User:Duae Quartunciae/W. Kehler

Welcome to Wikipedia, Mr Kehler

Once you have your own user page, someone will soon come and give you an official welcome, which will look a bit like this. I've adapted this one for you as an unregistered user.

You have been very active here now for more than two months, with hundreds of contributions to a substantial number of pages. However, you have been a bit frustrated at the result, and at the reception you have received. Here is some specific advice for your special situation.

Dynamic IP

You have said that your astronomy club uses a dynamic IP cluster. This presents all kinds of special difficulties. It would really help if you could register yourself as an editor, so that all your contributions were able to be recognized as a unit. If other members of your astronomy club would like to register as well, then they should register also, but in different names, one for each individual editor.

(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.)

Consensus

Wikipedia is a community of many people, with widely different interests and often with conflicting views. There are many conventions and guidelines that have been worked out to try and help people work together despite differences.

I cannot emphasize enough how useful it will be for you to read the five pillars of Wikipedia. The fourth pillar in particular is the code of conduct, which is about how people work together. Here are some key points:

• Be civil. Ideally, we speak well of each other.
• Assume good faith. This means that no matter how strongly we disagree with the particular views of another editor, we always proceed on the assumption that they are trying to make Wikipedia better. Even if we change content in a disputed page, we can both still agree that the other is trying to help, even when mistaken on some points.
• Consensus. This means that the content is worked out a community together. All the other pillars are, in way, helping people to do that.

One aspect of consensus is that you should discuss with other editors changes that are likely to be controversial. Don't just jump into a page and make changes when you know that there will be some disagreement. Tell people what you are doing in the talk page.

Language

This is an English resource. Your English is far better than my German, and I envy and admire your ability with language. But even so, your English is not good enough to write content in the encyclopedia without the help of other editors to fix the grammar. This is another reason that you especially should always try to use the discussion page to let people know what you are doing.

Content

This is going to be the hardest thing to say kindly. Your physics is not actually very good at all, as far as I can tell. I'm not an expert myself, but I have fair degree of facility all the same, and the benefit of lots of other experts who can help when I get stuck. For many years, long before joining Wikipedia, I have had a special interest in physics, astronomy and cosmology.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. That means that it is not a place to try and develop new ideas. Instead, it is a place where the ideas developed by others are presented and explained.

This means, for example, that it is simply not appropriate to have long debates in an article discussion page as to whether a particular theory is true or not.

The gold standard here is not "true", but verifiable. That is, if the ideas are presented in reliable published sources, then we can explain them based on those sources. If it is not in reliable published sources, then we don't report it. (And by the way... another Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source! That is explicit in the guidelines.)

Conclusion

This is quite a long essay in welcome! I hope it will be useful. I am trying to point out a few areas where I can see there are problems in place already. If they are not fixed, and the style of engagement continues as has done previously, you will find your participation here to be frustrating and unproductive. But if you work with the guidelines, you'll have a much better experience.

With best wishes —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 14:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again 84.158.244.208 03:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

LECTURES ON PHYSICS

Basic physics: Mass is energy and energy is anyhow considered as mass said Einstein with E=mc². Photons with a frequency have an energy said Plank E=hf. Thus photons with energy have of course a related mass. Like electrons thus have a frequency. The more frequency the more mass and vice versa. Those who have not understand those basic physics have to shut up instead of calling Fritz Zwycky's theory as "krank" because he utilized that kind of mass in his theory! – Sorry physics and science is no democracy but more or less proved facts and (here) seriously founded (or not) theories – or those pupils shall have still not a "vote" here to what they do not know.

Photons relativistic mass

$m={\frac {h\nu }{c^{2}}}\,.$ (read as Planck's nu, explicitly used by ZWICKY).

Sorry but for me people ignoring a photons' mass with their frequencies have never learnt basic physics (In 4D spacetime gravity of mass is a curvature in space and irrelevant but at least the related momentum of a photon is a reality at least seen as a kind of projection in 3D). Of course such kind of not knowing this (poor?) "physicists" must be unable to understand related Einstein effects especially gravitational redshift and than of course they cannot understand and not accept at all Fritz Zwicky's theory of Tired light as basis for many Big bang dissidents.

Sorry, but how can any here himself so calling physicist only dare to write any meaning about ZWICKY and his TIRED LIGHT not having understood his related basic physics, written explicitly with a (here ignored) so called Photon's relativistic mass?

We claim Einstein's fairness:

.. not understanding Planck (as spooky named things, see [Miracle "Quantum-Teleportation" now accepted truth]) but nevertheless (more than) fairly accepting his theories!!!

Programmed struggles

The related experienced stupid struggles happened because of one side's complete lack of knowledge about a non-zero photon's mass, but also not wanting to see even related Einstein effects or to read anything presented or linked here first class source.

Problem of mainstream meaning

What if consent becomes no solution but mainstream's meaning only? Without having understood one another? How can any dissident win?

Bad German example of a (mental) dictatorship

A wall painter had once governed Germany. He did not want to understand more intelligent people. He hated them (because of his lack of any intelligence?). The best scientists of the world were named here as "krank"(was this not also your comment about us or was it not understood physics?), bastards, rats, other kind of beasts, and meaner. Those who wanted to survive, they had to emigrate. A big luck for the whole world that they came to the USA and all helped to destroy dictatorship instead that a lunatic got "the bomb" (imagine only once if he would have hat only a bit more intelligence to support the best physicist: Paris, London, New York a "Hiroshima"!?):

Einstein, Wernher von Braun, Oppenheimer and the remaining former German elite came to USA!

Sorry, why could in Germany exist as "mainstream thinking" something like stupid

"H e i l H i t l e r"

How could stupor become Germany's most awful "consent"? A dictators Cargo cult science remaining: less skilled scientists; like people directed (forced?) in one direction only, having to become blind to think; at least about better alternatives. The thoughts of our Führer were sacro sankt and imposed here (people mentality inducing) anyhow to be the highest wisdom of the world...

That extreme bad example shall only be a dedicated warning to favorize too much any kind of "mainstream thinking" or "modern thinking" to depreciate or even defame - serious and less serious - alternatives. An obviously stupid thing should become readers validation (not writers MEANING) about presented existing stuff.

WIKIPEDIA has to give bare information about existing theories while not completely silly. The reader has to decide if it is serious stuff or less serious. Allowing critics of course, but without words of any from a "hill of pretended better knowledge" given depreciation - or even defamations (e.g. "krank" physics). 84.158.235.162 06:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)}}84.158.204.107 22:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Anti-gravity article as last bad example, rv

INSTRUCTIONS FOR PUBLICATIONS (internat., resume): Readers need no (Users' or Administrators') meanings but basic information (WP:RS); here by serious links of scientific papers in order to get THEIR meaning - as the related WIKI-BOOK (at first not anywhere), US-PATENT (with comment: they cannot invent facts), especially ARXIV.ORG papers etc.;

why steadily rv instead of making it better? 84.158.244.208 03:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Documents shall inform about same or similar effects of anti-gravity. They are linked and cited to give people a chance to discuss seriously if anti-gravity is a serious matter or still science fiction or not. Partly serious, partly less serious seeming documents are offered for public - no more no less - to find the truth. - Meanwhile multiply rv without any reason:

Real anti-gravity?

A good overview about the problems are found in

• http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Levitation_and_antigravity
• http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/forcefieldpropulsionphysics/message/2345
• http://www.oocities.com/agravity/ANTIGRAVITY.htm
• Aetherometry and Gravity, an Introduction by David Pratt, April 2005, introducing especially about “Gravity and antigravity” and “Electroscopes and antigravity”.

Incredible papers

• Gravity's secret - New Scientist, 11 November 2006
• Boeing tries to defy gravity - BBC News
• BBC News profile of Podkletnov
• Wired 6.03: Breaking the Law of Gravity, an entertaining account by reporter Charles Platt, from which the quotations and much of the information above was gleaned.

Serious researches (ARXIV.ORG-links)

• Measurement of Gravitomagnetic and Acceleration Fields Around Rotating Superconductors Martin Tajmar, Florin Plesescu, Bernhard Seifert, Klaus Marhold
• Experimental Detection of the Gravitomagnetic London Moment], Martin Tajmar1, Florin Plesescu1, Klaus Marhold1 & Clovis J. de Matos2, Space Propulsion, ARC Seibersdorf research GmbH, A-2444 Seibersdorf, Austria - 2ESA-HQ, European Space Agency, 8-10 rue Mario Nikis, 75015 Paris, France.

Antigravity effect by dark matter?

Antigravity by negative matter would complete Big bang theory by dark energy to declare very far supernovae's accelerations found by their extreme redshift according Importance of Supernovae at z>1.5 to Probe Dark Energy.

ALL LINKED DOCUMENTS FOR OTHERS NOW NO MORE FOUND

Sorry but this manner is only relevant for secret papers - or not?

User:Kehler84.158.244.208 03:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Many, many thanks User:Duae_Quartunciae

(This section was written by Mr Kehler, and moved here from my user page. Thanks for joining in.) —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 23:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

INITIALLY:

I hate Cargo cult science and like fairness

If OPEN LETTER TO THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY people are treated as unfair as written there: No money, discreditated, they need mental help!

I want not to repeat what is written to Jimbo Wales in section

FAIR WIKIPEDIA FOR THOUSANDS DISSIDENTS,

please look what is the matter! Activate it by putting SHOW below that headline after the sentence:

Introduction to alternate cosmology controversy and request for assistance SHOW!

I suggest that you User:Duae_Quartunciae are rather new in WIKI but wherefrom you had got your big knowledge about me and us and all our activities and why you are now employed for the case?

• 1.) PERSONALLY: irritating Kehler - originally father's, having named me like himself; A famous Aluminium specialist, charged by US-ministry to make a known big book with contents of Aluminium alloys; our AOL exists since nearly 15 years. with his 92 y.o. I answer for him. Since I myself got only promises for years to get DSL, I changed to T-COM; they tried it at least. I studied physics, final branch electrotechnics (engineer), was system-programmer; made many things in SIGNAL-ANALYSIS (speech, pictures with Patents, the best invented too soon for realization);
• ...stopped by grave accident 12 y. ago, impeded (writing still too slow, faulty because the right hand no more can react as fast as I want). Old father initially made all for me (like in care, not always the best for >7 y). Very slow rehabilitation.

• 2.) MY PHYSICS: Not good enough? - You wrote it so in this fictive User:Kehler; really YOUR meaning? ok?
• ...but look please how "much" WIKI knows about General relativity, nothing about solutions:
• See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exact_solutions : This article or section may be confusing or unclear for some readers.
• And in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solutions_of_the_Einstein_field_equations/ : This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject.
• Basic, well-known solutions were imposed, promptly erased, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Solutions_of_the_Einstein_field_equations&oldid=142221128#Known_solutions
• WE know; what we know is a drop an what we not know is a sea (Newton) - who knows more?

• 3.) REMINDER: The same was done and said about nearly all non-standard physics and physicists and researchers having signed [OPEN LETTER TO THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY] trying meanwhile to act in WIKIPEDIA; at first all welcome they say: partly they are meanwhile scanned as I even by dynamic IP of the club; all automatically rv!-???).
• All wrote "disruptive", "spam" (if they related to anything they wrote);
• REVERTERS not accepting that they(!) must be wrong to the own matter of related scientists and not the autors neither knowing the scientists nor about their science;
• REVERTERS reprimanded that physics as "proved" meanwhile scientist's faults, etc.

' THEIR BAD MEANING (remember: what Peter says about Paul is Peter's (good or bad) mentality, not Pauls's); meanings are no facts!

• Sorry, but was this the intention of Jimbo Wales? Or is that
• Feynman's Cargo cult science?

• 4.) DID YOU NOT YET READ:

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0701132 about otherwise not declarable Pioneer anomaly,

Physical Review D 65:082004(0–50)

(Zwicky's origin) Univ. Basel, Observational Cosmology:

caveats and open questions in the standard model, May 16, 2006.

• 5.) SORRY: But for me ARXIV.ORG is much better source in physics than 99,5% of WIKI-physicists and 100% better than non-physicists (like you?).

• 6.) Fritz Zwicky is perfectly rehabilitated, not only by NASA and ESA!
• What and how not only NASA and ESA confirmed ZWICKY in the last years is not at all "krank physics" but the new tendency that old ZWICKY STANDARD COSMOLOGY can revive.

• 7.) YOU WAS PARTLY RIGHT!!! Because too many cooks in Astro-club had made finally a bad meal. But was that enough that we were named to have written "krank...physics" - and to rv it all???

added: Have you seen some of Feynmans lectures in internet?

How respectfully he treated e.g. NEWTON and old physics?

MY WISH FOR US 84.158.245.214 00:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

A BIG WIKI PROBLEM?

Bad results: depreciation by lack of knowledge

• 1.) ORIGINAL: - F.Zwicky: On the Red Shift of Spectral Lines through Interstellar Space p.775; result was cited (p.777), cited but rv... - WHY?:

• 2.) WIKI-ADMINISTRATORS NOT KNOW: PHOTONS HAVE A Relativistic mass and can never get or have anyhow only a zero-mass as written in WIKI. That is worldwide well-known physics! Not here?
• Not mine but one WIKI problem only, if people cannot understand ZWICKY by this: not knowing anything of photon's relativistic mass by Einstein effects saying that photons must have mass and are attracted my masses?
• A steadily here only known rest mass can only be valid at frequency zero (but even for this was found: measuremants showed about 10^-53kg rest mass).

• 3.) People not knowing or believing this can of course never understand that ZWICKY was right, and old physicists - the last genious was certainly Feynman - were much better than all from today. Kehler 84.158.237.12 03:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

A stubborn, now defamed, ignored genius ZWICKY?

