Talk:Burkhard Heim

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography / Science and Academia (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the science and academia work group (marked as Mid-importance).
Note icon
It is requested that a photograph or picture of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.
WikiProject Physics / Biographies  (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article is supported by Biographies Taskforce.

Talk:Burkhard Heim/Archive1


The first talk page of this article has been archived verbatim at Talk:Burkhard Heim/Archive1. It was 112 kilobytes in length, and contained discussions dating from November 2004 to April 2005. The purpose of this header is to summarize as briefly as possible the content of the talk page. It is also intended to be an overview for the casual Wikipedian "passing by". There is also an abbreviated version of the first talk page at Talk:Burkhard Heim/Archive1Modified. However, the content of this page is significantly edited - hence if the necessity arises to refer to the first archived talk pages, this one should be used as the authoritative resource. This is because that page in particular, has not been edited. The modified version of the old talk page is intended to be used as a quick, general reference for content and information, and not a reference for the thought processes and discussion which occured on this page. The intention is that the effort placed in editing the old talk page could result in some material which could be incorporated into the existing Burkhard Heim article.

physicist and NOT physician, folks!! ----------

The primary participants in alphabetical order during this period were

User:Hdeasy (also posting as User: and with the nickname hughey), User:Pjacobi, User:Steuard, and User:WpZurp.

The minor participants in alphabetial order during this period were

User:, User:HappyCamper, User:Lifefeed, and User:Mikkalai.

Please feel free to add to this list and modify it as appropriate. Endeavour to maintain neutrality and generality in the terms, as its purpose is to provide a summary for the archived talk page. Hence, precision is not necessarily a primary concern here; the list should not be considered comprehensive as a large number of topics were covered.

The topics discussed included:

  1. Proper licensing of Heim's image in the article
  2. Validity of an article on Heim
    This included discussions regarding:
    1. Notability of Heim and his work
    2. Whether the article qualifies as containing original research
    3. The encyclopedic value of an article on Heim
  3. How to achieve a neutral and balanced point of view
    This included discussions regarding:
    1. The perceived bias in the initial article
    2. Requests for article cleanup
    3. Notability of Heim's work
    4. How to classify or label Heim
  4. Value of Heim's works
    This included discussions regarding:
    1. Heim's work in relation to the context of modern theoretical physics
    2. Perceived inconsistencies and contradictions to current theories and experiments
      1. The neutral electron
      2. The 6, 8, dimensional spaces
      3. The fine structure constant
      4. The mass formula
      5. "Metron theory"
      6. The cosmological constant and the quantity "E"
      7. How to express experimental precision for Heim's work
    3. Academic notability and relevance
    4. Peer reviewed articles
    5. Difficulties in following Heim's theory
    6. Associations of Heim with less academically oriented spheres of thought
    7. External sites for Heim and their relevance and notability

The consensus reached on multiple issues on the archived talk page in no particular order is that

  1. The articles on Heim should make explicit and clear that Heim's work needs to undergo more peer reviewing (several peer reviewed papers have now been published - including a prize-winning one on aerospace applications) and rigorous analysis before it can be taken more seriously in the scientific community
  2. Split the article into Heim Theory and Burkhard Heim, where the former will focus on his theories, while the latter will be primarily biographical.
    • The biographical article should have thorough references to his academic and personal history;
  3. Avoidance of derogatory terminology is prefered especially in contexts where other alternatives are available to convey the same idea.
  4. Heim's physical condition influenced his decisions regarding his publications, either by choice, necessity, or both - this should also be made explicit and clear.
  5. There is some reservation and skepticism towards Heim's work which is difficult to mitigate

Unresolved issues include

  1. The issue about "E" and whether it renders a paper related to Heim's work inconsistent or not. Consensus was to move on to another topic. Was recently discussed again on April 19, 2005.
  • (Also, many issues above under "Perceived inconsistencies and contradictions..." should probably be considered unresolved.)


