an effect cannot be declared by nobody because even he not understands it (incl. WIKIPEDIA users and administrators!). This means: In transparent amorphous matter obviously exist neither any blurring nor scattering and photons even need no crystal lattice (as pretended here multiply) to act crystal clear. To revise such corrections of false opinions by pretenders - proved by the last genius - is a censorship by bare might. DeepBlueDiamond 02:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

EVIDENCE: Unfair unserious unqualified redaction abusing might censorship

Tired light article was our first bad example: It could not be improved by us, steadyly erased.

UNSERIOUS UNFAIR REDACTION: Instead of citing ZWICKY's THEORY seriously at first and correctly and finally CITING only serious critics and no own opinions (as we steadily did to each topic according to well-known international serious redaction's principles) a redactor hat disqualified at first the theory! This is only one very bad example for meanwhile too many obviously unserious redactions. It shall be shown as meanwhile typically and done so in too many dissident's articles of theories:

At first a "mighty" redactor (to rv and finally block) quasi tells readers how stupid a

nonconform theory is OR how meanwhile replaced by BB theory having eliminated all others:

• The Compton Effect:

"... light coming from distant nebulae would undergo a shift to the red by Compton effect on those free electrons [in interstellar spaces] [...] But then the light scattered in all directions would make the interstellar space intolerably opaque which disposes of the above explanation. [...] it is evident that any explanation based on a scattering process like the Compton effect or the Raman effect, etc., will be in a hopeless position regarding the good definition of the images

We objected until now rv: This effect neither exists in glass nor in an "Aether" (ether)!

• Gravitational potential:

One might expect a shift of spectral lines due to the difference of the static gravitational potential at different distances from the center of a galaxy. This effect, of course, has no relation to the distance of the observed galaxy from our own system and, therefore, cannot provide any explanation of the phenomenon discussed in this paper.

Normal arrogance by ignorance (by BB-proponents?) only knowing a photon's ZERO-MASS

• The Gravitational "Drag" of Light:

... [a] gravitational analogue of the Compton effect [...] It is easy to see that the above redshift should broaden these absorption lines asymmetrically toward the red. If these lines can be photographed with a high enough dispersion, the displacement of the center of gravity of the line will give the redshift independent of the velocity of the system from which the light is emitted.

PREJUSTICE: Photons in transparent media like amorphous glass 
not suffer by any Compton effects as FEYNMAN has shown. 
He is meanwhile "copied" by many Tired light proponents. 

ONLY IN MEANEST NEWSPAPER I HAVE SEEN EXISTS SO TOTALLY UNSERIOUS REDACTION

DeepBlueDiamond 09:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Special interest groups in wikipedia

Duae Quartunciae statement on special interest groups

I do not speak on behalf of any group. I do not speak on behalf of the Physics Wikiproject. 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; any other editor may do the same.

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.

Especially it would be a very strange bad luck, if indeed all our work was observed and finally even serious contributions were erased since one of us dared to put into the Big bang section some well-known more "mysteries" in above mentioned linked section. Such a behaviour would support bad suspicions supported already by Big bang section about religions supporting it.

One real fanatism only was proved in Wiki-administrators support defaming Tired light DeepBlueDiamond 10:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

To Photons article was objected especially:

• All meanwhile here acting users know as well - or even used for calculations - a (relativistic) non-zero photon's mass, not found in photons article until now. Trial to enhance rv, our objection in talk: pending for many months. It is well-known:

$m={\frac {h\nu }{c^{2}}}\,$!

• From above linked scientific OPEN-LETTER "war", nearly all signers use by that given gravity effects of photons,
• calculating that non-zero masses of photons instead of a here only known ZERO Rest mass.
• 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 as reminder in section "Please do not forget" in talk page for the en.wiki Photon article.
• 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 as e.g. in DE.WIKI found,
• ...to prevent above mentioned "scientific war" and struggles by ignorance and bad knowledge.
• What is knowledge has to be added also here in Relativistic mass
• because a calculation by laymen therin becomes indefinit the specially calculated photon's mass has to be taken as e.g. cited what found in DE.WIKI (or ES.WIKI or FR.WIKI) and cited below.

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

• Like User:Duae Quartunciae also User:JimJast 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 Kehler

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

Duae Quartunciae statement on IP hunting

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.

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. 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 obvious inadequacies. There has been no administrator intervention to remove your edits.