• In http://www.dynamical-systems.org/zwicky/Zwicky-e.html you will find that in the HISTORY OF WILSON OBSERVATORY neither Zwicky nor Baade are found for their splendid work.
• Must ignorance continue in WIKI? 84.158.216.127 20:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Our people got mainly angry, want no more...

• At first I wrote without conviction about the stuff what some others wanted;
• some wrote themselfes sometimes without me.
• Meanwile I feel that Big Bang seems (mainly) a religion, religiously supported - see therein sect. 8. Philosophical and religious interpretations e.g how glad many religions incl. pope Pius XII were.

A kind of BIG BANG RELIGION?

As shown we had tried to impose at least 6 well known mathematical GR solution to awfully ranked GR-SOLUTIONS and EXACT SOLUTIONS (the same, but here doubled matter).

One article wrote Einstein's GR Tensors contravariant, the other covariant.

All by us named known 6 solutions were reverted by no reason. For us a sign that for the related supervisor(s) in WP:PHYS only exist Big bang as THE solution, all even not knowing what mean contravariant and covariant Tensors. But GR-theory has a lot more (infinite!) solutions...

John Dobson in WIKI videos can teach you...

...what I had to learn meanwhile a bit with tears:

• That and how his (not stupid) spectators applause against Big bang!
• Here in Germany he was much better!
• Applause seemed to be at most when he meant that Big Bang people must have a big bang. e.g.:

They really mean that at a black hole must stop the time but are unable to see

how any time could begin at its much more super-massive start of a Big bang?

• As former fan of the most simple seeming solution, I had to revise my meanings and learnt
• that Big bang has in the whole world big, big problems of acceptance,
• but seems to be protected fanatically by something like a caste of a special religious section producing - until here visible - a kind of a religious inquisition.

wfc-k 84.158.222.148 17:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 84.158.207.31 20:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Response, Duae Quartunciae to W. Kehler

You raise a couple of issues. They include the pioneer anomaly, the Zwicky biography, the use of arxiv, photon mass, and Big Bang. Here follows a brief comment on each one. You also ask how I know about your activities. I just looked at the logs in wikipedia, and looked for activity in the physics pages by your dynamic IP cluster. Anyone can do this; wikipedia is a very open environment.

Sorry, all is photon's mass related stuff - not understood by you 84.158.245.146 22:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Pioneer anomaly

Actually, I have done a fair bit of work on this, including some numerical analysis of my own on a brief six month set of raw data to confirm the effect. I've read the basic papers by Anderson, which give good background to what is seen and the nature of solutions that might be possible. I've looked at various proposed solutions by a number of scientists. My own best guess is that it is most likely a systematic consequence of forces from the spacecraft itself, probably from unexpectedly high assymetric patterns of radiating waste heat. There are problems with that explanation, but it seems to be the most likely of alternatives at present. I don't think we can really know until a deep space probe is used to specifically test for the effect. This is proposed by the ESA, and I think it would be a very good idea. The tantalizing prospect of a discovery of new physics is very exciting. See, for example, the internal Theoretical Division Research Highlights 2005 at LANL, which includes a brief comment on testing the anomaly. Anderson, JA; Nieto, MM; Turyshev, SG (2005), The Pioneer anomaly may be tested (PDF), LANL research highlights.

The people who claim to have definitely identified the cause are invariably nuts. Erhard Scholz is not in that category.

I have read the paper by the German mathematician Erhard Scholz, from University Wuppertal. He has made it available as a preprint at the excellent arxiv archive, at Another look at the Pioneer anomaly (astro-ph/0701132). It is an interesting paper, and I need to read it more carefully to give a thorough comment. But one thing strikes me immediately; he does not appear to extend his ideas to consider observations of other bodies that do not seem to show the anomalous acceleration. I may need to check this more carefully, but since his proposed solution involves retarded photons and expanding space, it should show up also for the planets. And it does not. This issue is a serious problem for many of the esoteric physics proposed to explain the anomaly. The actual effect, by the way, is only indirectly linked to expansion and retarded photons. One should expect these to give a redshift; not a blueshift as observed. Scholz knows that, and proposed that the result appears as a kind of error term. But I think the bigger problem is that he fails to consider other planets that don't show the effect.

Note that Scholz himself is cautious in what he claims. On page 2 he says: We therefore have reasons to explore hypothetically the consequences of a downscaling photon hypothesis for the evaluation of the Pioneer data. The same paragraph goes on to note that there are problematic aspects he does not attempt to address. You seem to be citing this paper with wild enthusiasm as some kind of proof retarded photons. It isn't. Furthermore, it simply does not deal with the observational evidence against the use of retarded photons as the major explanation for cosmological redshift. For instance, expansion means that the timing between ariving photons should stretch by the same factor as the redshift, making distant phenomena appear to run more slowly. Retarded photons or tired light does not give such an effect. And the observations of light curves support the expansion model, and refute the tired light model. It's fine to keep exploring possibilities; but as matters stand the empirical evidence available is strongly against tired light.
—Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 04:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 03:08, 25 July 2007

SORRY, but are you not able to distinguish between (your) MEANING and serious THEORIES??? In Google you find estimated hundreds times more articles and reasons against Big bang than for it and: See my section John Dobson and what all those implicitly and I explicitly have meanwhile to call now a kind of Big bang religion.84.158.228.1 00:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The use of arxiv

The arxiv archive is a very useful resource; but there is no review involved. For this reason, the Wikipedia guidelines explicitly indicate that it cannot be treated as a reliable source. This is not usually a problem, since the best papers there are usually ones that have been published in a proper journal as well, and the bibliographic details are available. These can be cited. Arxiv itself cannot.

You said in your message above is much better in physics than 99,5% of WIKI-physicists and 100% better than you. That is a very odd remark. Arxiv does not present a single unified view that can be compared with others in that way. For most of it, you are quite right. But for some of it, it has been very low quality indeed. This has been a bit of an issue for the archive in the past. Preciely because the quality is variable, you cannot take any paper in the archive and presume it is reliable. You need to find a published source.

The paper by Scholz is not published anywhere, as yet. It's interesting as mathematics, but as a contribution to empirical physics it is going be a problem, because it does not try to apply empirical tests to the ideas proposed. It's working out a speculation for a certain class of solution, which I don't think has any real prospect of working, for the empirical reasons I gave above. But the anomaly is difficult for any attempted explanation, and so I've got no problem with the theoretians exploring certain possibilities. For myself, I think any solution to the anomaly will come with empirical work; and there is some potential there for new physics, which would be great. I'm guessing that it is not new physics. The effect is too large; and so I think the systematics in the spaceship itself is more plausible. But hey... let's get another test lauched and see!
—Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 04:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 03:08, 25 July 2007

SCHOLZ was published in ARXIV.ORG in March 2007(?), linked above but related to PHOTON MASSES: 84.158.220.52 04:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

As I have told you above, uploading a paper to arxiv is not "publication". This is explicit in wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources. It's an interesting paper, but you inflate its standing, and you fail to understand that you cannot give it as a reliable source in a wikipedia article. It is a speculative proposal; not a complete theory. In my view, it is not a credible prospect for explaining pioneer. But we don't need to argue that here. The gold standard for inclusion in an article is verifiability, and this does not meet that standard. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 04:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

If I remember well it is already splendidly founded in the same manner with the same result as by LaViolette (search here) in Paul Marmets [Newton Physics against Einstein I found one decade ago. But I am tired to research all if there is no real interest to at least wanting to realise at first and how - our basis is at least serious stuff, added with related links - 84.158.236.122 00:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

photons have a relativistic mass $m={\frac {h\nu }{c^{2}}}\,.$

• without such steady depreciations

Kehler 84.158.206.221 22:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Photon mass

I have no idea what you are talking about there. The basic formula for relating energy and momentum in relativity is $E^{2}=(pc)^{2}+(mc^{2})^{2}$. The famous $E=mc^{2}$ is a special case for the energy of a particle with no momentum. The $m$ term in that equation is "rest mass". Modern physics avoids the term "relativistic mass". You are better to speak of the total energy, which is given by this equation, or of the energy-momentum 4-vector.

In the case of a photon with frequency $\nu$ and wavelength $\lambda$, you can get energy and momentum by $E=h\nu$ and $p=h/\lambda$; and this is because the rest mass is zero.
—Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 04:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 03:08, 25 July 2007

       MOST IMPORTANT REPLY (by Kehler)

Sorry, but for understanding photons mass

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

and THEN Zwicky; you have to learn German to understand all, or employ User:Jimbo Wales having learnt it recently:

• http://de.wikibooks.org/wiki/Ruhemasse_und_relativistische_Masse_eines_K%C3%B6rpers in German: "Masse ist eine fundamentale Eigenschaft von Materie und als solche naturgemäss eine Invariante; sie ist von der Wahl des Bezugsystems unabhängig. Der Begriff `Ruhemasse' ist daher überflüssig, wenn nicht irreführend; für den Begriff einer davon zu unterscheidenden ‚bewegten Masse' ist in der Physik kein sinnvoller Platz." - German Professor's meaning, trans is that the different masses confuse more than they help and even Einstein was ambivaletly (until 1948). 84.158.252.75 11:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#Masse : "Die spezielle Relativitätstheorie hingegen verbietet nicht nur das Erreichen der Lichtgeschwindigkeit für jedwedes mit Ruhemasse behaftete Objekt, sondern liefert auch den direkten mathematischen Nachweis." - Finally: rest mass has no real meaning (summary: because photons are restless).
• http://de.wikibooks.org/wiki/Ruhemasse_und_relativistische_Masse_eines_K%C3%B6rpers
• http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistische_Masse
• http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruhemasse

ESA = European Space Agency are certainly no stupids calculating satellites.

They have learnt from the failure of Pioneer anomaly in

http://arxiv.org/vc/gr-qc/papers/0603/0603032v1.pdf :

* "1. Introduction: It is well known that the mass of the photon and graviton in vacuum must be nonzero. The first limit is given by Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle 1 and the second by the measurement of the cosmological constant in our universe2-4."

• http://www.math.uni-wuppertal.de/~scholz/preprints/pioneer_12_01_07.pdf ANOTHER LOOK AT THE PIONEER ANOMALY, Erhard Scholz Univ. Wuppertal claims that only a kind of Tired Light - called there “downscaling photons” - could solve Pioneer anomaly as mentioned e.g. in Physical Review D 65:082004(0–50).

Kehler84.158.203.218

Big Bang cosmology

You are wrong to think this is religious. It is now basic in cosmology, used by scientists without regard to their religious beliefs. It is very much founded on empirical evidence. The cosmology statement was interesting when it first came out some years ago; but it really didn't say anything useful on the matter. Those who signed it are welcome to be skeptical and to keep looking for alternative cosmological ideas.

Correct, but we hate depreciations, e.g. that all other theories are no more valid in a manner as if all their friends have the false religion. The problem arises that THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH never exists, It can only be found perhaps, if all get equal chances. RELIGION? Ma religion teacher said: If god exist and his power, he can make you 3D-images of all as we see 2D-images (video, film) as illusions produced by X... 84.158.212.14 04:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem now is that the statement is wide open for anyone at all to sign. The great majority of the signatories now are so-called "independent researchers", or else people from other fields of science entirely; and most of them truly don't understand anything about cosmology.

Again: In 2006 we realized drastically over here that nearly nobody believe it; mainly new educateed scientists, but fanatically; it seems mainly pushed, fair discussion no more exists. and in GOOGLE you find much more non-standard cosmologies partly astonishing good founded theories, all with some logical defects... 84.158.212.14 04:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I've done a bit of modelling work for basic cosmological modeling, as an amateur enthusiast and for teaching. So much criticism of Big Bang cosmology is actually based on a failure to understand it.

Sorry to correct you, I found: No part really seriously try at least to hear and then understand the other part seriously. 84.158.212.14 04:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I've done a bit of modelling work for basic cosmological modeling, as an amateur enthusiast and for teaching. So much criticism of Big Bang cosmology is actually based on a failure to understand it. I'm more than happy to engage discussion on cosmological issues in general, but it crops up so often were it is just not relevant. Like here. It's too big a topic for this page; with your permission I would prefer to note that we disagree on the standing of Big bang cosmology and leave it at that.

"not relevant"? — Like here. ??? 84.158.212.14 04:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Irrelevant here. Let's stick to specifics, not general skepticism of BB cosmology. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 05:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Big bang ok! But critics and their theory also - ok??? - I know all what you write, I was myself Big bang fan. But I felt with my friends meanwhile like more than the thousand signers of linked OPEN LETTER: other meaning even get no chance of any hearing. OUR WISH WAS that dispreciations, discreding words and all sights from upwards down are not fair and that other serious sights must be accepted as potential or possible alternative... 84.158.212.14 04:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

OK... but let's not debate that here. If it crops in the context of a wikipedia article where there is a verifiable idea not being given a fair hearing under the neutral point of view guideline, then we can deal with it then.

—Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 05:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Fritz Zwicky

(W. Kehler intermixed comments with my original. For clarity only, I have added boxes to his comments. No content changed. Cheers —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 10:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I am a bit annoyed with you about this.

Despite your making a fuss about my work on that article all up and down the various halls of wikipedia, the current biography continues to benefit from the work you did on it some months ago. I did not merely remove all your changes.

I removed two paragraphs which were flagrantly nonsensical,

being based on ideas from Lyndon Ashmore, who truly mangles very basic physics in support of his own private ideas that have no merit whatsoever.

From some of your comments above, I think maybe you now recognize just how bad those two paragraphs really were.

I notified people of the change in the discussion page, and then presented my concerns about what still remained. I put up in the discussion page my own proposed replacement text, and then waited for any input or discussion from other editors. You should do that kind of thing more often yourself, as well.

