Talk:Ernst Barthel

*discussion copied from temporary IP talk page since it is relevant for other potential editors of the article as well.*

Hello Lactantius,

I don't have an agenda against this article, otherwise I wouldn't have expanded it. It was and is my aim to keep it staying to facts, not to personal opinions (about how fascinating Barthel's theory is or how dim-witted the scholars were who refused it). Fact is also that his theory has not been accepted until now, as far as I know. Neglecting this in the article, as it was before, would give it a certain tendency. I already made remark that some predictions Barthel's polar geometry made, e. g. concerning a distance earth-moon of only 2000 km, have in the meantime definitely been proven wrong. If otherwise, I request you to state reliable sources. -- Eselohr (talk) 21:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello Eselohr,

I'm not sure you so much "expanded" the article, it seems more like you put a negative spin on it, e.g. your early mentioning that he was "only" a private lecturer, as if that was of any interest at all. Study the pertinent literature, will you? I don't find any remarks of yours about distances to the moon or whatever and they are not relevant here. Since you are a smart guy, I don't need to tell you that much of what is taken as "scientific fact" might in the end be not completely correct or just wrong, or to put it bluntly: fraud. You know, stuff, so-called facts, may be considered scientifically correct, but that does not necessarily make them true. Thanks, BTW, for the reference to that French book about Barthel, didn't know about that one yet, will read it as soon as I get it. Anyway, don't you find it strange that this person is hardly known at all? So, it's not so much that "his theory has not been accepted until now", it's more like his theory (and he himself) are not known at all. I asked several academics, philosophers, mathematicians, physicists and other so-called intellectuals whether they had ever heard of Ernst Barthel, none had any idea. And I think it's time to change that, don't you agree? 149.172.111.205 (talk) 01:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello Lactantius, do you really think that the professional position of an academic person is an unnecessary information in an encyclopedic article on that person? I do not judge if the position of a Privatdozent at that time diminishes his academic works. I think, in general it does not. But it is of some importance that Barthel thinks from a rather philosophical point of view.

Wikipedia is based on the current state of science (see Wikipedia:No original research), which can include disputed and even minority theories (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view or a summary here). I will support it, if you explain what Barthel's polar geometry is. If you want to expose it as the groundbreaking scientific finding on the nature of the universe you will first have to cite pertinent reliable sources to prove that this theory is still or again of any interest to science or philosophy at all. If you think that current knowledge up to the distance earth-moon is a fraud (which would mean a worldwide conspiracy of astronomers, mathematicians, space agencies, satellite engineers and film teams faking the moon landings) and speculate that Barthel's theory might be state of science in the near or far future, is - excuse my frankness - irrelevant for Wikipedia. In that case you should rather try to promote Barthel's geometry in the conspiracy wiki or Esopedia. It actually seems to be a rather philosophical approach which has become obsolete in the light of research since (see F. Criqui in the Barthel-publication 1991). For criticism of Barthel's cosmology see also Robert Henseling, Umstrittene Weltsicht. Astrologie, Welteislehre, um Erdgestalt und Weltmitte. Leipzig: Reclam, 1939. Didn't read it yet, so I don't know how serious it is.

You read my remarks (under the name Ralfonso) on Barthel's miscalculations concerning the moon on your talk page in the German Wikipedia, which has, as usual with mere IP talk pages, already been deleted. If you don't remember it, you can ask the responsible Administrator AKA to restore it. I suggest continuing this discussion there. Or is it necessary to discuss via en.Wikipedia? Eselohr (talk) 11:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello Eselohr or Ralfonso or whatever, I agree that the professional position of an academic is an important piece of information in an article about him. However, in Barthel's case one should also add the easily verifiable information that he was denied a position as full professor not because of any lack of qualifications--the contrary is true as one can see when one studies Barthel's philosophical works--but because of his new revolutionary theory of a great Earth. This and the person who brought it was not welcome for several reasons not the least being the envy of the less gifted, average professors... The relevance, for this article at least, is not so much whether Barthel's theory is absolutely true or whether it is compatible with today's so-called scientific knowledge, but simply that Ernst Barthel and his work is important enough to have a comprehensive overview over person and work in any encyclopedia. And for some reason this is not the case to date. As to fraud in science you perfectly well know that it does occur and not so seldom as one might think. The Apollo moon landing farce is one of the big ones and half of the world at least knows it and laughs about it (and so do you), even if it is not officially acknowledged and not talked about by establishment scientists for obvious reasons: they might lose their livelihood or worse...

As to Henseling's "Umstrittenes Weltbild" I recommend also reading Barthel's reply in "Die Kosmologie der Großerde im Totalraum", then see for yourself what is worth what...

Could you restore your remarks on that IP talk page please and maybe make them easily accessible to everyone? In any case it seems it's not true that IP talk pages are usually quickly deleted, here http://de.wiki.x.io/wiki/Benutzer_Diskussion:78.42.120.204 is one which hasn't? Why keep this and not the other?