I decided to be "WikiBold" and archived the old talk page; I added the header at the top which I hope is satisfactory. It might be better to move the header into the talk page afterwards. I also added a "reorganizing" tag for the old talk page. I'm hoping to preserve all of the original talk material and also create a new summarized version of the old talk page. It will be clearly marked as a "refactored" version. Guidelines from Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages. HappyCamper 15:49, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The "E" question[edit]

Recent posts were made at the first archived talk page under subsection Final comments on "E". HappyCamper 15:59, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Going ahead[edit]

A recent post was made in the old talk page about a recent paper published in the AIAA.

As new papers were mentioned here before, let me announce a forthcoming article in New Scientist, Jan 7th 2006 issue, on Heim theory and propulsion - largely based on above AIAA prize-winning paper. If it does not appear, then I will be rather surprised - that should only happen if some urgent discovery pushes the article back to a later issue. --hughey 15:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC) Hee hee hee! That new scientist article has attracted lots of attention - largely positive. Heim's theory is widely seen as a marvellous development. So, all the negative nay sayers here who even sought the erradication of the page, are being shown the error of their ways. Web searches for Burkhard Heim now get many more hits than ever before . And with more scientific papers on the basics theory in the offing, and a mass formula applet being suggested, it seems that Heim is indeed to take the world by storm, as was once facetiously suggested here.--hughey 18:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll certainly grant you that the recent publicity for Heim makes articles on him and his ideas worth having on Wikipedia. But I don't for a moment concede that Heim's theory is correct or even well-defined, and I think that both articles here should make that clear. My own hope regarding this new surge in publicity is that a few noted theoretical physicists will look at the theory and make clear statements about it. I've already seen one, by Sean Carrol at the University of Chicago:
"Just so nobody gets too excited — this paper is complete nonsense, not worth spending a minute’s time on. If I find the energy I might post on it, but this is no better than the other hundred crackpot preprints I get in the mail every year."
As I've said before, I really don't understand why aerospace engineers would feel themselves competent to judge a highly technical paper in particle physics and quantum gravity (or why their judgement of it carries particular weight with anyone else). I certainly wouldn't trust myself to certify the reliability of an airplane design, particularly not one claiming to be based on a revolutionary (and untested) new concept in the industry!--Steuard 20:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I think this perhaps highlights the differences in the ways engineers and physicists think about a problem. The AIAA, in awarding the paper about Heim's work, is awarding the logic of the methodology for use of the "drive system", not reviewing the physics underlying such a drive. I'd prefer to read an abstract or the entire paper before I make that statement with any certainty, but that's my best understanding based upon discussions with several of my professors in the aerospace engineering department at my university. --ABQCat 21:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. I've got to admit that I don't understand that approach at all. If I submitted a paper to the AIAA explaining in detail how to build a Star Trek style transporter with the help of the "Pyramid Jesus Unified Field Equation", would I win the next prize? (I've actually seen a booklet that used that term, incidentally.) Perhaps some engineers are so accustomed to simply applying and refining the principles supplied to them by physicists that they've fallen out of the habit of even wondering whether their underlying assumptions are correct.--Steuard 04:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Steuard, do you ever plan to contribute to the article, or are you strictly restricting your edits to just this talk page? --HappyCamper 04:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Before dismissing Heim’s initial and extended theories, one should note that the very significant distinction between him and other crackpots was the amount of respect he had commanded from such great theoretical physicists as Pascual Jordan and Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker (von Ludwiger, 2001). A true quantum leap in genius can be very difficult to bridge. Tcisco 15:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Translated text[edit]

Hi. HappyCamper has asked me to translate a text in French which could contain information on Heim that could be useful in this article. I see that there are issues of neutrality going on, not to mention that, simply adding to the article the direct translation of a text found at this website may constitute a copyright violation. In light of all of that, I'm posting here my translation of the text, so that the people who are more involved with the article can decide how to best use it. For the original, please visit the indicated website.