Two days later, after no-one else had commented, I went ahead to make the changes. The fact is that this was a biography of Zwicky, and it was simply not suitable for a long discussion of highly unconvential modern notions to recover some form of tired light by means that Zwicky himself had never proposed.

I replaced with a shorter section based on what I had already put up in the discussion page for others to comment upon. This short section focussed on Zwicky's own contributions and work; not on new original research, which was actually against wikipedia rules of no original research.

After that, I really got to work on the rest of the article, but by editting what was already in place. You gave a lot of material there that was really useful, and made a strong foundation for what is still there is the biography.
—Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 04:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 03:08, 25 July 2007

Lost Interest (by Duae Quartunciae)

Suddenly, I have somehow lost all interest in trying to help or reason with Kehler. See if you can figure out why. Disgusted —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 12:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, sorry, sorry

Lost interest like meanwhile nearly all of our club? Or nothing understood? Or simply no will to learn what we in our club have mainly still learnt?

Especially not wanting to find and understand that basis of all struggle:

No. I lost interest when you made an incredibly offensive comparison of the Wikipedia principle of consensus with the demagogue Adolf Hitler. Consensus means people trying to work together to reach an acceptable conclusion with input from all parties. If you have such a low view of consensus, then I have no interest in trying to reach any consensus with you.

Sorry to have hurt you, but I compared not WIKI-PRINCIPLES but effects of colored mainstream-meaning and following decisions with that beast; additionally I had to shut down urgently; and now only I had got time to put it wihin a planned related section declaring what I really meant! Sorry, indeed!!! 84.158.249.67 00:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

At present, you are working your way around this page modifying all kinds of existing comments of your own. I don't mind that; it can help a lot, in fact. I'm going to wait a bit, until you have finished making your changes, and then I will do any minor clean up required. Then I'll see if there is any point at all talking further. But this page has dropped into a very very low priority for me, mainly because of that insulting Hitler reference. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 23:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

That is mainly finished now and for a while I will stop for a longer time. Thanks for coming back, But please, please do no more confuse meanings with theories, papers and what I drastically see as Big bang religion meanwhile. Please believe me that also for me it was the most simple solution.

Meanwhole I PERSONALLY (not our club) find that ZWICKY had tricky taken the MOMENTUM, involving thereby the time-axis, taking then for a mass the photon's R-mass and then v=c with retarded potentials abd thereby got anyhow same effects as by GR curvatures in 4D, instead of gravity in 3D. I feel anyhow that it is the same like in Big bang solutions. But for me ZWICKY is simply more visible meanwhile and I am neither Einstein nor Feynman (for me the last genius)... - I'm tired, we are here at 2:40, thanks 84.158.249.67 00:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. I am more or less content with what we have both said at present. I still think your comparison with Hitler is odious and very offensive. But I'll let it go for now. You have made a special emphasis a couple of times on the matter of photon mass, so I'll comment further there. I think I have figured out what is happening here. The discussion on that point has been handicapped by some issues of language as much as of physics. We'll see. I'll put up a comment later in your new photon mass section. Can we please try to keep a simple focus on what is immediately relevant to photon mass. There will be time to look at other matters, but let's focus on this one for a while.

PHOTONS MASS

photon's relativistic mass is :$m={\frac {h\nu }{c^{2}}}\,.$ Basis of Einstein effects and gravitational redshift. 84.158.201.199 22:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I commented on this above, in my first reply. I explained that the term "relativistic mass" is not considered very useful in modern physics. I know what it means, but it is misleading when it comes to handling gravitation. You are better to use an energy term directly, and use "mass" to refer to the invariant rest mass, or inertial mass; like most modern physicists. What you are giving here is energy equivalent mass of a photon, sometimes called the relativistic mass. This is well understood. I also understand the gravitational redshift. It is not generally recommended for teaching physics to give the relativistic mass of a photon as the "basis" for gravitational redshift. This is not a matter of me failing to understand your sophisticated physics. It is simply a matter of what mass terms are the most useful. Inertial mass is generally considered to be the more useful mass concept in modern physics.

I personally hate words like "modern" OR "mainstream", especially in lelation to physics. It implies MEANING, igoring a theory AS IS 84.158.227.24 14:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

A serious problem in your discussion is that you are mixing up this notion with something very different. You've been citing, for example, a paper, which considers the possibility of a non-zero rest mass for a photon. Not relativistic mass; a non-zero rest mass.

REMINDER: the matter ist that in EUROPE obviously exist another kind of a real and non-zero PHOTON'S MASS than in USA! Arrogance? By whom? Perhaps provoking not only a here very well declared Pioneer anomaly?

The paper you have been citing is Tajmar, M.; de Matos, CJ., "Local Photon and Graviton Mass and its Consequences" (PDF), at arxiv:gr-qc/0602032. Now the funny thing is that despite all your comments about how horrible it is that everyone else fails to understand your physics, the truth of the matter is that Tajmar and de Matos are using the same notion of inertial mass, or rest mass, that I and most others of the people with some expertise in physics have been using.

REMINDER: Instead of Einstein's 4D, here a 5D Sturm-Luiville problem is solved by a discrete growing mass, a mathematical row beginning with one Zero mass.

This paper is NOT about relativistic mass.

Oh dear, why must everything be forced into GR?

Sorry but Brans-Dicke become in 2006 my personal favorite, much wider and even allowing non-GR [gravitation) potentials.

It is about a very small non-zero rest mass of a photon. This is a conflict with classical relativity and the standard model for particle physics, in which a photon has zero rest mass. That's fine. Classical physics is not a finished topic, and since relativity has not yet been satisfactorily combined with quantum physics, it is certain that there will be changes. We don't know what all the changes will be — if we did, we'd have the new physics right now. So one aspect of active research is to study directly the possibility of non-zero rest mass for a photon. This paper is in that tradition. There are a couple of flaws in the paper that I can see, and probably some that I cannot see... but the BIG thing that stands out here is the use of REST mass, NOT so-called relativistic mass. The authors of that paper are using mass in the same way that I use mass -- NOT the way you having been using it.

Please search Paul Marmet as linked above. Not only he tells you something about Newtonphysics and basic GR-faults, believe it or not...

The introduction to the paper quotes a photon and graviton mass of about 10^-69 kilograms. Just for fun, plug that into your formula for relativistic mass and calculate a frequency. See what you get.

Therefore GERNAM physicists say that the mainly forgotten general formula - because as zero taken - term my become relevant for an exact calculus. Therefore someone of you should be able to read some of above cited German links, even DE.WIKI... 84.158.227.24 14:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

For what it is worth, the major interest of the research by Tajmar and de Matos is their alleged experimental detection of a gravitomagnetic frame dragging effect many orders of magnitude larger than expected. I'm fascinated, but skeptical. Other scientists are trying to reproduce their results, I believe. I'm hanging out to hear what is found. But you risk missing out on all the interest of the matter if you don't understand the relevance and importance of rest mass, rather than relativistic mass.

—Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 13:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

very important PHOTON'S (ambiguous) ...mass(es) must be seen bothe, because the normal calculus is indefinite (by infinite term). 84.158.227.24 14:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Bad news about photon's mass

Previously in big hurry: Sorry about misunderstandings! You are right: Photon's (and graviton's!) rest mass and relativistic mass is the basic problem for understanding especially also for - let's say now more correctly - DOWNSCALING PHOTONS (as related now to Zwicky).

SIMPLY INCREDIBLY LUNATIC? Please realize:

• While here exist only photon's rest mass and it's relativistic mass is ignored...
• ...in Germany seem to exist only a real photon's relativistic mass
• while they even intend(ed see 1 month ago) there to erase related article photon's RUHEMASSE, way to find it: see below!
• You must go back there then in article RUHEMASSE until 23:33, 3. Jul. 2007 TDF to see intent to erase it.
• This would mean: rest mass of photons would no more exists there.
• Sorry: For us here simply lunatic!
• Sorry but like here in the contrary way)
• ...because for the German WIKI-ADMINISTRATOR [Benutzer:Allen McC] photons rest mass does simply not really exist - according "his" article - and he wants obviously not at all to enhance it and at least learn by an old Dr. physicist as well! - ???
• A friend of mine - the old Dr. of physics - had multiply tried (he said also or only with another friends computer?) to enhance the RUHEMASSE page, 23:33, 3. Jul. 2007 (TDF) in danger to be erased. It was multiply rv by German [Benutzer:Allen McC] to the awful status.

Way to find German articles:

Click http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#Masse and in that section blue link relativistische Masse and n that article Invariante Masse, Ruhemasse.

Sorry, but you must really look both least article's history since 1 month and that and how RUHEMASSE should be erased by WIKI-ADMINISTRATORS in (steady rv to this by Admin) version 23:33, 3. Jul. 2007 TDF because RUHEMASSE seem to makes no sense) and what the Admin-reverter has steadily done and with which comments insulting here a Dr. phys.!

We were instantly both at our club center and cooperate, my friend tried a last rv instantly and infored the steady reverter about a fundamental dispute about the matter of photon's rest and relativistic mass in EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG and warned him to rv it again meanwhile.

I am not concerned with the German wikipedia. I speak no German, and it would simply not be possible for me to make any useful input there. Furthermore, a wikipedia cannot be used as a reliable source in another wikipedia, for obvious reasons.

As for what appears here, the paper you have cited at arxiv by Tajmar and de Matos is not published, that I can see. Appearance at arxiv is certainly not any assurance of reliability. In the introduction to that paper, the authors speak with confidence of it being "known" that there is a non-zero rest mass for the photon. That's incorrect. All experiments so far confirm a zero rest mass up to the level of accuracy of the experiment, and so place lower bounds on rest mass that might appear in a new physics. As I understand the matter, the theoretical preference remains for a zero rest mass in unified theories.

Here now is what really matters from the perspective of wikipedia.

• The claim that a photon or graviton has a non zero rest mass is not something that can be presented in wikipedia as basic knowledge. It can be something presented as a hypothesis proposed by some individuals; and that then would need to be cited to papers in which the claim appears on their own behalf.

• The association of any putative non-zero photon rest mass with tired light is Original research. If that claim appears in a reliable source, then you can treat it in the same way as the non-zero rest mass itself — as a hypothesis made by some scientists. That would need to be backed up by a citation where the link from non-zero rest mass to tired light is made explicitly by the named authority. You may not present it as an inference you have made on your own behalf. In my own view, you will find this later much more difficult. The non-zero rest mass is perfectly legitimate non-standard hypothesis being seriously explored by good scientists. The association of photon mass with tired light as an alternative explanation for cosmological redshift is rather silly, and in quite fundamental conflict with basic empirical information from deep space observations.}}

• If you have treated other physicists at the German wikipedia as you have treated me, then your experience in the German wikipedia will be as unhappy as your experience here. The problem is not just confusion of two languages. You have in your edits here repeatedly dismissed me as ignorant and foolish and not reading your papers and so on, and claimed that you alone really understand the physics and that you should not have to engage with me in discussion pages because in fact you know the answers yourself. Your responses are long ramblings digressions into all kinds of perceived wrongs to dissident cosmologists and general claims of unfairness at wikipedia; but you have NOT settled down to give any kind of focussed discussion on the changes you would like to apply.

You must try to discuss the specifics of changes you are making to physics pages with other editors. You will find that I and others are not actually being left behind by any presumed superiority you have in understanding of the science involved. I think you need to engage discussion without random asides that no-one else understands and how unfair we all are. Stick to discussion directly pertinent to any proposed change. If unfairness shows up in a focussed discussion, then you may want to present an alert in the appropriate channels. But that alert will backfire if you are not seen to be engaging in good faith in the article discussions. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 21:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but if in USA dominated WIKI there exist only a photon's rest mass but no photon's relativistic mass and in Germany and many other contries there exixt only s photon's relativistic mass but no photons rest mass this must be a lack of knowledge of physics but never can be a fault of anyone who see such a stupor, ok? Or not?

Sorry, what you wrote here you will nowhere find written be me like this:

• "If you have treated other physicists at the German wikipedia as you have treated me,...

I myself have not had contacted any German WIKI-physicist about it!!!

• then your experience in the German wikipedia will be as unhappy as your experience here. The problem is not just confusion of two languages.

The following you never can prove, a bare invention as well:

• "You have in your edits here repeatedly dismissed me as ignorant

indeed, at least implicitely this you will find but no insults as you write then:

• and foolish

Sorry this is insulting ME as a bare invention!

• and not reading your papers

I myself have no papers! Please do not confuse ME with from us founf (30% from me found), here linked and cited but reverted internationally prior sources, e.g. only: ZWICKY's original official paper about what others stupidly called Tired light!!!

• and so on,

and what "so on" - please concretely...

• and claimed that you alone really understand the physics

I know that I know nothing! But I had named with support of other serious physicists as stupid now:

that and how EN.WIKI produces contrary photons physics to DE.WIKI and other WIKIs

meanwhile supported by even 2 professors of physics and some Drs...

• and that you should not have to engage with me in discussion pages because in fact you know the answers yourself.

Please FAIRNESS to the mentioned stupid fact and not such bare accusations...

• Your responses are long ramblings digressions into all kinds of perceived wrongs to dissident cosmologists and general claims of unfairness at wikipedia;

Mentioned different physics not only (!) in EN.WIKI and mentioned DE.WIKI shows clearly that at least one part is wrong - or not?

• but you have NOT settled down to give any kind of focussed discussion on the changes you would like to apply."

If anywhere in the world there exist two contradictory physics by the same Organization, and anyone claims seriously that one part of their phisicists here or there must then be stupuid or be victims of any thing like a dictatorship this accusation cannot be discussed - o.k?