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" - confessed by all here involved (elder) persons to know it - causes ignorance and result in misunderstandings with mentioned simply incredible effects, see [[2]] with our clubs experiences in [[3]],and a few email commentt of dissidents in [[4]].
• 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 below, saying quasi:

• 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. sentence on "elektromagnetische Wechselwirkung"): Zero Photon's REST MASS cannot really exists and why!

JimJast statement on photon mass

W. Kehler 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 Duae Quartunciae) 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)

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). A photon carries no rest mass (zerfallen 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.

Tired light and Einstein effect theories

DeepBlueDiamond statement on tired light and Einstein effects 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; a paper by Erhard Scholz.
3. Jim Jastrzebski Physics of Illusion of Expanding Space, see also [5]
4. Ashmore's Tired Light (see there also his book Big-Bang Blasted claiming 30 BB-faults).

OTHERS, BASED ON NON-ZERO PHOTON'S MASS: by photons gravity caused 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 Fred 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:

Our bad experiences only to Tired light

The inredible main article already begins with bare redactors' opinions, shonwn in How Wiki-administrators support prior redactors bare opinions.

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 to explain cosmological redshift either.
2. The Zwicky's 1929 paper has never been removed from his biography. The paper explicitly considers well known processes such as the Einstein effect, and photon electron interactions. Zwicky explains, correctly, why these processes cannot possibly give rise to the cosmological redshift. Zwicky proposes a gravitational drag effect instead.
3. There has been no falsified history with respect to Edwin Hubble. His skeptism of the expanding space explanation for redshift is well known and plainly stated in his Wikipedia biography. The cosmological redshift that he observed, however, is evidence in good standing for expanding space.
4. Professor Assis does support the idea of tired light, but he does not have an actual model to explain it. This is explicit in his paper The Redshift Revisited. The Tired light page focuses on other papers which do propose models.
5. Erhard Scholz has written an interesting paper: Another look at the pioneer anomaly. At present it is uploaded to arxiv, but not published and so not a reliable source. Scholz gives a mathematical model; but no mechanism to justify the effect. By Scholz' own account, it is speculative; not proved at all. That's fine; good science can begin with speculations.
6. Jim Jastrzebski's 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 what DeepBlueDiamond cites here is 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. Arp's paper on "intrinsic redshift" is not about tired light or gravitational redshifts. Arp proposes that some of the redshift apparent in high-z objects is localized at the objects themselves. This is already described in pages on Halton Arp, and Intrinsic redshift.
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. It does not use a tired light model, and it has nothing to do with Einstein effects.

DeepBlueDiamond has given "answers" to these below, using an older version of the text. (See this section of the discussion page for a side by side comparison and reasons for the changes.

Jim's clarification about ideas being strictly Einstein's not his

Einstein already cosidered the time running slower at a greater distance from observer (which is now observed so it doesn't take a genius to notice it). Einstein, who didn't know it in 1916, rejected this idea because he apparently couldn't solve (or didn't care to) the obvious pardox of the time running slower for every observer in the universe (as required by the Copernican principle). I leave the explanation of this rather simple paradox as an entertainment for logicians. In 1929 Einstein agreed tentatively to interpretation of the fact that the time runs slower at far galaxies as a doppler effect and so to the expansion of the universe.

In 1985 it turned out that Einstein's theory predicts necessity of the time running slower at a greater distance because of the principle of conservation of energy (which automatically takes care of Zwicky's tired light, "anomalous" acceleration of Pioneers, and Arp's local quasars). Einstein didn't know that his theory predicts that because when I proved it he was already dead for 30 years.

Now I keep asking editors to publish my proof (six lines of high shool calculus) if they find it valid. Their referees say that the proof is valid but unfortunately it doesn't propose any new physics so it won't be interesting to the readers majority of whom don't believe neither that the universe is stationary nor that energy is conserved.

So it's not true that the ideas are mine, and they didn't find an acceptance. They are accepted by referees but as regular general relativity. The ideas can't be published since they invalidate BB with Einstein's physics and not with any new physics. So editors expect that if they publish my stuff they upset the cosmologists who write books saying that Einstein is passe. Obviously the cosmologists some of whom handle billions of dollars in grants and do no real science (see Feynman on gravitation) are bigger market than little me and all those guys who believe in the principle of conservation of energy rather than in BB. And the cosmologists will look like idiots if BB is invalidated by general relativity with just six lines of high school calculus :-). The editors might lose their jobs before the storm quiets down. No good in todays economy. That's why BB must be endlessly patched rather than it can be admitted that Einstein's universe (with a little bit modified spacetime metric) is the only valid model. Jim 15:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I confirm, those ideas are not yours, see my comment to your meaning above with links.