Redux's translation:

"Northeim, Hannover.

A German physiciSTS of international fame, his works were translated by physiciSTS with the Sandia Lab, in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

He worked under difficult conditions. Both his hands were amputated following a lab accident during World War II. He also suffered from advanced deafness as well as being almost completely blind. He had to undergo more than 50 surgeries in order to recover some part of his basic abilities. He taught and work as a deaf, blind man. Through the years, with the help of his wife, who served as his secretary, and equipped with a special gadget, he had the texts read to him and memorized them. He enjoyed a prodigious memory and became a “human computer”, recording in his brain formulas and knowledge, categorizing thousands of pieces of information while being capable of imagining and creating.

He believed that it was possible to both increase or annul gravity. On January 7, 1969, at the Institute for the study of force fields of Nordheim, near Goettingue, in the region of Basse Saxe, he stunned his colleagues by demonstrating in practice that it was possible to create artificially a gravitation field, transforming light into magnetism.

Ten years earlier, he had already demonstrated, in theory, the possibility of transforming an electric field into a gravitation field and vice-versa. At the time his theory of the uniformity of the quanta of the force fields of gravitation and matter, which, in addition to describing physics and the biosphere, also disserted on psychology and the spiritual domain, was a sensation in the scientific world and made way for numerous publications that spanned from serious analyses to the phantoms of science fiction. His theory is one-of-a-kind in modern physics because it allows, among other things, to calculate exactly the masses of all particles as well as the most important constants. His theory of fields deducts the existence of a hyperspace, a sixth dimension and has relevant consequences to cosmology, both technologically and metaphysically. The Second Congress on his theory was held in 1998. Heim imagined devices in which photons lost their luminosity, that is to say, their energy. They become invisible as the luminescent energy is transformed into gravitational energy which exercises magnetic force. The savant inspired himself in air chambers to build an extremely sensitive detector that allows to register even the weakest pulses of gravitation. This invention can be considered as the future corner stone of space propulsion and evokes an analogy between terrestrial science and extraterrestrial technology. According to Burkhard Heim, discovery through cognition is common to all the sentient systems in the Universe, for they possess a common source. So, for religious reasons, he discontinued voluntarily his studies on cosmogenesis and evolutional phenomena."


There are many technical terms in the text. I did my best to word it as accurately as possible, but some review may be necessary as far as the technical stuff is concerned. Regards, Redux 01:07, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi Redux, your translation will help us assess what material can be added to the article. Thank you very much! HappyCamper 01:26, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

This translation is quite interesting, as it mentions some references which I don't think have been discussed previously on this page. For example, what might "On January 7, 1969, at the Institute for the study of force fields of Nordheim..." refer to? HappyCamper 01:26, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

You are quite welcome. About the Institute, they didn't give the name of the place, but rather discribed its scope and where it is located. It could be that it is the "Institute for the study of force fields of Nordheim", maybe that's the actual name of the place. Perhaps someone knows about that... I didn't, so I stuck to what the text read. Redux 01:48, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Well, after my latest biographical additons to yhe article, it should be clear that the "Institute for the study of force fields" is the "Institut fuer Kraftfeldphysik e.V.", from which a colleague embezzled funds, increasing Heim's distrust and secrecy. Nordheim was where Heim lived with his wife, so he must have registered the firm with HQ at his house. However, looking again at the 'Nachruf', there's a photo of Heim in front of his 'Kontrabator', which is presumably in the lab in his home in Nordheim. This is from 'Bunte' in 1957.