I accuse such bare stupor of contradictory physics by the same Organization WIKI, ok?

Sorry, but I must go away now not to become angry and writing such insultations as accused

FINAL: Please imagine bare stupor and try to understand:

• A very famous international scientific newspaper would write in its English edition:

There exist only a photon's zero rest mass (it's relativistic mass ignored completely).

• And the same very famous international scientific newspaper writes in its German (and French) edition:

There can exist only a real photon's relativistic mass because photons are always restless.

A reader - let him be a pupil or a scientific or even an unskilled housewife - getting both articles, but knowing both languages having a problem now:

• Reader kindly writes to the German redaction: Sorry, but what is this, in your English publication I read the contrary of your German publication. And reader gets the answer: There can exist only a real photon's relativistic mass because photons are always restless.
• Then reader kindly writes to the English redaction: "What is this, in your German paper I read the contrary of your same newspaper." And gets the similar stupid answer: "There exist only a photon's zero rest mass and about photon's relativistic mass we have never heard."
• When reader insisted that this cannot be reader is accused by both parts of the same paper to be a layman having not any idea about physics OR (like here) to pretend to know everything better that their best physics experts.

Who would be the real problem? The reader? Or both part's redactors?

Don't you believe that serious redactions would apologize (instead of accusing)? wfc-k 84.158.242.51 18:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Problem, some related links

• See at first: Feynman's Cargo cult science as (published in [[1]]
• AND [Quantum-Teleportation] to learn that even superlight-speed-action / reaction really and seriously exist and that photon's behaviour cannot be understood by anyone (Feynman)!
• Extract was linked but reverted: Feynman.R.”Q.E.D.- the strange story of light and matter”, Penguin,London,1990 p76 (summary of his book is found e.g. in [[2]] p.5
• Then this is not supported by any wisdom of any physicist in the world and cannot be understood by any writer here or by supervisors of WIKI or be understandable by "their" (already holy?) GR!
• Sorry but the so called spooky thing called "Einstein's Spuk" exists, even Einstein could not believe or understand it, but he had accepted all serious alternatives of his meanings and theories. * It is Quantum mechanics! - A bit now also blasting Big bang?
• I simply suggest to copy Einstein's best exaple of fairness also here!

To our special problems

e.g. only: [An Open Letter to the Scientific Community] Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004, showing that and how everything else than Big bang is discredited and how and most effectively.

• You say that ARXIV.ORG must not seen as serious!-??? - OK, but:
• User:Duae Quartunciae erased Fritz Zwicky's even ORIGINAL PNAS-PAPER linked and cited [- F.Zwicky: On the Red Shift of Spectral Lines through Interstellar Space] p.775ff. (mainly p.777 and exactly p.778 to see that and how he used exactly photons above here named relativistic mass), incl. our short resume of the paper to make Zwicky's thoughts from that time understadable, especially for his critics - link to original paper and cites were here multiply erased!
• YOUR PROBLEM: What ZWICKY calculated was done obviously with the so called photon's non-zero(!!!) relativistic mass and photon's MOMENTUM.
• HERE COMPLETELY UNKNOWN AND THEREBY ERASED, because here only exist a zero rest mass!!!-???
• Bad suspicion of critics (or bare truth?):

Exists here a kind of a Big bang religion?

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang#Philosophical_and_religious_interpretations : WIKI Big-bang-section shows at least how many religions support - even as "enthusiastic proponents" - the Big Bang;
• Is that theory more fanatically religious seen than at least considering any contradictory reality (see above how John Dobson's video can convince his spectators because too many people do not believe in Big bang at all)?

Who can object what he said here

E.g. only: If at Schwarzschild radius the time stops by the super big mass of a Black hole, how can light begin at a super-super-super big massive mass (having it's Schwarzschild radius as well) of a Big bang? And other for a bit "normally thinking" and not (good or bad? in one sense only?) "educated" people too many remaining mor illogic things than e.g. Zwicky's Tired light...

• Can at least here in WIKI exist a serious scientific behaviour - and discussion - about different meanings and theories especially with RESPECT but without any discreditation?
• Especially without any depreciation by one (for a certain theory evidently not at all skilled) person against another (proponent of a) theory,
• Here all reverting by saying that the one by all (???) or mainly acknowledged mainstream theory has quasi completely made absurd any another older formerly mainly acknowledged theory?
• Must or even "can" mainstream's MEANINGS (see bad example of a lunatic "mainstream" above!) be ever and totally valid against all objections?
• Here against meanwhile already hundreds very serious, thousands still rather serious and hundred thousands bare contradictory meanings you can find by searching?

Especially

Can edits and discussions exist at least here without depreciations by anyhow induced "mainstream-thinking"?

• Can alternatives exist here at least without defamation (here e.g.: Zwicky's former Standard model with original links and cites was rigidly erased with all mainly other serious linked and named and cited papers?
• Why was called "crank" (by induced nothing else understanding mainstream proponents?).
• ZWICKY should also be an absurd theory because of making "scattering light"?
• ...but Feynman showed that - for him and his students not understandable he wrote said - not only crystals but also good glass makes not any "scattering light". This was named and linked, but here called (shortened) absurd physics (Feynman's former paper is mainly still visibly reproduced vocally to be heard by himself in http://vega.org.uk/video/programme/46)!

What do WP:PHYS know about Photons and even GR?

• See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exact_solutions : "This article or section may be confusing or unclear for some readers."
• And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solutions_of_the_Einstein_field_equations/ : "This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject."
• We tried to impose for the first time everywhere well-known solutions, ERASED (by Big-bang people meaning that mathematically multiply infinite mathematical solutions are meanwhile all overruled by mainstream?), see our proposal, as erased:
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Solutions_of_the_Einstein_field_equations&oldid=142221128#Known_solutions , promptly reverted!

wfc-k 84.158.238.94 19:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

NEWEST FURTHER BARE DIFFAMATION

• QUESTION ABOVE: "Tell me one serious source not considering at all the photon's relativistic mass at all."
• ANSWER: "The association of photon mass with tired light as an alternative explanation for cosmological redshift is rather silly..."
• AND TO COMPLETELY ERASED MAIN SECTION: "I removed two paragraphs which were flagrantly nonsensical".
• Erasing complete ZWICKY-section Tired light was commented as "krank"...physics...

Evidence: Not having understood ZWICKY's paper, but removed

• REMINDER ORIGINAL PNAS-PAPER was linked and cited [- F.Zwicky: On the Red Shift of Spectral Lines through Interstellar Space] p.775ff. he took the gravitational potential to prove by assumed homogenous isotropic distributions of by this (also, like for standard Big bang!!!) linear growing effect of gravitational redshift. Until p.778 he presents a temporal differetial of the gravitational potential. Then he takes a MOMENMTUM m*v of any mass and any velocity. Then he takes v=c. Then for that speed c necessary (Einstein's own) retarded potentials and then above named relativistic mass of photons

• p. 778, ZWICKY personally wrote, by PNAS trans. in English (not any excuse for you not to know German),original copy:

"Going over to the case of light, we have v = c and m = hv/c².

We conclude by analogy that a relation of the above type still is valid,

especially as it can be derived by simply using dimensional reasoning."

Your Problem: not able to understand or event to read his paper?

• OF ALL WHAT ZWICKY WROTE HERE (sorry for crying so loudly! Accused "Silly"-ness and "krank"-ness is defamation - against all WIKI-principles - and can make angry...):
• What ZWICKY calculated there was done obviously with the so called photon's non-zero(!!!) multiply named here and internationally as photon's relativistic mass and photon's retarded potential.
• Presenting again and again now ZWICKY's own words (not us, only citing it!!!) named by you as "krank" and now as "silly".

Proved: Your OR our incompetence about (only that?) physics?

#### Sorry, but who is "silly"? We? Zwicky? You? #######

This shows at least that until now you have simply not read at all (even refuse furthermore rigidly?) to read at least only that Zwicky's original paper!

Now multiply taught formula, even now in English trans. by PNAS!

We can perhaps teach you a bit in physics if you want to read, but we are unable to teach you reading such a scientific paper:

Please read at first - and then please shut up by now proved incompetence for that visibly defamed matter - or not?

84.158.200.249 10:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Sheesh, Kehler, settle down. Try to focus. I am certainly not going to try and resolve every single little difference you have with my understanding of physics all at once. I have tried to focus on one thing at a time. Previously, you singled out photon mass as the most important thing.

Your suggestion to priorly see photon's mass - see above!84.158.246.48 13:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

So please, let's just deal with that for a bit. I have a reply in preparation on that subject. I won't post anything until it looks like you have finished with modifying your comments, then I will make a comment on photon mass.

So far, your additions to this page are almost impossible to read, horribly formatted, and show no focus at all. Every time, you generate a long rambling diatribe going over a whole pile of supposed grievances, with so many headings and bullet points and capital letters and font variations that any of the clarity such typography ought to provide is lost entirely. It's not just a problem with language. I don't mean that to be nasty, but as a bit of honest advice about trying to communicate. You need to calm down, take things one at a time. We will be able to make progress if you can just try to focus.

Ok, calm down and focus! My personal comment: haven't we any right to feel insulted for (cited) words? 84.158.246.48 13:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

If you will just stay on one topic for a bit,

Ok, at first: At least photons relativistic mass exist anyhow utilized by the old physicists and partly until now. Ambivalently treated even by Einstein himself not understood (his words!), once using it, once meaning it is not useful, than again useful, than not, etc - at least confirming himself not to understand Planck's quantum mechanics as spooky. Only Feynman was able to impose at least a clear theory, not understood by himself, but acknowledged by science until today.

History at Zwicky's time that other physics were valid and for his colleagues quite clear; and his at that time first rank theory has at least to be respected and nowhere depreciated - ok? Until now even mentioned terms about photons and gravitons and bosons masses are in steady discussion. 84.158.246.48 13:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Especially nearly all Big bang "enemies" take gravitational redshift anyhow as their basis and should not be depreciated or even defamed - ok?

...like ZWICKY: he calculated Gravitational redshift in a gravitational potential assuming for a simple calculation homogenous, isotropic distributed masses (I forgot who had alreade imposed such a theory since about 1880). 84.158.246.48 13:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)84.158.246.48 13:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

...we can go on to Zwicky's paper in a day or two, if you like. And yes, of course I have read it, quite some time ago. I've also known the basics of his proposal for years. We can talk about that soon; about what he does and does not do, and how it does or does not relate to work done by others since then. But for now, I am trying to put together a concise comment on the matters you raised in relation to photon mass. If you are going to refuse to even consider that I might actually know some physics, and might have read Zwicky's papers and other works and have reached some conclusions that differ from yours, then just say say so and we can forget the whole conversation. Because I will not bother with you any further under those circumstances. It's up to you. Cheers —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 12:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course, that is all what we ever wanted! And my father as former chief redactor of a middle ranged newspaper taught me that serious redaction must distinguish between

* papers and their content,

* its critics (written, cited),

* meanings of a redactor or anybody else,

* all done never with dany epreciation or defamation.

COULD THIS BECOME A CONSENT TO BEGIN A POSITIVE WORK?84.158.246.48 13:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

If we have better time, we want go a bit in vacancies for about two weeks and without Internet. I hope you can understand that a new-born baby not let calm. What was written here was steadily interrupted and had to be revised anew. And still my left hand always try to write much faster (about 4 times) than the impeded right hand. - Can you apologize at least my personal faults? wfc_k 84.158.246.48 13:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Gravitons, bosons etc. with the same problem

cited, article gravitons, section:

Is gravity like the other forces?

• Some question the analogy which motivates the introduction of the graviton. Unlike the other forces, gravitation plays a special role in general relativity in defining the spacetime in which events take place. Because it does not depend on a particular spacetime background, general relativity is said to be background independent.

but then:

• In contrast, the Standard Model is not background independent. In other words, general relativity and the standard model are incompatible.

finally:

• A theory of quantum gravity is needed in order to reconcile these differences. Whether this theory should itself be background independent, or whether the background independence of general relativity arises as an emergent property is an open question. The answer to this question will determine whether gravity plays a "special role" in this underlying theory similar to its role in general relativity.

If related gravitons exist...

cited, see link below:

• "If it exists, the basic graviton must be massless (because the gravitational force has unlimited range) and must have a spin of 2 (because gravity is a second-rank tensor field).
• CONTRADICTION?: [Braneworlds, conformal fields and the gravitons] (IOP PUBLISHING JOURNAL OF PHYSICS A: MATHEMATICAL AND THEORETICAL, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 40 (2007) 6991–6997, publ. June 2007) handles a 5D space to show graviton perturbations and their mass eigenvalues and wavefunctions from a Sturm–Liouville problem demanding besides a massless graviton (localized on the positive tension branes) an infinite discrete set of increasingly massive gravitons.

• NON-ZERO MASS: ...get masses in steps according to a frequency, similar to massless photons getting a Planck mass m = h $\nu \$ /c². De Matos and Tajmar found within a superconductor experiment that they had to set the graviton mass to be 10^-54 kilograms (Physica C, vol 432, p 167)".

• OTHERS GOT ABOUT THE SAME AMOUNT FOR A (REST-)MASS!!!

— wfc_k 84.158.213.187 13:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Gravity is different, and that reconciling relativity with quantum mechanics will require new developments in physics. I've never denied this; I say the same thing myself frequently in discussions of physics... please for the love of Harry can we just focus on one thing at a time! Good grief! Also, for the sake of clarity...