At least you see the poblems that money makes the world go arround - but serious physics no more - as objected here;

become "followers of fashion" really blind? Also in WIKI unable to "hear" as Dr.Kießlinger wrote?

Brans-Dicke at least can "correct" some basic Eintein's faults;

But BB needs at least a "mystery" as confirmed even by User:Duae Quartunciae (needing Dark energy).

Sorry, all other theories have some defects indeed, but they need no mysteries for physics.

Thanks to confirm what Prof. Marmet wrote later, based on well-known old facts you also describe.

Our Dr.Kießlinger wrote since decades quasi the same, incl. the time-gravity-redshift-problem and offered 25.000 € to people proving a basic fault. Nobody was able, until today...

Another Dr.-phys. astro-friend came back today from his summer-vacany. Even having much to do now he said: He had tried in vain to enhance in existing sections objections to BB. When he was writing more into his last related BB-section [A probable timescale problem] all was reverted while trying to add something what also you indicated here. It made no sense for him to write any more in WIKI - until today, while formerly he was still quite successful and nearly nothing was rv. He supposes, since that time we were IP-hunted (one Wiki-sponsor wanting to help a splendid idea). He wants no more at all...

Consistent unfairness abusing especially WP:NOR is proved in next section. DeepBlueDiamond 04:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Objected Duae Quartunciae statement on tired light... - Answers to each sentence

Reason to act was no insight to How Wiki-Admins support prior bare defaming opinions

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.

CORRECTION: Two Einstein effects and Tired light and e.g. only Halton Arps Intrinsic redshift, all use mentioned non-zero photon's mass to declare their theories by gravitational effects: WIKI article Gravitational redshift (one Einstein effect) shows clearly a Neutron star's effect: Gratvitation makes that emitted photons get red (and make lensing!). I object meanwhile what not only Dr.Kießlinger pointed out: Wiki-Admins - as here - cannot hear (read) and have too poor knowledge about Physics to be anyhow qualified to such matters.

THIS TOPIC WAS OBJECTED IN DETAIL TO SHOW HOW BLINDLY YOU ATTACK SERIOUS MATTER
Each Answer to your following topics shows an incredible lack of qualification:

DeepBlueDiamond 14:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

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.

In detail you'll find cited to this topic our pure citations of PRIOR ART in next main section to by you called it "crank physics" in section [[6]]

You removed completly our COPY took out of ZWICKY ORIGINAL paper, resuming shortly (in order to declare "normal people") ZWICKY's OWN MAHTEMATICAL BASIS of HIS Tired light exactly, erased by you, called in TALK by you "crank" and "silly" physics, claiming - by falsification of his paper (and his taken facts) - pretending especially anywhere a need of blurring and scattering, by FEYNMAN correctly declared and by us cited.

Not like you, we resumed exact copies of ZWICKY using HIS gravitational redshift, a Momentum and at v=c photons retarded potential (by Einstein himself utilized), all explicitly copied directly out of ZWICKY, using HIS and all dissident's photon's mass on linked PNAS page 778; and finally we gave his original result - all exactly copied, erased by you named as crank physics.

A further evidence: not being able even to read, not at all to understand HIS paper.

DeepBlueDiamond 14:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

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.

If some indeed say the truth it not suffices! Nearly always Admins (like some awful users) claim their bare opinion, here "correcting" Hubble - you e.g. why Hubble was "erroneous" by your opinion in one of "your" former ZWICKY versions. That is no serious redaction but

IN WIKIPEDIA PROHIBITED WP:NOR HERE CLAIMED BY ADMINISTRATOR'S OPINION TO BE TRUE!

If Hubble wrote BB is "irrational" - what all dissidents mean - that is a fact!

If HUBBLE wrote even, Tired light is "less irrational", this is a fact as well!

What one wrote definitely, can nobody correct by a redactor's opinion-pretension!

OPINIONS are allowed anywhere else "apologizing" Hubble by one's pretended error!

But not within a serious article: THAT IS AN IMPERTINENT FALSIFICATION OF HISTORY!