--hughey 10:59, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

This is not a biography![edit]

Folks, this is no way to write a bibliograpgy. A section title "Posthumous results" in a biography is ridiculous. Please move all the non-biographical stuff to Heim theory. --Pjacobi 10:34, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Why not make the change yourself and see how it works out? We can always revert if it turns out that it's more difficult to incorporate it into Heim theory :-) --HappyCamper 12:24, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
I was thinking of an operation using a scalpell by one of the regular contributors to this page, e.g. you. But if you can live with an operation by axe, I can give it a try. --Pjacobi 17:21, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
Heh, interesting metaphors! Well, just go right ahead and as always, feel free to do so. I'd much rather see more active participation on these pages anyway. If you move large chunks of text around, I'd probably just edit the text in their new locations so they fit in nicely with the rest of the context in which it's placed. I'm comfortable with this approach for articles like this, as I think its a pretty productive and positive type of editing. Just remember to leave edit summaries and notes on talk pages! :-) --HappyCamper 18:33, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Corrective readjustments to the chronology are needed and a few historical milestones are missing from the 1940's to 1950's subsection of the Academic and work history segment. Tcisco 14:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


Hdeasy, your math is bogus. If the experimental value has 7 or more valid decimal places and the theoretical value differ in in the first seven places, either the the theoretical value has less than 7 valid decimal places or is in disagreement with the experimental value. In neither case it is correct to say, that it has 7 places of accuracy. --Pjacobi 10:56, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

We have gone over this a number of times already. Why don't you make a change to the article which you think would be suitable instead? --HappyCamper 12:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Please provide two (one can always be seen as tuning) mass predictions which match current experimental values in seven digits. Can you? Then I'll humbly apologize to interfere with your editing. --Pjacobi 15:55, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
Hey, it's a Wiki - anything can be changed so no need for any potential apologies :-) I was suggesting that if you think the quoted number is only accurate to say, only one or two digits, then you could change the number so that it reflects this. I'm not sure how this should best be done. I don't mind how the numbers are presented so much myself, but it might be worth mentioning that other sites consider the results more accurate than that those presented here. Right now, I've sort of drifted off to collecting some other relevant papers. I might add some of these as references to the article later. The response from the German archives are rather slow. --HappyCamper 16:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Somewhat agree. The current formulation as a result of my edits is self-contradictory. But to judge between "agreement withing error bars of the theoretical calculation" and "according to the newest experimental results, in disagreement by X stddevs", we need to have more information on the theoretical error bars. --Pjacobi 17:19, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
Just saw all this. Is this not against the Wikipedia policy against insulting behaviour to say my math is 'bogus'?: It was not I who put in the original figure of 7. I had intended altering to a more realistic figure. What the original user of this figure probably meant was 7 significant figures. Leaving this unjustified insult aside, I must say it shows poverty of spirit on your part, Pjacobi, to essentialy ignore the AIAA prize - as someone who lives in north Germany you should be impressed by Uni Braunschweig's praise of Hauser. Another link in this regard: .

--hughey 08:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Statements of fact are exempt from WP:NPA. Whoever inserted the "7 decimal places" claim should elaborate or we should better delete this claim. --Pjacobi 10:03, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Oh dear. Why don't we try this?
  1. Get rid of the "7 decimal places" claim, but print the numbers verbatim.
  2. Let's take a page, say [1], and put the results online in a table as they are depicted in the document verbatim
  3. Then, we mention something like "the results in this table are from" this source. We avoid attempting to interpret the numbers, and simply state something like, "in 19XX calculations were done with Heim theory and we got this". Period.
  4. We won't mention anything about X number of decimal places of accuracy. The fact is, this is the only source I know of which has these numbers calculated and none of us are in any better position to say whether the published numbers are "good" or "bad". So, as a neutral encyclopedic article, we won't comment on how these numbers look. We'll just say, "X said it was this number".
Does this sound reasonable to everyone? I'm well aware of the shortcomings of the published results, but the reality is, any interpretation we give of the numbers will necessarily be an interpretation, and at the moment, it's probably best to avoid that.
Well on a side note, I disagree that statement of facts are exempt from WP:NPA. I think people can choose to refrain from using the word "bogus", and instead chose an alternative which is less of an intensifier. Let's just move on from that and focus on how to add these numbers to the article in a balanced way, good? --HappyCamper 12:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
I apoligize for using the word "bogus". Your proposal is fine with me. --Pjacobi 12:55, July 27, 2005 (UTC)


I removed:

, e.g., Anderson and Ahner (see [2] for a related paper by these authors with a higher dimensional theory reminiscent of Heim's)

Without some evidence that Heim did suspect A&A, this seems inappropriate. And higher-dim theories are pretty common. William M. Connolley 19:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC).