1. Please don't break up my paragraphs with your comments; and certainly don't break up my sentences.
2. In answer to a question above... no, you do not have the right to be insulted by my words. I presume you were speaking of the word "crank", which you have gone on and on and on about. You never cited it properly, and you've completely distorted what I actually said. I did not use the word of you personally, or of Zwicky, or of Zwicky's research. I used the phrase "crank science" once, in the discussion page for the Fritz Zwicky biography. Here is how I used it:

The two sections that I refer to in that sentence were based on the ideas of Lyndon Ashmore, with whom I am very familiar indeed. I was not describing Zwicky — who was a true genius, a giant of twentieth century astronomy. I was not describing any individual person, but rather the physics itself. I don't know who in your club wrote those sections. If you have not read Ashmore's work carefully, then best not to commit yourself to defending it. But if you are familiar with Ashmore's ideas and seriously want to defend them, then I'll be happy to take that up in its turn. In the meantime, please settle down, and stop fussing about supposed insults. You're talking here to me, and right or wrong, I speak for myself only. I try to be well informed about the topics I discuss, but the opinions I express are my own. I'm not responsible for other people, and I think I have treated you more than fairly, even though we disagree on some matters. Let's PLEASE try to stick to substance. I'll make a comment on the photon mass issues shortly, and with luck we will soon have our perspectives plainly stated, with any differences clearly identified. That's progress, and then we can look at the next topic.

Congratulations on the baby, if I understand you right! Don't let this discussion take up more time than you want to commit. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 14:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Photon Mass

Please leave this section only for stuff relating to photon mass. I see four issues where we might be able to reach agreement or at least clarify our differences. —Duae Quartunciae

I personally found that the main struggles between theories are founded by taking and calculating the PHOTON'S MASS disambiguously. One trying only to understand the other could calm many, many scientiic's souls. I suggest a new article Photon's relativistic mass because the normal relativistic mass only confuses by well-known indefinite terms 84.158.231.112 14:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Rest mass and relativistic mass

The word "mass" is used sometimes of "relativistic mass" and sometimes of "rest mass". I know both terms, and I know what they mean. It is apparent that you do as well, so this should not be an issue for us.

EXACTLY, see above my personal suggestion. But Photon's relativistic mass is not covered initially by relativistic mass 84.158.250.134 14:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Different physicists have different preferences for using the unqualified term "mass" of relativistic mass, or of rest mass. There's no real problem here, as long as people are clear about what convention they are using and of course as long we don't introduce errors by (for example) treating either notion of mass as something you can substitute into Newtonian physics without concern for the details of general relativity. —Duae Quartunciae

EXACTLY, see above my personal suggestion. If all parts of cosmology would at least accept both the Photon's relativistic mass and the (quasi) zero Photon's rest mass they could at least find better common solutions.84.158.250.134 14:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The proper treatment of gravity in relativity is by the stress energy tensor. Fussing about conventions of terminology is trivial as long as we both recognize that the basic underlying physics requires more than any single scalar quantity, be it either rest mass or relativistic mass. Neither scalar is sufficient of itself for finding the gravitational consequences. —Duae Quartunciae

Sorry not being able to show that there exist a theory saying roughly: The GR tensor can in reality only have 4 scalars [+1, -1, -1 , -1]. If I remember well, because Schrödinger had shown that anyhow by frequency transformations (Fourier transformation) all elements in different directions are depending one to the other and that the rest of the matrix must thereby be Zero! - ???84.158.250.134 14:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Planck and photon mass

You have repeatedly spoken of Planck calculating a rest mass for the photon. I do not believe this is correct. No citation has been given for Planck having performed such a calculation. —Duae Quartunciae

The paper you have cited by Tajmar and de Matos refers rather to a calculation provided by Tu, Luo and Gillies, based on Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Using (ΔE)(Δt) > ħ/2, and using the age of the universe for time, they obtain an energy bound, which has the mass equivalence you have mentioned of about 10^-69 kg.

Tajmar and de Matos totally misrepresent what this number means. In their paper, they say that it is "well known" that the mass of the photon must be non zero, and then go on to cite Tu etal. as giving a limit. But in fact, Tu etal. present their value not as a known lower bound on mass, but as a value below which any mass would make no observable difference. Tu etal. are not suggesting that the photon mass is known to be non-zero. They recognize that zero rest mass, as conventionally presumed in classical physics, remains a valid possiblity. —Duae Quartunciae

ESA says the same...

See above my personal meaning also to this one calculates with one kind of mass the other by the other one - or not?

I'd like to make advocatus diaboli for other meanings 84.158.250.134 14:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Experimental tests of photon rest mass

Conventional classical physics treats the photon as a massless particle -- meaning no rest mass. We know that classical physics is incomplete and will need to be modified. We do not know whether such changes will require non-zero rest mass for the photon. Experimental work has put upper bounds on any rest mass; but not lower bounds... with one possible exception... the work by Tajmar and de Matos with rotating super conductors.

Tajmar and de Matos claim to have detected frame dragging effects many orders of magnitude greater than was expected from classical physics, and propose that this is caused by gauge symmetry breaking and a huge mass for photons within the superconductor. From this, they consider various ways of inferring a much smaller but non-zero rest mass within normal matter. Their results remain controversial, but they are taken seriously. As I said to you previously, I am very interested to hear about attempts to replicate their results, which are apparently now underway.

I see no problem with citing their work in a Wikipedia article; but it would be wrong to cite it as a generally accepted result. It is not a direct measurement of a photon mass; there is a considerable amount of theoretical assumption involved. Beyond that I am not going to attempt to judge. What I think you need to understand is that this is not a simple measurement of a non-zero mass that can be cited in an encyclopedia as if it was an established result. It can be presented as a serious investigation and proposal for a small non-zero rest mass in photons, and in gravitons. —Duae Quartunciae

There is a readable popular account of this work from New Scientist last year. It was the cover story on November 11, 2006; issue 2577. Here is a link.[3] —Duae Quartunciae

I had put it at first into - by you mainly erased - by me personally a bit improved artice anti-gravity.

Could we agree that WIKI-readers must priory by rather serious seemeing LINKS and such articles be enabled to decide themselves what they believe and what not?

My father (chief-redactor) had told me that sources are relevant to be distinguished with (redactor's) meanings to enable people's own meaning!-???

Photon mass and tired light

The association of a putative non-zero rest mass for the photon and tired light explanations of cosmological redshift is a distinct matter entirely. If you want to make that link, then you need to cite it explicitly to a reliable published reference. That is the basic rule at Wikipedia. —Duae Quartunciae

non-zero rest mass is less than a 4th rank matter84.158.243.104 15:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

You are rather unclear in what you are actually proposing. You have cited a proposal for scattering off electrons, in which the rest mass plays no role. You also advocate Zwicky's tired light ideas; he explicitly (and correctly) rejected scattering as a possibility, and considered instead gravitational interactions and relativistic mass. You also suggest that a non-zero rest mass has some significance, but without any clear connection between rest mass and tired light.

THAT IS OUR MAIN DISPUTE TO BE SOLVED:

"You also advocate Zwicky's tired light ideas; he explicitly (and correctly) rejected scattering as a possibility, and considered instead gravitational interactions and relativistic mass." - let us be more correct taking ONLY(!!!) - like Zwicky - a non-zero frequency depending Photon's relativistic mass because the normal relativistic mass only confuses by indefinite terms and it's mass for photons at v=c. Forget HERE any non-zero rest mass. ok? 84.158.243.104 15:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Zwicky's proposal made no reference to rest mass; he simply used relativistic mass. He did not do a complete analysis, but a crude analogy, with a suggestion that this would be worth investigating further. In the final page of his 1929 paper, he proposes that it would be a good idea to put this on a sound theoretic footing using General relativity. That is, Zwicky did not give a sound theoretical analysis himself, and did not claim to give a sound theoretical analysis. He gave an analogy, and he said so plainly. —Duae Quartunciae

Wouldn't it good to simply cite him correctly and showing his basis called now better Photons relativistic mass and new Downscaling photons instead of stupidly by others so called Tired light? 84.158.243.104 15:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

As it turns out, the analogy does not actually work very well. You can't put the kind of effect Zwicky was considering on a solid basis using general relativity. You can't cite Zwicky as giving such a basis, because he is quite explicit that this is not what he is doing. You can't cite papers on non-zero rest mass and then assert on your own behalf that tired light consequences will result. In Wikipedia, you need to give a reliable published source that makes this linkage explicit.

HERE I HAVE A GRAVE PROBLEM TO HEAR THE CONTRARY OF ABOVE:

You had realized correctly that ZWICKY used by Planck given non zero Photon's relativistic mass with serious calculations by taking MOMENTUM and retarded potentials as cited with links of ORIGINAL ZWICKY.

And here you suddenly demand that Zwicky has to be founded on "serious" GR! - ???

Sorry, but no theory must be enforced to be founded - additionally always - on any another theory. A serious paper speeks for itself and the reader has to decide what he believes.

Not only the already named dissidents but also Paul Marmet's Newtonphysics has to be considered more seriously, even while objecting faults of GR in http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/EINSTEIN/index.html

OUR PROBLEM: We all want seriously to know their physics better than all those old Professors did! - ???84.158.243.104 15:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

That will be very hard to do, as I have already said, because there is now a strong independent empirical basis for rejecting any kind of tired light effect, in the light curves of high-z supernovae. Tired light could explain a redshift. It does not explain the stretching of the light curve. Cosmological expansion naturally explains both. —Duae Quartunciae

ERROR: Now only possible by dark energy etc.!

Already Halton Arp had indicated similar problems; and above named papers pretend even better having predicted such facts!-???

By adding other effects (like a kind of anti-gravity-effect) additionally, also ZWICKY would have no problem at all; he was the first one to see, impose and calculate already Dark matter - at that time a laughter-stock...

A bare superposition of by us cited, imposed, named, rv-erased 6 known GR-solutions are valid mathematical(!!!) solutions and should already cover all what even Big bang is accused to can it not... 84.158.243.104 15:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

My position on the points listed above is as follows.

(1) The term "mass" is used by different people to refer to rest mass, or to relativistic mass. As long as people are clear on their usage, no confusion should result. Neither scalar quantity is sufficient by itself to get all the details of gravitation.

The problem is that the term and usage of Photon's relativistic mass is here completely unknown - while in Germany the Standard - while in Germany the quasi zero Photon's rest mass shall die in WIKI because photons are obviously rest-less - sorry but is this not also much more logically?84.158.233.30 16:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

(2) Plank did not calculate a lower bound on rest mass for a photon. Some authorities have given a lower bound, such that any rest mass below that value will likely have no observable consequences. Tajmar and de Matos are incorrect to cite that as a known lower bound on photon rest mass.

Who calculated the black body radiation and a limit at f=0?84.158.233.30 16:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

(3) Most experimental tests have found no measurable rest mass for photons. Tajmar and de Matos have an intriguing experiment which they do interpret as showing massive photons. Their interpretation is controversial, but taken seriously. It is not a well established conclusion, but an active hypothesis.

REMINDER OF REMINDER OF REMINDER: Both Einstein effects, especiallly Gravitational redshift were first proofs. Einstein wanted to see it and saw it in 1905 and later. There exist not any contradiction that it was an effect of above multiply named photons mass.84.158.233.30 16:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

(4) The connection between a putative non-zero rest mass and tired light is lacking. Zwicky never needed it; he used relativistic mass in an analogy with conventional matter; and he never completed a full relativistic analysis to confirm his hypothesis.

SORRY YOU STEADILY CONFUSE NOW BY ZWICKY WRITTEN, USED Photon's relativistic mass with a "putative non-zero rest mass", Has the autor changed here to say the contrary of above?

The autor of that new bare stupor has to read ZWICKY, has to read the ORIGINAL PAPER LINK now written so multiply that people of my club begin to vomite, I was phoned instantly...

They became tired to argue to what YOU have to read, before writing such incredible YOUR MEANINGS, instead of reading and realizing facts...84.158.233.30 16:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

4D-Spacetime not suffices! E.g. for mentioned bot for us as not yet relevant seen 5D problems.

And like 3D has 3 projections in 3 planes, finally being reduced in 3 coordinates,

4D-space has 4 * 3D-projections. If you put yourself so incredibly sophistically - as genius ZWICKY did - in a crooked axis ct the temporal differential of a MOMENTUM at coordinate dt(ct) becomes simple (I let you calculate it because I think meanwhile you cannot find the solution! Or can you?); this becomes a sufficient solution also for GR because light will run with v=c along a 1D-line for by him calculated resulting Gravitational redshift at a given potential line. That calculation along so called Natural coordinates (here called Geographic coordinate systems) needs no 4D-space but for calculation(!) only one - by a physicist sophistically taken - coordinate, no matter in which space, eihter in 2D OR 3D OR 4D OR 5D... 84.158.233.30 16:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

== Sorry can"t you read? ==

YOU ANSWER SUDDENLY BARE STUPOR, ADDITIONALLY EXACTLY THE CONTRARY OF ABOVE:

(5) Non-zero rest mass does raise the interesting prospect of interactions between photons and gravitons, but there is currently no clear quantified proposal for how that could work, or give rise to tired light. Any such model faces major difficulties in the explaining empirical observations from deep space that indicate expansion of the space between photons, and not merely stretching of wavelength.

SORRY YOU STEADILY CONFUSE NOW

BY ZWICKY WRITTEN, USED Photon's relativistic mass with a

BY YOU INVENTED (IN ORDER TO CONFUSE OR TO MAKE US VOMITE?)

"putative non-zero rest mass",

Has the autor changed here to say the contrary of above? 84.158.233.30 16:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need to get agreement on these issues. Some qualified agreement will be useful; and if there are outstanding differences let's just try for a clear statement of where we disagree, and then move to look at something else. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 08:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Suddenly in total contrary to what was stated by you above and what you seemed to have understood quite clearly!-??? 84.158.233.30 16:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

REMINDER: LECTURES ON PHYSICS

Mass is energy and energy can be seen anyhow as mass said Einstein with

E=mc².