I prefer the English WP because while it is WP, and it is known who owns it and calls the shots, the English version is less tyrannical and less censored than the German one, which must be (one of) the worst of all. 149.172.111.205 (talk) 17:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello Lactantius, I did carefully avoid to change the reasons you stated for him being kicked out of university (apart from removing some hard point of view statements). I also do not doubt his qualifications as a philosopher. Actually, I can't judge them so I leave this to qualified philosophers. I neither can judge his skills in mathematics, physics or astronomy which I also leave to qualified scientists of these subjects. That his opponents were less gifted, average professors or dim-witted just because they did not recognise the eternal truth in his revolutionary theory is really very cheap polemics - whether from you or from Barthel himself. I know that it is also a common strategy claiming a world wide conspiracy to have faked all the scientific results which do not fit to the one and only true new revolutionary thesis. With that strategy you could even prove that the moon consists of ice or cheddar cheese. But I fear that I can't convince the Wikipedia community to include the latter one, which I find most fascinating and indeed obvious if you look at the moon open-minded, as being the true nature of the Moon, in the corresponding WP article, because this line of argumentation is, at least to that degree, not accepted in WP. Again, I recommend the Wikis stated above which do not abide to such strict standards.

Barthel is surely relevant to be described in Wikipedia, and if you want to write an exhaustive biography I will not restrain you, as long as it is reasonably balanced and neutral. But I can not see from what I read that he had great importance for contemporary or later philosophy, and his attribution to geometry and cosmology seems to be rather an oddity in the history of research, maybe deservedly forgotten. That might be the reason why there were only two stub articles in English and Swedish so far. If I am not right about his importance to philosophy or natural science, don't argue with me, but state reliable sources (and by the way: the autobiography of a scholar as the sole source is not absolutely reliable for all aspects of his life). Wikipedia is not the place to change physics or geometry, it only displays the results of research and discussions experts on the subject worked out.

The hint to Henseling I got exactly from Barthel's Kosmologie der Großerde. And please stop alleging that I believe in the theory that the landing of Apollo 11-17 (save 13) and Lunik 19-24 on the moon were only faked. At the most, I laugh about how willingly some people believe things like that on a photo from the moon surface stars must be visible, just because anyone tells them or they read it on some internet page.

I asked now an administrator to restore your German talk page, and it's available again. The other IP talk page you mentioned had equally been deleted after the end of the discussion (like, as only one example this one had been, simply because IP addresses can change in short time), but has been restored on my request as you can see on the page log book. I would have contacted you here preferably on the talk page of your (?) user name Lactantius2, but I saw that you are not always logged in, so I thought you'd see my note rather on your IP talk page. But maybe it would be better to move it there now. -- Eselohr (talk) 00:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

*end of copied block*  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.172.111.205 (talk) 11:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC) 

Hello Eselohr, if you didn't know yet that the so-called Apollo Moon landings and Moon orbitings (all of them, A13 being a dramaturgical simulation inside a simulation to rekindle dwindling interest; no man has ever been higher up than a few hundred kilometers) were a hoax, nothing but an entertaining science fiction movie series, it's high time to get educated! Before getting into the physics and technology involved, you might want to start with carefully watching the original footage of this "greatest technological feat in human history"... No, wait, that's no longer possible, unfortunately NASA lost the tapes, all 700 boxes filled with them. LOL.
But this is not our problem here, so please stop talking about conspiracies not being possible etc. blabla. Frauds in science are a fact as well as in other areas, and they don't get officially exposed until the perpetrators are removed from power. BTW, technology and science are two separate things and working technology does not, even if many people believe this, depend on the physics being correct. And even if those heroes actually walked on the Moon that wouldn't make an article about Barthel superfluous either. So, stay on topic.
Thanks for the repeated kind invitation to go to those other Wikis, but no, Wikipedia is bad enough. However, thanks to Google et al., it unfortunately is the most read source of information for Internet users. But since not all of them are dimwits (hopefully) some may find Barthel and his theory interesting, might start reading and perhaps translating his works into English and who knows what good can come of it...
You did not carefully avoid to change the reason for him being denied a full tenured professor position and many other troubles in his life, the reason for that being his books on the Great Earth. It was this theory that ruined his career, which is abundantly clear from his autobiography, and further research might easily produce other sources, but for the time being we have mainly his "Mein Opfergang". If that's not enough we can easily avoid any problems of objectivity by stating that it was him who said it, according to his opinion..., as he states...
Again, nobody wants to change physics or geometry in Wikipedia. This article is only intended to make more widely known an ingenious man (look at his works in various fields), who among other things developed a fascinating cosmological theory. BTW, his theory of a spherical space is not only possible and consistent, but his proofs that space itself does not have the Euclidean properties ascribed to it (e.g. in "Einführung in die Polargeometrie", 2. erweiterte und verbesserte Ausgabe) are actually stringent, conclusive, at least for people who are capable of rigorous logical thinking... May I therefore suggest to replace the small globe in WPs logo with a vast plane. That would be a first step in the right direction for this "free" encyclopedia. 149.172.111.205 (talk) 19:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello Lactantius, I thought that ruined his career referred to his dismissal, but I understand that you intended a broader meaning. Sorry, misunderstanding from my side. I don't remember that F. Criqui wrote explicitly on the reasons for that but his article in the Wurtz publication contains a biographical overview of Barthel and his work. I'm sure that you are right with his works on cosmology having anything but boosted his philosophical career. Of course it's perfectly alright to state Barthel's opinion if you mark it as such and leave your own aside.

I have already educated myself extensively with arguments from doubters and defenders of the moon landing, and I found the hoax theory anything but convincing. So there is really no need to discuss it here in deep. -- Eselohr (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)