No references by Hawking?[edit]

Why is there nothing about these theories in Stephen Hawkings books ? After all, that's what he's working on.. unified theory

Burkhard Heim's work is not an accepted part of mainstream physics. As I recall, Hawking's books deal primarily with established physics (such as general relativity) and to a limited extent with mainstream efforts at unification (he mentions string theory, for example).--Steuard 23:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Illobrand Von Ludwiger told me that Hawking had been approached and asked to look through Heim's work, but he had refused as the 3 volumes are in German, which he does not understand sufficiently well. That's where Hauser and Dröscher are improving on the situation - they are prepared to publish in English. Already they've 'taken the world by storm' with their AIAA papers and the New Scientist publicity. Next year will see peer reviewed papers with more technical backround that given in the aerospace presentations. And don't poo-poo that please - the enemies of Heim-theory must eat humble pie for a while after their humiliating defeat in the attempts to delete the theory page :-) . --hughey 16:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I believe I've read this too. Stick to the Facts 04:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the citation corrections. I have never had a course in German. Subsequently, I have had to rely on Babel Fish to translate text from German to English. Tcisco 03:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Tesla did it[edit]

Burkhard heim has been in the news recently concerning the idea of a hyper engine that would use electromagnetic fields to affect gravity.

I wanted to point out that this had already been accomplished by one nikola tesla:

Unfortunately information concerning his "flying machine" seems to have been removed.

I was wondering if any one out there would be so kind as to post information relative to the work of Nikola Tesla on electromagnetism and gravity, along with that of Burkard Heim. There’s so little information!

If not, would it at least be possible to provide a link on one another’s articles?

WikiWorm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 16:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

Unsourced hype[edit]

This article has a lot of unsourced statements and hype. Statements like "Fortuitously in the same year, Walter Dröscher, a theorist at the Vienna Patent Office, began to work with Heim. The first result of their collaboration cumulated into the second volume of Heim's major work, appearing in 1984. It is almost error-free, in contrast to the first volume which was not reviewed to this extent" ring my alarm bells. In what way is it "fortuitous"? Who has declared the work "almost error free"?

Geoffrey.landis 20:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Most of the biographical statements on Heim come from von Ludwiger, although this could also be from Andreas Resch, Heim's publisher. "Error-free" refers mainly to the correct reproduction of equations. Resch stressed what a difficult task it was to publish Heim since Heim himself was blind, his mathematics advanced and he had also developed a terminology of his own. I believe i read the latter quote somewhere in an article by Resch but can't find the passage now. I did find an article where Resch talks about the problems of publishing Heim, though. Mbechmann (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Heim51.gif[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Heim51.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Near ubiquitous unverifiable information[edit]

I would note that the section on 'Academic and work history' does not cite even a single reference for the entire period prior to Heim's death. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

HrafnTalkStalk(P) overlooked the paragraphs carrying the American Psychological Association stylized citations. To avert an edit-war, footnotes have been added and all citations have been converted to footnotes.Tcisco (talk) 07:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
User Tcisco overlooked the fact that they didn't raise this point until 8 days later. The APA refs are easy to overlook, and covered only a minority of the tagged material. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Reliability of main source[edit]