Photons with a frequency have an energy said Planck

E=hv. - (Planck's nu)

Thus photons with energy have of course a related frequency-dependent mass.... The more frequency the more mass and vice versa. Those who have not understand those basic physics have to shut up instead of calling Fritz Zwycky's theory as "krank" because he utilized exactly that kind of mass in his theory! Sorry physics and science and theories are no matter of a democracy but more or less proved facts and (here) seriously founded (or not) theories – or those pupils shall have still not a "vote" here to what they do not know.

Photons relativistic mass is then

$m={\frac {h\nu }{c^{2}}}\,.$ (Planck's nu, used by ZWICKY and nearly all BB-dissidents).

p. 778, ZWICKY personally wrote, using that mass

by PNAS trans. in English (not any excuse for you not to know German),original copy:

"Going over to the case of light, we have v = c and m = hv/c².

We conclude by analogy that a relation of the above type still is valid,

especially as it can be derived by simply using dimensional reasoning."

Please read link to realize what he used!

...instead of inventing bare stupor: by you suddenly pretended that he had used at any time anywhere a non zero rest mass!-???

Sorry but are we now in a lunatic asylum?

asked by phone now Dr.Haup, Highscool Prof. having taught Physics also in a college...

Did you really understand the core of all?

PREVIOUSLY:

• I will put some direct answers above, the rest is found here.
• And: it was not good to hide all sections like this, because we - less I myself - have some problems to see and realize what was written before; I myself will put REMINDERS to what I wrote and what you answered visibly not correctly;
• My friends at their home far from me cannot find easily anything now, to support me:
• even clicking in the table at the top has no effect. Please put it back well visible for all, ok?

1. PRIORY: Our common consent was that our basic problem is PHOTONS' (see below why capitalized!) zero rest mass and non-zero, frequency depending PHOTONS' relativistic mass;

• perhaps better to be put in a new section Photons' relativistic mass?
• That was and must be our prior focus as consent, ok?

2. SECONDARY: To related Photons' relativistic mass based alternatives, named (dissidents') theories - anyhow based on Gravitational redshift as it's main effect, mainly not acknowledging any zero rest mass.

• Reminder, not answered: In DE.WIWI Photons' relativistic mass is a leading part for photons and Rest mass shall even be erase, but in EN.WIKI it is the contrary; and thereby any difference is even not found at all.

3. Fritz Zwicky's one - cited and linked multiply, but core not yet realized by you - most prominent proponent of (now better so called) "Downscaling photons" stupidly named not by him but by others Tired light. As it was originally calculated by himself:

• exactly as linked - BUT FALSELY CITED (see above)!
• and cited exactly above - BUT FALSELY CITED (see above)!
• SIMPLIFICATION, as calculated by him: A homogenous (and isotropic) field, initiated by equally distributed elements of masses; thus making a more and more increasing gravitational field potential (a theory already known since 1880);
• By him instead sophistically involving MOMENTUM (by differentiation: dt) of a by v running mass in order not to collide with Einstein's GR and his new 4th axis ct; then taking v=c; then taking its well-known retarded potential; thus calculating quasi the same redshift like Hubble (some say even better)!!!
• Equivalently (not yet found a theory from about 1880): Inner mass of a growing sphere of homogenous mass-distribution, calculated either by increasing potential or (easier understood) by an increasing mass inside of a steadily increasing shell by Gauss' theorem.
• Both theories must calculate from the gravitational potential starting from any Zeropoint for its thus steady growing gravitational field.

4. An article "Downscaling photons" would be much better, instead of all normal people only confusing (but furthermore really stupidly so named) Tired Light.

5. The last part for related similar Gravitons was a side finding, not yet priory relevant to our in consent so called focus:

• The secondary effect of ZWICKY's Tired light on the prior basis of PHOTON's Relativistic mass as by nearly all "dissidents" of the Big bang anyhow utilized Gravitational redshifts: As intrinsic redshift or too badly so called Tired light, much better to be called now "Downscaling photons" in a Gravitational field.

Discussion makes no sense without accepting a rigid calculus for PHOTON's(!!!) Relativistic mass:

Photons relativistic mass defined by E=mc² and E=hv gives $m={\frac {h\nu }{c^{2}}}\,.$.

• By you steadily only taken normal definition of a normal Relativistic mass makes no sense at all! Only a in EN.WIKI not yet found Photon's relativistic mass, because the normal known term gets indefinit for photons at v=c because any mass gets infinite at v=c; but by Planck it has got a rescindable solution; by his calculus mass got linear "downscaling" frequency depending (in the same manner as by Big bang, with partly even better results - say many of the "Big-bang-dissidents").
• To Einstein effects our about 90 y.o. French Prof. told us that Einstein did provoke experiments because he initially could not really believe that there must exist gravitational effects.

6. At first: Planck equation E=hv was mainly physicists and Einstein's reason to talk with E=mc² about PHOTONS' Relativistic mass but not yet about its Rest mass.

• Our experts had told me that Planck calculated or asymptotically anyhow had found for frequency f=0 a quasi ZERO rest mass of about 10^-64 (Black body radiation at f=0?) and I remember to have seen something like this.

7. Thus a NON-ZERO REST MASS of photons was a side found co-notation of a newest paper showing that mathematically only a 5D-space suffices but that Einstein's 4D-space not suffices more (I had found another - written by a woman - calculating the same way and result)...

• Saying: Graviton's mass (like photons) mathematically has ONE zero rest mass but it's mass must increase discretely (obviously according to minimal stages of a Planck Quantum by frequency).

FINAL TO AMBIGUOUS PHOTON'S MASSES

• Please restore completely all our discussion - without hidden parts - to show how we were defamed multiply by your words and how you once said now you have understood ZWICKY using non zero RELATIVISTIC mass

done, ok! 84.158.212.221 14:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

What is valid for you!

• Finally saying the total contrary now from above? WHY? 84.158.212.221 14:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere existing here ZWICKY'S non zero REST mass

• pretending falsely: one in ZWICKY nowhere existing non zero REST mass
• Our consent was: there should only be considered a real zero rest mass
• and what must be called now a Photon's relativistic mass
• as the basic problem for struggles,
• e.g. for understanding not only alternative physics anyhow, like - by you above so confirmed: - genius Zwicky, working at must famous CalTech, the only Physicist he praised was the other - perhaps last genius physicist? - Feynman.

Sorry, I think you have not at all the profile to become a critic for such a GENIUS - or anyone other named before, even not understanding Asmore's theory (you must not understand defamations as I cannot understand) ...

• We showed that ZWICKY had explicitly used the last photon's mass and never what you pretended,
• but - nearly only in EN.WIKI - Photon's relativistic mass is simply not found at all,
• Finally even defending to name such basic facts and related

links and cites of by people needed basic papers of basic (here old) Physics.84.158.251.210 14:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Theories and papers are AS IS

SORRY, BUT SUCH BASIC PAPERS AND THINGS AND PHYSICS CAN NOT BE ANYHOW DISCUSSED, THEY ARE "AS IS" !!!

• Allowed must be to cite critics, but not redactors MEANINGS about their contents,
• even not about - here visibly as well defamed - Ashmore. 84.158.212.221 14:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

SORRY, BUT SUCH BASIC PAPERS AND THINGS AND PHYSICS CAN NOT BE ANYHOW DISCUSSED, THEY ARE AS IS !!! May allow to cite critics but not MEANINGS about their contents, even not about here visibly as well defamed Ashmore. 84.158.212.221 14:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC) 84.158.249.100 17:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

REMINDER: DE.WIKI, FR.WIKI, ES.WIKI

You got already the

• DE.WIKI German links supporting mainly the contrary of EN.WIKI, that photon's non-zero relativistic mass is the most important and the zero rest mass only a special case (at f=0).
• In ES.WIKI you cannot find a non-zero rest mass of Photons. A few links are red (inexistant), but found it's relativistic mass.
• In FR.WIKI I realy found mainly your zero-mass but also: "On notera que, dans ce cadre, parler du référentiel du centre de masse d'un système formé d'une particule à masse non nulle et d'une particule sans masse (par ex. photon) est possible." - meaning there exist a non-zero zero and a zero mass for photons... in [[4]].

Sorry but isn't it really silly if the same WIKI writes here this and there the contrary

At least here irrelevant photon's terms exists everywhere anyhow - totally ingnored in EN.WIKI

EN.WIKI not reliable?

For all "dissidents" (see above) this means that the most important EN.WIKI is not reliable!

Perhaps (made so?) to support one kind of astronomy only supporting depreciations of all Non-standard cosmologies based anyhow on Photon's gravitational redshift as here (arbitrarily?) ignored? - Bad suspicion: In order to support one side only, while all other can easily be considered then as "nonsense", "silly", "krank" etc, what most known "dissidents" had experienced here like we?

Giving up?

I give up trying to edit this page into something readable. I had never removed any of your content.

Nowhere you find such a sentence as you write!84.158.249.35 12:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Everything was present within boxes that could be expanded or closed as desired. I've removed that, and brought back the stream of consciousness that you apparently think explains things to your satisfaction.

WHY steady false accusations? - Not able to read? Not at all to understand? The fact:

Those in vacancies few remaining people here for such things being still engaged in our 3 clubs are mainly pensioners; many of them high, a few very high qualified, e.g. in medicine or mathematics or physics; a few of them directly educated in astronomy. Formerly (as I, now at least becoming a critic as well, by evident UNFAIRNESS), all others former mainly Big bang fans, now have become partly very angry "dissidents";

Distributed around about 100 miles, a few saw until now what I do, not daring or able to interfere themselves because of their lack of knowledges about PC's.

Some of them - like mentioned Prof. about 90 y.o. - never had used a computer themmselves some never formerly (making here some grave faults by this lack of knowledge).

Mentioned Dr. of Physics had recently tried to save in DE.WIKI (in EN.WIKI sole existing) Photons rest mass in German WIKI. Because it should be erased as announced by DE.WIKI-Administrators, dated July 03. What here is sole valid, the (for them stupid?) Photons' rest mass, should be erased in Germany (see above link, DE.WIKI-status July 03) as indicated by DE.WIKI-Administrators.

He - as an High-school Prof. of Physics, having made lectures in colleges - was obviously depreciated as well (if not defamed) by above mentioned and for you already correctly to Germany linked GERMAN Benutzer:Allen McC..

A BIG PROBLEM FOR SUCH (OLD) PEOPLE TRYING TO BEGIN TO HELP WIKI: I saw now that his - at a friend and/or his children? - used AOL-IP was used anyhow formerly by other people in DE.WIKI!

I felt now that such "alien's" IPs who had perhaps done anything wrong at any time in WIKI, are (put in an index?), then in WIKI really chased? 84.158.212.86 20:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• No matter what people write: if splendid, only good or really bad or stupid.
• I can understand this WIKI-manner, of course!!! !!! !!!
• But meanwhile I believe: WIKI chased perhaps not only our dynamic IP but also similar IPs of "aliens".
• Should a really qualified Administrator not realize a good basic content? Should he help old, at PC partly helpless acting old men but obviously real experts in their stuff? Or other qualified people? To make WIKI more perfect? 84.158.212.86 20:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

That kind of Photon's mass and Zwicky's theory

You have invested an enormous level of significance in the term "relativistic mass", which is simply the total energy of a particle expressed in units of mass.

Again and again basic physics: mass is energy and each energy has the effect of a mass, even by gravity.

Because of grave misunderstanding I wish to call it now Photons relativistic mass:

To prevent such incorrect MEANINGS by no facts, no theory, but bare destruction. We (often now I only) had proposed multiply to name it so newly.

That calculus was by ZWICKY expressively utilized according to first class (even cited precedent relevant) phrases of ZWICKY; they were for a long time not realized by you and that his term for photons mass have any relation to by him calculated gravitational redshift for a homogenous Gravitational field - and our PNAS-link was in English as a first rank research, by us cited this original source (trans.).

Such a first class reference was too long also here again and again ignored, also by you.

But calculating a PHOTONS' relativistic mass makes no problem for a real physicist!!!

For laymen only a very grave problem, because for Photons the normal term in relativistic mass becomes INDEFINIT. Certainly therefore you could not understand the term at all (sorry, but a really qualified physicist must see the special problem of a photon mass with v=c in some seconds, and he must know - or can search now - how to prevent the infinity problem; if forgotten or not known, any skilled expert can search meanwhile with additionally terms like PHOTONS now in Internet - or not???

Visibly (as you wrote!) you could neither understand nor anyhow realize and associate that kind of photon's mass with our by you completely erased section Tired light - and especially you not saw, how sophistically ZWICKY utilized (by us now so named] Photons relativistic mass; taking photons' Momentum; and Retarded potentials to calculate it's gravity effects in a thereby homogenous growing gravity potential field.

Remark: In German sources (even in DE.WIKI) the Photon's special problem is nearly always solved like ZWICKY did and even

I had to calculate things like this at my Universtiy by that usual way of photon's MOMENTUM!

But the rest mass is only ONE special solution of that relativistic mass:

There is M=0 at f=0, only.

Pretending: "modern physics" are better?

Modern physics tends to use the term mass of the invariant rest mass, and the term energy for the frame dependent total energy.

MODERN PHYSICS are Feynman's Quantum Physics (I must search it for a link) and no more the >102 y.o. GR, sorry!

ZWICKY was no "modern physics" but the most modern of all at his time, confirmed at his time by nearly all, even by Hubble falsely made a kind of "inventor" proving Big bang; but already defamed at that time for his(!!!) Dark matter, ZWICKY's theories are until now a fact. I read that he only praised his later CalTech-colleague, the other genius FEYNMAN but not any other one and none of his students...