DeepBlueDiamond 14:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

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.

He is well known "in the scene" to mainly oppose to BB by reliable theories, but mainly by "Tired light".

• Prof. A.K.T. Assis, to be found TIRED LIGHT as first explanation

"Hubble's law of redshifts, cosmic background radiation, tired light,..." !!!

• History of the 2.7 K Temperature Prior to Penzias and Wilson and Big Bang, there we found (you not? why?) that and how TIRED LIGHT at first had declared even most correctly the 2.7°K Background radiation while BB still was at 50°K (seriously read, but not later falsified only to hide error as here proved):

"In 1937 he developed this model and proposed a tired light explanation of the cosmological redshift, namely, the absorption of radiation by the luminiferous ether, decreasing the energy and frequency of galactic light (Nernst 1937). This would not be due to a Doppler effect."

"In 1953-4 Finlay-Freundlich (1953, 1954a,b)proposed a tired light model to explain the redshift of solar lines and some anomalous redshifts of several stars, as well as the cosmological redshift."

• The Redshift Revisited, found on page 15 "...tired light theories..." (resume:) sole already very soon having predicted quite correctly the 2.7°K Background radiation, while BB -: before falsifying Einstein's constant (see above, e.g. answer to HOYLE) - predicted it quite wrong about 50°K.

5. DeepBlueDiamond cites the classic pioneer anomaly paper, by Anderson et. al. [7]. 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.

READ CORRECT LINK (YOU "FALSIFIED" IN AN ISSUE PRIORY CORRECT LINK) TO NAMED PAPER:

ORIGINAL Another look at the Pioneer anomaly, Erhard SCHOLZ, N_O_T__A_N_D_E_R_S_O_N , cited:

"This observation leads back to the question, whether the scale connection explanation of the Pioneer effect (17) contradicts established empirical knowledge which invalidates the older variants of “tired light” assumptions of the 20th century, from F. Zwicky (1929) to J.-P. Vigier (1990). Surely Weyl geometric downscaling of photon energy shares a common motif with them. But the specific mechanisms which have been considered as possible causes for the energy loss, like Zwicky’s gravitational “drag” of light, assumed adhoc in a first, so to speak heroic, attempt (Zwicky 1929), specific kinds of photon-photon interaction (Freundlich 1954, Pecker e.a. 1972), or a non-zero rest-mass of the photon (Vigier 1990), presupposed a “naive”, or even an unspecified relativistic background geometry. They were not part of the gravitational structure itself. Thus most (all?) of the arguments for an empirical invalidation of tired light theories by astronomical observations, are irrelevant for the Weyl geometric downscaling hypothesis, or even support the latter."

We claimed: in "our" ZWICKY correctly cited as always that only HIS Tired Light - here called indeed better "Downscaling photons" as a version of

TIRED LIGHT THEN IS UNTIL TODAY THE SOLE EXISTING SOLUTION OF Pioneer anomaly

...crying so loudly written, because reminded and reminded and reminded... by us correct written and linked but not read and realized at all!

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.

Ok, then in 1997 a student acted in Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft e. V. (DPG) WWW-Server für Frühjahrstagungen und E-Verhandlungen 1997, Sitzung HK 23? - One of our physicists said he met him, called there a Professor (a Dr.-habil named, as a Prof. assistent?). I confess: I don't know, a doubious student perhaps. He seems not to be more "supremely confident of his insight" than your sight... DeepBlueDiamond 14:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

OUR first error, here efected by knowing the real Professor with the same name DeepBlueDiamond 11:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

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.

It is not your competence as an amateur to reprimand how ASHMORE quasi copied FEYNMAN's description declaring that transparent amorphous matter neither blur nor scatter even not need a - by you like others critics demanded - crystal pattern. You'll find our objection to your bare OPINION in next secion in detail. Our Dr.-phys said that you cnfused ZWICKY's PNAS calculation with his papers on Nebulae. DeepBlueDiamond 11:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

If another club-friend found ASHMORE to the same grounds for transparent media like FEYNMAN and had cited and linked him correctly meaning (you MEAN: incorrect) that another scientist had written the same to the by aou objected topic that tranparent amorphous matter MUST not blur (as even you falsly insist to mean furthermore) that is no fault by him! Indeed we had demanded help and meanwhile another club-friend said he had found a better source but forgot to save it. DeepBlueDiamond 11:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

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.