Can an article published on the website of the 'Society for the Scientific Investigation of Anomalous Atmospheric and Radar Phenomena MUFON-CES, Inc.' be considered a WP:RS? It looks a very WP:FRINGE source. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes it can be considered a WP:RS. For example, the committee funded by Rockefeller and chaired by Peter Sturrock and formed from mainstream scientific community recognized and incorporated papers from MUFON-CES with the analyses of anomalous airial phenomena (see Peter A. Sturrock (Study Director)(1999). The UFO Enigma. New York, NY: Warner Books, Inc. ISBN 0-446-67709-4).Tcisco (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I remain skeptical. I will refer this to WP:RS/N. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not a physicist, but can something be "shown not to exist", as the article claims? Perhaps this should be changed to "not shown to exist"? -- (talk) 19:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Something can be shown not to exist if falsifiable claims are made about its existence. i.e that it is detectable within a specific energy range. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

No link to Hermann Weyl[edit]

The article claims According to Weyl, a brief description of Heim’s lecture was recorded in the proceedings of the Society for Space Research, where the word Weyl links to Herrmann Weyl, a well known mathematician and theoretical pysicist. As source for that a link to two paper given is given. The author of the paper is "A. R. Weyl". Herrman Weyls full name was "Hermann Klaus Hugo Weyl". Herrmann Weyl died 1955, the mentioned paper were published in 1958 respectively 1959. So the source of that claim is certainly not the established Hermann Weyl but another Weyl (probably a german aircraft engineer). -- (talk) 10:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

  • A. R. Weyl was a very prominent German aircraft engineer. His book, Guided Misssiles was a compilation of articles he had published in the British magazine The Aeroplane. Many physicists were directed away from general relativity to elementary particle physics during the 1920s through the early 1950s. Aviation and rocketry experts reported on the gravity control propulsion research of the 1950s and sixties. For example, in January 1959, the Convair Division of General Dynamics, San Diego, had W. R. Eichler translate A. R. Weyl's "Knowledge and Possibilities of Gravity Research" that had been published in Weltraumfahrt; Zeitschrift für Raketentechnik, Vol. 9, pp. 100-106 in December 1958. John Archibald Wheeler was completing his last year as a consultant to Convair at that time. Tcisco (talk) 06:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
A. R. Weyls contribution to theoretical physics might be of (limited?) historical interest, but he's certainly not a well known scientific expert or has a reputation for his original work on that topic. There was a hype at that time to "try your self" on a theory of gravity, which produced a lot of paper without any impact. So let A. R. Weyl be the aircraft engineer. As a proof to Heims reputation among theoretical physicists he is not much good. -- (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Claimed assasination[edit]

Von Ludwiger claims Dem Attentäter, der die Sauerstofflasche absichtlich mit Öl verunreinigt hatte, konnte Heim verzeihen, so dass dieser sein Leben behielt. (The assassin, who intentionally conatminated the oxigen bottle with oil could be forgiven by Heim, so that he could keep his life). No further details (Name, motivation, trial, ...) are given. Sounds impropable to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not really improbable by itself, although i think the term "terrorist" (in the article) is misleading. Heim worked on explosives in the broader context of the german war effort, so it might have been an act of sabotage. However, in the biography of von Ludwiger on Heim, published in 2010, this detail is missing. In there, it is not described as an oxygen bottle but rather as a special explosive which was accidentally contaminated in production. I haven't read the whole book yet but checked the chapters concerning the time from the incident until around 1947 and there's no mentioning of assassination/sabotage, so it looks to me like vL stepped back from his claim. I would suggest considering taking this detail out. --Mbechmann (talk) 07:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Von Ludwiger obviously contradicts himself. There is no evidence of stepping back. Taking into account, that that event was a dramatic turn in Heims life and that von Ludwiger is the Heim-biograph this leaves some questions open. Either von Ludwigers credabilty is damaged (and thereby one of the most important and quoted sources to Heims life) or Heims biography is missing an important part. Both consequences are not trivial to the article about Heim. So taking that simply out and sweep it under the carpet seems not appropriate to me, esp. since Heims work is in in general between controversional and rejected among physicists — if not ignored. -- (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Burkhard Heim. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Burkhard Heim. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)