A TENDENCY means nothing about a serious (formerly even as mainstream seen) basis;

And MODERN tendencies are bare MEANINGS;

And meanings are invalid for WIKI. - Or not?

Sorry, not only for me the most qualified physicists are dead and can no more discipline beginners incompetence to their really splendid theories, depreciating by bare meanings. But if Univ.-Professors and their assistents were anyhow discredited by WIKI-Greenhorns, things like this should be a big shame, really...

REMINDER: Einstein himself did confess not to understand Planck and he himself once used, then negated, then used, then negated again Photons' relativistic mass - not only by ZWICKY used, but by nearly all proponents of any kind of photon's calculus and by Non-standard cosmology using a simple 3D gravity by the MOMENTUM and retarded potentials - only in order to prevent finally any problems with 4D-GR and its spacetime - quite sophistically.

Ignoring Photons relativistic mass +related theories is disqualification by ignorants: "stupid, krank"!

And Zwicky's theory was already better than newest Big bang in some aspects, all was ERASED BY YOU.

Some few of all dissident's meanings

* IS THE UNIVERSE REALLY EXPANDING, Dr. Paul A. LaViolette [5], Astrophys.J.,301,544, supported in 1986 by current evidences the old Zwicky tired-light model. The performance of the tired-light and expanding universe comologies are evaluated on four cosmological tests: the angular size-redshift test, the Hubble diagram test, the galaxy number-count-magnitude test, and the number-count-flux density test (log dN/dS-log S test). It is determined that on all four tests the tired-light model exhibits superior performance. That is, it makes the best fit to the data with the fewest number of assumptions without requiring the ad hoc introduction of assumptions about rapid galaxy evolution.

* The Expanding Spacetime Theory, “The Scale Expanding Cosmos Theory”, a coherent worldview from quantum theory to cosmology, C. Johan Masreliez (priorly published in "The Journal of Astrophysics and Space Science" 1999) compares in p.23ff. the theories as Zwicky had already compared Tired Light with Doppler redshift, finding his theory better with observations but in p.23ff. (fig.3.2 p.25) the author shows its superior performance, ignoring what could cause it without making fuzzy light.

* In "Observational Cosmology: caveats and open questions in the standard model", Martín López-Corredoira Astronomisches Institut der Universität Basel [[6]], May 16, 2006, fairly compares even not blurring(!) enhanced Tired light with the Standard Cosmology.

* ANOTHER LOOK AT THE PIONEER ANOMALY, Erhard Scholz Univ. Wuppertal claims that only a kind of Tired Light - called there “downscaling photons” - could solve unknown Pioneer-problems as mentioned in Physical Review D 65:082004(0–50).

* Defamed Ashmore (by you at least depreciated) need no comment: Ten of his 30 objections against Big bang (named blasted) should be seen meanwhile to be serious, never defended seriously AND completely.

REMINDER: Look John Dobson video (links in WIKI). Sorry but I have never heard that any Big bang proponents got a partly frenetic applause like this and even more over here. Myself personally he convinced in 2006 by the following evident aspect:

If a massive big hole stops time, time could never begin at the super-super-mass of a Big bang...84.158.232.118 20:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Struggles, only by not wanting an understanding?

There is no deep physical consequence that arises from speaking of the total energy as a relativistic mass;

That is YOUR problem in EN.WIKI! - Meaning that the whole other world is incompetent? Even FR. OR DE.WIKI?

REMINDER: Energy is mass by E=mc² and Planck proved E=hv, and everyone can calculate a photon's mass by this, as used by ZWICKY and nearly all scientists - not only linked OPEN LETTER named "dissidents" - by "normal thinking people". A in reality mainly discredited but nearly sole well-sponsered Big bang;

• Serious WIKI has not to decide what is right or wrong as BARE REDACTORS MEANING but

WIKI has to reproduce a serious or well-known theory seriously AS IS - with a section: (serious) critics; ok?84.158.232.118 20:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

the gravitational consequences of energy and mass and momentum are the same no matter what words you prefer to discuss it.

Sorry, you could obviously not understand and thereby realize that Photons relativistic mass is only EN.WIKI's main problem to understand most of "dissidents'" astronomy anyhow. Some mainstream "winner" proponents only tell here bare discreditive meanings about dissident's theories and do all to destroy people's knowledge about ALL other points of view (see erased even 6 well-known real mathematical solutions of the related GR-stub - WHY?)...

ZWICKY, especially FEYNMAN, would teach you in Planck's Quantum mechanics especially to learn that you - like Feynman himself and nobody can or could understand it - e.g recently proved:

Miracles exist, see

by Einstein's spooky named and never believed (what you must read) -

Quantum entanglement showing: God neither supports GR nor a maximum v=c - nor a Big bang, sorry...

84.158.212.86 20:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, got you (all) already so blind?

I have had no part in producing the relativity articles here, but they seem accurate and in line with the most common use of terminology in modern physics.

OUR ANSWER: Obviously you did not see WP:PHYS critics - as a dedicated believer of fashion - by us first 6 Solutions, our reprimands to rv well-known SOLUTIONS and EXACT SOLUTIONS of GR.

The meanest is, that it was once using covariant and the other article used contravariant tensors of GR - and no WIKI-expert saw it... - sorry a big, big shame for any "expert".

Sorry, but all this shows for us a too bad qualification of WIKI-Administrators, incl. (their) WP:PHYS

84.158.212.86 20:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Well-known given solutions erased! WHY?

By us above linked but erased well-known MATHEMATICAL SOLUTIONS OF GR, all proved by WIKI-links as existing correctly

* e.g. Schwarzschild solutions, de Sitter universe, Geoffrey Burbidge and Margaret Burbidge oscillating universe, even Intrinsic redshift by Halton Arp as a so called SINGULAR SOLUTION.

We wrote precedently (also rv) that mathematically even each Superposition of any valid solution is a possible new solution - all erased by for all visible now - for even that different matter obviously incompetent but (themselves?) so-called "Physicists" at WIKI; sorry to have to prove this here now so clearly: bare Greenhorns act... 84.158.212.86 20:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Lack of knowledge or a kind of Inquisition

To erase all: Evidence of ignorance? knowing nothing? - or Inquisition (by fanatic Big bang religion?)?

I'm perfectly capable of reading and understanding works written using different terminological conventions.

I have already said explicitly that Zwicky uses the relativistic mass of a photon.

CORRECT, why did your meaning not remain?

Sorry! Finally then another "specialist" anyhow suddenly wrote the opposite of you here? In your name?

84.158.232.118 20:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

So does anyone else who uses the energy of the photon. They are the same thing in different words.

ANSWER: Correctly!!!!

You have also made much of speculative work on photon rest mass, which is a different thing entirely; unrelated to the analogy Zwicky made in his 1929 paper that is based on relativistic mass.

REHABILITATION of here - like all other dissidents - steadily depreciated ZWICKY e.g. by (not existing) blurring, that was finally our aim; as I said: too many cooks made the soup salty but notjing was incorrect.

It was not our focus, but interesting: at least 4D-spacetime not suffice for gravitons and photons calculus, needing a 5D-space and its result - at least interesting as you confirmed, or not?

REMINDER The main struggle of conventional and mainstream physicists is ambiguous photon's mass matter!!!

84.158.212.86 20:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE HELP TO STOP ASTROPHYSIC'S MAIN STRUGGLE !!!

I try to argue objectively:

One depreciate (even defame) another theory. Formerly was DEFAMED Big bang people to have a Big bang in their head (Dobson until now effectively); now mainstream proponents make the same! Both parts are unable or want not to understand the other: new or old-fashioned but by Mathematics and Physics nevertheles well-based theories.

ZWICKY and the others dissidents' theories are mainly based on Einstein effects, showing clearly that photons energy is related to a kind of mass and it's related gravitation in 3D, especially proved by Gravitational redshift effects.

Nearly all those dissidents' theories are quite correctly based in dissident's calculus taking photons relativistic mass, but they must at first be understood and this mathematic accepted. Dissidents' proponents say (provable partly quite correctly) that (at least in some special effects) they can (much) better predict real redshifts and other effects.

You've spoken of defamation. I've looked over this page, and I don't see anywhere I have failed to be respectful of persons. I've tried to be polite and substantive throughout, and am satisfied that I have succeeded. Apparently you consider it defamation for me to disagree with you on physics. I'm afraid that by that standard, you will continue to be defamed by me and just about every other person here who is interested in physics. —Duae Quartunciae

Sorry: We read to be (made by you) "krank" and "silly"!-???

REMINDER: Search for "silly", "krank" cited in section NEWEST_FURTHER_BARE_DIFFAMATION

WE found spontaneously and cited there 4 of about 6 - by us commonly so felt and finally so-called - defamations, e.g.:

"The association of photon mass with tired light as an alternative explanation for cosmological redshift is rather silly..." you wrote. - 84.158.249.35 12:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Now you have realized that ZWICKY's - lets call his paper now better to describe it: Downscaling photons, instead of stupidly named and now as a laughter-stock Tired light (how can photons become tired? But they really loose energy against and (even beneath!) gravity fields; and here energy was by Einstein himself related to a mass having its gravity by Einstein effects).

I was informed that even assistants of Professors had tried here to impose or correct their own dissident's meaning but were discredited and (at least felt) defamed like we, finally chased by IP or their WIKI-name; let's say as I feel: treated at least discriminatorily, or simply unfair, bad... 84.158.232.118 20:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You got incredibly excited above about a supposed contradiction in my words. There's no contradiction, and I am content with the five points I made previously in my conclusions on photon mass.

The problem is that if there exist here only a zero PHOTONS' Rest mass all other theories based on a Photons relativistic mass are ignored, but must of course be considered then not to be bare nonsense, stupor, not GR-convenient, etc.

Struggle, depreciation and defamation in Astronomy can be stopped quite easily...

if the "mainstream winners" (Big bang proponents) stop to mean that only their idea is (like) by God given; if both sides stop to simply depreciate other theories by mainly pretending something else - in reality only as their bare MEANINGS - we have perhaps won a more fair contest instead of a bad war; here especially: meanings that dissident's theories must(!!! - ???) support GR or even it's sole valid Big bang solution.

Sorry I personally like more and more Brans-Dicke solutions and a recently found genial simple 7D-calculus (3D+3D+1D (ct)?) by Feynman is for me: That genius' double 2*3D world, bounded by 1D time with incredible easy solutions...

REMINDER: We tried in vain to put 6 mathematically well-known solutions, because none was named

both articles about GR-solutions were by WIKI-EXPERTS as bad qualified!

WE included both exponentially (up and down!) solutions (Big Bang as the first one), etc. - all erased!84.158.232.118 20:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to rush to add more here; but perhaps I should say a bit about Ashmore's proposals for tired light through a special kind of scattering process involving photons and electrons in the intergalactic plasma, since you evidently think they have some validity, whereas I think they are riddled with basic errors in elementary physics. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 21:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Better, back to one last genius: ZWICKY

Critics steadily reprimand that photons have to scatter or to blur by Compton effect as THEIR OWN (INCOMPETENT) MEANING.

We reprimanded to by you erased ZWICKY section (one not by me intended):

BECAUSE: Feynman gave (by us well cited and linked) one possible, known Quantum mechanics answer that nobody (also you, like Einstein) cannot understand; by strange behaviour of photons:

Amorphic glass is a known exception of normality, can be (more than) crystal clear without blurring

ASHMORE propagates exactly this - like ZWICKY himself - that there must not be a blurring of photons, and why. Ashmore's idea is that and why scattering light must not exist by a Compton effect and he said why: Sorry, but if it is only his MEANING or really proved by his calculus, this cannot be a matter to be decided by in any special matter bare non-experts like me or you! - It has only to be reproduced AS IS (what we did).

Ashmore utilizes only one (of many similar) Plasma theory, but WIKI has only to inform...

WIKI shall not give MEANINGS if something is true or not, good or not - but should imply critics.

WIKI shall mirror (even less) serious but known theories AS IS; with source, e.g. as linked.

AND HAVE YOU SEEN THE OTHER LINKS, E.G. BY Prof. ASSIS?:

History of the 2.7 K Temperature Prior to Penzias and Wilson and Big Bang supporting ZWICKY?

The Redshift Revisted:

* Resuming: How ZWICKY's Tired light had predicted the 2.7°K temperature first of all most correctly!

* Or defamed Ashmore ASHMORE blasting Big Band by his interpretation of ZWICKY's Tired light and saying exactly the same (let's suppose anyhow it could be correct because you even not understood original ZWICKY's Tired light).

• • • DOES ZWICKY'S TIRED LIGHT SEEM TO WIN ALL INDEPENDENT CONTESTS AGAINST BIG BANG? 84.158.204.89 02:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

A too tricky survival of Big bang?

BB could only survive very tricky by a 10^120 decades factor.

• Cited in Cosmological constant: "Thus, the current standard model of cosmology, the Lambda-CDM model, includes the cosmological constant, which is measured to be on the order of 10^-35s^-2, or 10^-47GeV⁴, or 10^-29g/cm³, or about 10^-120 in reduced Planck units."

• Dark energy article (in contrary): "A major outstanding problem is that most quantum field theories predict a huge cosmological constant from the energy of the quantum vacuum, up to 120 orders of magnitude too large."

Sorry, not an awful trick to multiply with +/-120 decades CONSTANT reduced Planck units only to filfill BB? But 120 times too low (not only) to fulfil finally by the (last?) genius FEYNMAN himself enhanced quantum field theories? Was such a trick inprevisible for good old ZWICKY.

ALL PHYSICISTS IN TOTAL (MENTAL?) 120 DECADES-SUBORDINATION? ALL PHYSICS DEVOTELY TO BB-THEORY?