READ: MARMET WAS PUT IN SECTION "OTHERS, AT LEAST BASED ON A NON-ZERO PHOTON'S MASS"

Even User:JimJast knew - without having read him I assume - what is written in [Strautmann against Einstein] (you'll find in MARMET Einstein as a big plagiarizer: Even "his" E=mc² was a much older stuff; sorry if it is true, because I formerly did not know it as well!) very lately now also objeced by MARMET as the main real faults of Einstein's GR not supporting Conservation of energy principle. Is it simply ignored by (like religiously) blind GR-believers as if EINSTEIN? Is he JESUS that all christians have to be his believers?

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.

He wrote me what was linked to our other ISSUE and I formerly realized that he associates his Intrinsic redshift with different masses; but its different Gravitational redshift effects are seen at same distances.

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.

Thanks for accepting at here the best living BB-contrahent at least as "important"! Wow...

But already in [On the Hubble and the cosmological constants] page 179, you'll find already find (as cited) very clearly:

"The lack of scale of invariance in standard general relativity is now easy to understand. It is because the equations of standard general relativity are the form taken by the scale-invariant equation (18) when the scale is specially chosen by (19), i.e. by fixing the scale so that the mass of every particle is m0 then h=1 and the relation (20) between m0 then h=1 and the relation (20) between m0 and the gravitational constant requires m0 to be the Planck mass (for more detailed discussion see Hoyle et al. 1995). When an older mathematical expression of a physical theory is replaced by a new form, in the present sense of the old being completely contained in the new, one hopes for the new to contain further possibilities that were not accessible for the old..."

Tired to teach you to understand BB-contrahents I suggest to search and read yourself, e.g. that and how he like BURBIDGE had steadily supported Halton Arp directly. You have to understand that ARP - of course - utilizes until today that (there different) INTRINSIC masses perform different Intrinsic redshifts at same distance: Only possible if you understand him and his basis by different Gravitational redshifts but at same distances(!!!) blasting (at least as sole valid claimed) BB. Intinsic different redshifts at same distances are effected by (his) non-zero photon's mass attracted by different gravitations at a same distance.

(rem.: We tried to declare in vain an old disambiguous Planck mass; rv, see history)!

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: We took Ashmore's citations of FEYNMAN

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 precedently Feynman's words to show: we indeed only to reproduce (by experts in its matter) well-known stuff. WIKI-Admin perverts that topic and reality, here even about our priorities:

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

How many times was said: Lyndon Asmore repeated only what FEYNMAN had written before?

Our erased Tired-Light section copied here as evidence with related original stuff:

Copy of what we wrote, citing FEYNMAN

==== 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 [[8]] p.5 [[9]], 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 Quantum mechanics as a spooky thing, - see Quantum entanglement - shows until recently that Schrödinger was right, deriving that entanglement as "spukhafte Fernwirkung" or "spooky action at a distance.").

Then we reproduced in ZWICKY citatons of ASHMORE: at first nearly exactly reproducing FEYNMAN to transparent matter like glass in order to defend good old genius ZWICKY ("stubborn" named, by good reasons?) who can no more defend himself agaist unskilled people:

ORIGINAL CITED PRIORY: Ashmore's Tired Light Theory, Lyndon Ashmore February 5th 2005

"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."

ASHMORE's theory: "There are many problems with the theory of the expanding Universe and so this theory puts forward the view that the Universe is static (not expanding) and offers a new approach to explain the redshifts in the light from distant galaxies. Photons of light from distant galaxies have a longer wavelength on arrival than when they set off. For a particular wavelength, galaxies twice as far away undergo twice the increase in wavelength. This is the experimental evidence - the rest is down to how scientists interpret these results. In the theory of the expanding Universe this increase in wavelength is explained in terms of space itself expanding and 'stretching' the photons as it does so. We are told that a galaxy twice as far away is moving away from us at twice the speed.

But How Do Photons Interact With The Electrons In Intergalactic (IG) Space? To Answer this we must look at how light travels through a transparent medium such as glass. In a vacuum light travels at 3x108m/s. In a medium such as glass the light is slowed down. The reason for this is that the photons that make up the light are continually absorbed and re-emitted by the electrons in the atoms of the glass. The photon comes along, it is absorbed by the atom, the system of electrons is set into oscillation and then a new photon, identical to the first is emitted. However, this process is not instantaneous as there is a delay between the absorption of the old photon and the emission of the new one. The result of all the delays suffered by the photons as they pass through the glass is that the average speed of the photon is reduced. Photons travel at the speed of light in a vacuum ( 3x108m/s) between interactions with the atoms but their overall average speed is reduced because of the delays suffered whilst interacting with the atoms.

Electrons in the plasma of IG space can oscillate too. Long range coulomb forces act between the electrons and so, superposed on top of their random thermal motion, they can perform Simple Harmonic Motion (SHM). Electrons that can oscillate can absorb and re-emit photons of light. In the same way as photons of light travel through other transparent materials such as glass, the photons of light travelling through IG space are continually absorbed and re-emitted by the electrons in the plasma. Again, there is a delay between absorption of the old photon and the re-emission of the new one. However, there is one subtle difference. In glass, the atoms and electrons are fixed within the whole glass block - they cannot recoil. In the plasma of IG space the electrons are not firmly fixed and so they recoil on absorption and re-emission. "

Now what we resumed correctly by ASHMORE in "our" ZWICKY:

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

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

ASHMORE "...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 [[10]] and others - e.g. Halton Arps Quantized Redshifts - in [[11]]. DeepBlueDiamond 14:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Another "crank" answer?

The huge boring answer of Duae Quartunciae (given below) with a complete theory of ASHMORE! Instead to fix and answer only to what we cited: ASHMORE took FEYNMAN'S transparent glass example to declare that

PHOTONS MUST NOT BLUR IN TRANSPARENT MEDIA (FEYNMAN!)

Duae Quartunciae had objected scattering and blurring photons as his bare opinion - against FEYNMAN, written and by Duae Quartunciae self cited. I dare to say meanwhile: Duae Quartunciae support a - for me "stupor" - by bare opinions. He certainly found it priory in objected to Tired light article in [ How Wiki-admins support priorly bare a theory defaming opinions of redactors]. Duae Quartunciae steadily shoots in the air (only to write anything?) and Duae Quartunciae shows thereby an awful qualification - not only to such a matter.

It is as if I want to buy a motor for an oldtimer FORD and I get the answer "sorry, the car is no more available or produced". A merchant's clerk answering something like this would be quitted by his chied in the next minute. All normal people would call such a seller as "crank", "silly" or an "idiot".

Duae Quartunciae statement on Ashmore's model

Energy and momentum; redshift and blurring.

There is no blurring of light within a transparent medium; photons travel in straight lines. There is also no redshift of light within a transparent medium; photons do not lose any energy. These two points are intimately related to each other. Redshift is a drop in energy. A drop in energy requires a drop in momentum. If a photon transfers a small amount of energy to a particle of matter, simple conservation of energy and momentum shows that there must be a change in direction as well. It is the change in direction that causes blurring whenever such interactions give a redshift. Feynman's writings on the transmission of light are based on Quantum Electrodynamics (QED). In this model, as a photon passes through a transparent medium there is no loss of energy and no transfer of momentum. Thus there is no redshift and no blurring. Using Feynman to refute the proven association of blurring with redshift by particle interactions is an error, and a violation of the original research guideline, because Feynman himself never says anything to conflict with that proof. Zwicky, in 1929, described redshift by these kinds of particle interactions as "hopeless", for precisely this problem with conservation of momentum and energy. Zwicky proposed gravitational drag as a more reasonable alternative. The argument Zwicky used to reject particle interaction remains valid. Lyndon Ashmore was cited in the original biography for the association of Feynman with a straightline transmission of redshifted light. There are many such trivial errors in his writing.

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. This model does not appear anywhere in the conventional scientific literature and does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines.

The paper describes a model incorporating some ideas from a recoil interaction of photons with a solid lattice involving the discrete energy levels of electrons in the lattice (Mössbauer effect), but applied incorrectly to interaction of photons with free electrons in deep space. The paper refers to a double Mössbauer effect. No such effect exists. The "double" in the paper refers to an electron "absorbing" a photon, and then "re-emitting" the photon. However, free electrons cannot absorb photons. The paper suggests the photon somehow proceeds with reduced energy and no change in direction; and with the electron eventually radiating away the extra energy in what is miss-called "Bremsstrahlung". This argument was also added to the Zwicky biography, and cited to Ashmore.

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. Free electrons in a plasma have no energy levels.

• The model takes interactions that depend crucially upon electrons being bound to atoms with particular energy levels, and applied them to free electrons in diffuse plasma.
• The model takes 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, even though it loses energy. The reality is just the reverse. With a Mössbauer effect, photons are scattered at any angle you like, with no redshift and no loss of energy.
• The paper speaks of "bremsstrahlung", which is radiation from an accelerated charge. The model speaks of the electron having been given some of the photon's energy by the interaction, which it then gives up as the electron is somehow decelerated back to rest. (I am not kidding. The paper does say "brought to rest" in the context of intergalactic plasmas.)
• There is no balanced budget of energy and momentum for this proposed photon electron interaction. The model 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.
• I have not attempted to list all the errors in this paper; but rather to list some of the errors that are directly relevant to errors that were introduced into the Zwicky biography.

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 correct to reject these processes as hopeless.

In my opinion, 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 [[12]].

* Please realize what we put in to bare stubs, enhanced firstly by well-konown GR-solutions in [[13]] 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 [[14]], 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.

The Fritz Zwicky biography

The wikipedia biography of Fritz Zwicky has been the subject of some disagreement. Major edits by Duae Quartunciae made substantial removals of material previously given by the Germany astronomy club, especially material related to tired light. Here is a diff of the changes from what the German astronomy club had produced, to what was in place after Duae Quartunciae completed a major sequence of edits: cummulative diff of 45 edits from 09:27, 8 July to 15:53, 10 July 2007. Significant edits have continued since then; but the diff given here captures the disputed changed.

DeepBlueDiamond statement on Zwicky biography

RESULT: Abuse of might as shown above?

WE FELT: As already proved in section [PRETENDERS WASTED TIRED LIGHT ARTICLE BY THEIR BARE OPINIONS], it was impossible already in main article Tired light to enhance anything, erased by steady reverts (rv). Impossible especially to fight against preoccupied Administrators bare opinions (as pretenders, a caste of pure BB-believers?).

AS SHOWN in Tired light: In priority they had already "imposed" at first place their bare incompetent opinions against the theory, meaning seriously that they have a superior value by pure might. That is shown already in that link quite clearly! In a destructive manner redactors ignore any FAIRNESS and SERIOUSNESS when acting against little but serious users. All their meanings about something else than their own opinion were (and are furthermore if not changed here?) erased; even serious users are then badly accused like bad users, depreciated only (indeed there are too many bad ones to understand them a bit), rv abusing awful CATCHWORDS and/or pretending only any rules to rv. But the same rules are obviously not valid for themselves, they can impose their more or less (un)qualified opinions into an encyclopaedia!

Thus WIKIPEDIA-RULES become only valid for administrators but aginst little qualified users. By their bare opinions - in Tired light even precedent to all written theory - they perform a cruel censorship a MEANING-DICTATORSHIP, supressing thereby not convenient dissident's serious matter.

We meant then - in vain as shown - that our serious (in English not at all perfect) redaction could heal such crucial preoccupied defects of the main article, asking somewhere for help. We put only bare related linked facts and their citations into the ZWICKY-article. About 2 months "our" serious, not perfect article became more and more perfect (from a stub to class b told me a club-friend!?).

Meanwhile it was not touched by "usual" destruction from mainstreamers. A ZWICKY's former STUB became anyhow by us a kind of a shooting star when searching anywhere TIRED LIGHT: Obviously people found better what they missed in other articles - especially in the main article - about the topic. DeepBlueDiamond 14:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Duae Quartunciae statement on Fritz Zwicky biography

I did everything according to wikipedia principles with this biography, and I am very pleased with the end result. Like everything in wikipedia, my work here is freely donated for other people to build upon or discard as they see fit. I am proud of the work I did here, and confident that it makes a strong foundation for further edits.

No administrator inventions were ever made or required. I went out of my way to give advance notice in the discussion page of major changes, and took account of input from other editors. The deletions were endorsed by multiple other editors in the discussion page, and are strongly supported by all wikipedia guidelines, especially verifiability, no original research, and undue weight.

The biography as it stands now is massively improved on what was there in early July. I hope it will continue to improve as other editors work upon it.

Articles on solutions to the field equations of relativity

DeepBlueDiamond statement for articles on field equations of relativity

Even the most poor articles could not be significantly enhanced by us.

In both - visibly not as good rated - articles about Solutions of the Einstein field equations and Exact solutions related to related basic General relativity even the most well-known solutions are not found until today. We put six well-known solutions Well known solutions put in by us with demand to help (mainly for a better English). But also this was reverted by a Administrator. Incredible: One of the "awful stubs" even takes contravariant Einstein tensors while all others write them correctly covariant (we dared to name this a shame for WikiProject Physics showing their competence).

Duae Quartunciae statement for articles on field equations of relativity

This is not an issue in which I have had any involvement. The changes to which DeepBlueDiamond refers all took place, and were reverted again, before I had anything to do with wikipedia.

Looking at it, I can see why DeepBlueDiamond feels frustrated; but I can also see why his edits were removed.

Three of his six "solutions" were not solutions of the field equations at all; they were a pretty obvious attempt to insert his point of view into articles where they were not actually relevant. That is the references to Arp, to Zwicky, and to Burbidge were not actually about the topic of the page at all. None of them are examples of mathematical solutions to the field equations, and so they were bound to be deleted as off topic. The other three instances referred to known solutions, each of which is already well described in its own page on wikipedia, and actually linked from the page if you look for the cosmology infobox on the right hand side. The three valid additions by DeepBlueDiamond were poorly written and not well located within the structure of the article, but they could have been improved and made into a good addition.

DeepBlueDiamond's additions were not vandalism, and it was a violation of WP:CIVIL for other editors to describe them as vandalism in edit comments.

I think editors must have seen that only less than half of the additions were usable, and even that required significant re-writing. But in my view, the editors would have been better to modify rather that delete wholesale.

There is a bit of history to these pages of which you may not be aware. There are some really first rate relativity experts who were actively trying to put together an excellent set of pages on relativity related topics. Most of them became frustrated and gave up; mostly because of continual revisions and quibbles from people — like DeepBlueDiamond, frankly — with a poor grasp of physics and an agenda to insert fringe ideas well beyond their due proportionate share under the neutral point of view guidelines. The whole issue of the extent to which experts should be the ones to control content is rather vexed.

Be that as it may, I still think there is scope to improve these articles with a mention of some of the important solutions, and that DeepBlueDiamond's addition had within it some useful steps to that end.

Reversions applied to many other articles

DeepBlueDiamond statement on issues with many articles

I kindly ask you to read please directly our issue http://en.wiki.x.io/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 [[15]] 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.wiki.x.io/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)

Duae Quartunciae statement on issues with many articles

Most of this complaint is not relevant to me. I am not an administrator. I have had no part in most of the issues listed.

There are processes available for an editor to complain about unreasonable treatment; but merely being reverted is not unreasonable. It happens all the time, and it seems to me that all your reverts have been the result of perfectly ordinary day to day activity by other editors; with no special wikipedia administrator involved at all. Complaining to me is totally futile. I don't have any standing to do anything about it, even if I thought you had a valid complaint.

There are a couple of comments I can make, however.

• With respect to the Zwicky biography, DeepBlueDiamond complains that 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.

On the contrary. I realized what Feynman said just fine. Feynman's comments bear no relation whatsoever to tired light, and making that association was a clear case of " original research by synthesis". The attempt to use Feynman's lectures as a basis for ignoring the physical impossibility of tired light by a scattering process was profoundly ignorant of elementary physics. Feynman's work is just fine. The association of that work with tired light models is ridiculous.

• DeepBluedDiamond continues to get the photon mass issue wrong; but we have a separate section for that. #Photon mass
• The comments DeepBlueDiamond continues to make about the supposed 120 decades error is not an error at all; but rather an unresolved question in quantum mechanics about vacuum energy density. Order of magnitude approximations for energy density based on quantum mechanics give a result 120 orders of magnitude larger than what we actually observe. It's not a problem with the Big Bang, but it is an indication of something we still don't know about quantum mechanics. The issue is discussed in some detail at the page Zero-point energy, and this page is already prominently linked from many other pages where it is relevant; including pages relating to cosmology. It is an unsolved problem in physics; and discarding the Big Bang model does nothing whatsoever to address the problem. The zero-point energy is observed to be very close to zero. The Big Bang is consistent with the kinds of magnitude that are observed.

Notes

Some old discussions used to be here, under "Miscellaneous exchanges". You can still find the material at this permanent link: [16]. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 05:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)