• Instead of at least even a little bit of criticism against BB all others must have a 120 decades fault? No open offence against BB like by that insubordination depreciated and defamed Tired-Light proponents? Showed not only that original copied sentence not in reality a 120 decades faulty neweset BB theory? Have really all other theories to "believe" only in BB? If not discredited or defamed? Similar an old rigid religion? In order not to be considered as "silly", or "krank" or as "nonsense" as well? Like ZWICKY's "Downscaling photons" (in discrete stages of a Planck quantum) called by someone incompetent stupidly Tired light?

• Dubious (here nowhere found) Dark energy must be by NASA the biggest part (about 70%!) of a whole BB-universe, all "made" by subordination - sorry, like in dictatorships (of Physics and Mathematicd)! - only to fulfill the BB-theory!-???

• Could such a new (invented? inexisting? impertinent?) calculus perhaps also improve ZWICKY's work considerably as well? To correct any non-conform effects? Perpaps such (by named dissidents simply incredibly impertinent named, bad) tricks would give much better ZWICKY's-results again, better than by this awful BB (well hidden) 120 decades too large respectively -120 decades too low tuned trick to fulfil BB? 84.158.204.89 02:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Since 2006 I prefer DOBSON saying us here and in discussion: If a super-massive black hole stops time at Schwarzschild radius, at the Schwarzschild radius of an initially super-super-super massive BB there was no time and prevented that the time could begin! Meaning everything must have been timeless "freezed" at Schwarzschild radius? Sorry, where is a real brain - like FEYNMAN or ZWICKY or EINSTEIN or PLANCK or SCHRÖDINGER - to make at least that stupid logic a bit clear for anyone... 84.158.220.45 10:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

MODIFYING A COSMOLOGICAL CONSTANT(!) BY IMPOSSIBLE 120 DECADES IS A SACRILEGE

Never ever in history there existed in Physics and Mathematics such an impertinent affecting calculus with +/-120 decades correction of others (more serious?) theories (meaning 120 zeroes, try only to write it, please!), even against all by nature given limits of metric and of any reallity (at -120 decades there should exist only PLANCK and HEISENBERG to describe physics). And a modification of a kind of (a so named) UNIVERSAL CONSTANT like here...

To be calculated in order to adapt oneself to a formerly fallen theory?

• Sorry my friend(s) - I can understand your pressure to hide all this in order not to be defamed as well. But see now clearly that your defamed "friend"(?) ASHMORE "blasted Big Bang" at least by principle now obviously quite correctly by daring to say at least (correctly!?) that this is a kind of mainstream-paranoia... - Or not?

• And Prof.MARMET, Prof.ASSIS, Prof.BURBRIDGE, Dr.ARP and all - linked in OPEN LETTER TO THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY - named (depreciated or even defamed) dissidents.

• Sorry please apologize and understand, if a German who nearly lost his mother in Hitler prison by above named dictatorship's demagogy has got bit allergic against even a little kind of appearing demagogy in general, no matter where it comes from...

• Is it true what the OPEN LETTER says or a bad joke? Are they all "silly" or "krank"? OR can here exist really a kind of a Big bang religion with only in mainstream educated castes? Supporting a kind of Inquisition against dissidents? Here simply erasing steadily all not BB-convenient papers?

84.158.224.21 13:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Restoring focus

This page is out of control. W. Kehler is bringing up an endless stream of new issues that have nothing in particular to do with me, but rather with more general concerns he has with the scientific community. Any hope of actual progress on the one or two issues actually relevant to me personally is lost in the flood of other material.

YOU FORGET THAT YOU GAVE UP, at first saying ZWICKY's Tired light is not related to - what we named now to prevent misunderstanding Photon's relativistic mass defined by not mainstreamers as

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

Then you (dared) to read exactly this formula in ZWICKY ORIGINAL PAPER and you wrote you understand the problem now.

Then you do no more saw any relation at all to ZWICKY and gave up...

Now you want not to understand that the OPEN LETTER is true at least in the main point:

Everyone refusing to believe in BB named something like "krank" or "silly" or anyhow depreciated!?

Especially all dissidents using basic Einstein effects especially Gravitational redshift are "silly" or "krank" (then also Einstein himself!-???)?

Then quasi saying you never wrote something this (what if I would call your physics krank or silly?)... 84.158.221.235 12:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

You need to read what I said again. Here is the full sentence once more:

I certainly did not say I gave up writing here at all, and by reading only the first half of the sentence you are failing to see what I am giving up upon. I said that I have given up trying to make the page readable. And I have. Your formatting conventions are dreadful; but if you are happy with them that's fine. I put the page here in the hope it would help you communicate, so you are welcome to continue to use it as you like. I will also probably drop in a remark now and again, to correct misunderstandings like the above. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 12:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Deadfull formatting? You forget that at least a few remaining older real scientists - more or less far away - want to read it to help me a bit and if I indicate a section they have less problems to find and also here I will structure this huge part for them to find someing -ok? 84.158.231.211 07:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me that you are wanting to use this page as a way of expressing all the anger and hurt you feel about alleged unfair treatment of certain ideas in the world of science.

Can you understand an oposition against any kind of (mental) dictatorship by principle?

Especially if the whole (dissident) WORLD OF SCIENCE IS VIOLATED AND ENFORCE to become dedicated followers of "modern" "mainstream" fashion? If they not want they have to suffer a mental dictatorship (s. linked OPEN LETTER)?

And you once understood the basic PHOTON MASS PROBLEM for an understanding of a stupid science struggle?

But finally you - or a colleague of you - suddenly wrote the contrary: that you cannot see what you saw and wrote quite clearly before as our main focus (a kind of PHOTON'S MASS with gravity, written used by ZWYCKY)?84.158.221.235 12:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind if that is what you want; this page can stand as your expression of those feelings.

Named facts - not only of a common 120 decades difference to multiple different serious physicist's calculus - are NO MEANINGS but FACTS!

Sorry do you know a difference of proved FACTS, THEORIES and the MEANINGS about them?

Most of it has almost nothing to do with me. This page has also been noticed by a few other users, so I'm just going to leave the whole things as it stands for a little while, and see if anything happens.

Indeed, but if you gave up after understanding the relation of a by nearly all dissidents calculated PHOTON'S MASS $m={\frac {h\nu }{c^{2}}}\,.$ by what you wrote.

But finally you understand no more the context!? After your finally written understood relation of that disambiguous kind of by nearly all dissident taken PHOTON'S MASS. At first you not saw any relation about what ZWICKY WROTE - taking written that only in EN.WIKI not at all existing ambiguous PHOTON'S RELATIVISTIC MASS!

Then you (or your in the matter uneducated "chief") resigned, again?

Sorry, this shows too clearly a common fear to face even most clear facts, what I/we call now quasi a rigid "religious" kind of subordination to a dictatorship of a so-called "modern physics" mainstream.

I have always understood that Zwicky used relativistic mass, and I have consistently pointed out that it is nothing but a difference in terminology whether you prefer to use the word "mass" to refer to the frame-dependent total energy, scaled to mass units, or whether you prefer to use it to refer to the frame-independent rest mass, which is a property of the particle independent of observers. I have no problem reading and understanding material written according to either convention. I have always understood precisely what Zwicky meant by mass. For the particular analogy he was using, relativistic mass was an appropriate quantity to use. I would use exactly the same quantity for estimating the gravitational drag, even though I might use terminology a bit differently. You are still putting too much significant on a difference in words.

I don't expect you ever to agree with me that the terminology makes little difference to the underlying physics, but that's okay. We disagree on a few other things as well, and we should accept that, and try to understand each other for the sake of making a coherent response. If you want to actually understand my position then you need to recognize that I continue to read and understand Zwicky's relativistic mass as I have always done. That he uses words differently from most modern text books is not a barrier to understanding his model. The physics is clear. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 12:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The points on which I might still be inclined to say something include

1. The matter of "crank" and "silly", which I applied to ideas and not to persons, and which were definitely not applied to the proposals of Fritz Zwicky.

Sorry, what would it imply for you if I would say to you: Your ideas are krank physics!?

Mr Kehler has a problem distinguishing Zwicky's work from other unrelated ideas developed years after his death.

In reality you have a problem to see what you confessed finally:

That "genius" ZWICKY utilized a by you and EN.WIKI obviously defamed not existing kind of Plancks PHOTON MASS, WRITTEN BY ZWICKY HIMSELF AS $m={\frac {h\nu }{c^{2}}}\,.$ as (not only). YOUR PROBLEM not being able to read clear original sources and realize what we had copied, rv by you! Not wanting to realize at least his WRITTEN THOUGHTS without any depreciation

And that his ideas are seen to be superiour to mainstream (dictatorship?) BB - by nearly all dissidents until now!

Fair consent possible?

I have not used these terms habitually, but only once or twice.

OK, FORGET IT TO GET A FAIR CONSENT!

1.)...how ZWICKY calculated by a (new article?) Photon's relativistic mass.

2.) As THE BASIS to understand nearly all dissidents being defamed by in EN.WIKI - arbitrarily? - ignored and therefore her not existing and therefore not calculable kind of PHOTON'S MASS and it's frequency depending gravity.

Mostly I have tried to give a substantive engagement with the meat of any dispute — with little effect.

2. The matter of Zwicky's 1929 paper on tired light, and what Zwicky said for himself about various proposals. Also the matter of Zwicky's own frank acknowledgement of errors in his own mathematical analysis, which he acknowledged in print later the same year.

Sorry, I cannot realize at all anywhere what you pretended here as your truth (no links, no papers)! 84.158.221.235 12:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Shortly after Zwicky published his first paper on the cosmological redshift, the relativity expert Arthur Stanley Eddington pointed out that he had made a mistake in his calculations. The term g₁ was actually identically zero, and this means that Zwicky's particular approximation to the drag effect canceled out completely to zero. He needed to go to a second order approximation before any effect showed up. Zwicky was a lot better than you at dealing with criticism, and he promptly acknowledged Eddington's correction, in a letter to Physical Review, which appeared in the end of 1929. Zwicky continued to hope that a full treatment would be able to show the effect, but in this hope he was disappointed. When a detailed analysis of the gravitational drag effect was finally produced in 1943, by Chandrasekhar, the approximations showed that the effect was quite negligible for small fast particles like photons.

I myself cannot see your link. It seems I have to sign is as well with a stable IP? Tell me how to see it!

I don't know. The journal is well known, you should be able to get it at a university library. That's how I got it. The link I gave was to the Harvard abstracts service; but this letter was very short and has no abstract provided. To get the paper on-line you would need a subscription.

Your friends do themselves no credit at all by just denying the letter without even reading it. Your friends are, of course, quite correct that Zwicky was notoriously proud, with enormous self-confidence. He was very slow to admit any error. But even so, in this case he did. He did so generously, with thanks to Eddington for the correction; but he continued to think that the gravitational drag could be supported with a revised analysis. As I said to you previously, Zwicky himself never published this analysis, and when gravitational drag was eventually put on a firmer footing, it only showed that small fast particles were the least affected by gravitational drag. Zwicky's model never had a chance. He continued to think it could work, even allowing for the errors in his original analysis. But no vindication was ever given, and these days anyone proposing tired light looks for some other process. Gravitational drag won't work.

Here is an extract from the letter, which I have typed myself from a copy I have here to hand. For the full details, I am afraid I can't help more than to advise using a library yourself.

As you can see, Zwicky does acknowledge the problem, although he continues to hope for a demonstration of the effect with a proper relativistic analysis. The point I am making is that the original mathematical analysis was flawed, and Zwicky acknowledged this. Reluctantly, to be sure; but the error is there and it means the mathematical aspects of his earlier paper don't actually count for anything much.

As I have told you from the start, and as Zwicky plainly implies here again, there was never a formal demonstration of the importance of drag. The argument was by analogy. So whether it was right or wrong is a bit beside the point. The most serious criticism remains as I said right from the start... there was never a demonstration of the effect, and when more complete treatments of gravitational drag were eventually produced, they indicate strongly that the effects of drag on photons is negligible. Tired light advocates these days almost always look for some process other than drag.

Now. Put yourself in my shoes. How impressed am I going to be with your trust in telephone friends who dismiss the letter without even obtaining a copy and checking first? Blech. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 14:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

COMPLETELY UNTRUE SAY TWO OF MY FRIENDS at phone.

(e.g Dr. Kießlinger nearly >90 y.o.) They knowed still ZWICKY and EINSTEIN (as youngsters?) partly directly and much better! They say (without realizing your link - like I):

* a) You must be false that ZWICKY personally had confirmed a fault because he was well-known to never revise anything he wrote himself and that he always pointed out to his students how perfect he is to show they are imperfect. I saw myself that but he only anyhow confirmed FEYNMAN as quasi a genius like himself.

b) You - or your offered paper? - must also be wrong because nearly all physicista at that time confirmed him, finally in 1953 even Hubble saying quite clearly that ZWICKY's TIRED LIGHT IS LESS IRRATIONAL - Out section and only one serious link to show it was erased by you!

c) TOO MANY SCIENTISTS SUPPORT TIRED LIGHT UNTIL NOW! You also not see the meanwhile high quantity (6 were linked) of new scientists until your defamed ASHMORE, all of them anyhow support TIRED LIGHT until today because it has no real fault! And searching in GOOGLE you find hundreds very serious and some ten thousands proponents anyhow using something like (as new article proposed) ZWICKY's Downscaling photons.

Fact is that multiply given formula for Photons relativistic mass never died for all dissidents of BB

84.158.247.101 09:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Zwicky himself was best at observational work and and coming up with innovative ideas. His strengths were not so much in the detailed theoretical analysis. In his original paper in 1929, he explicitly noted that he was only giving an analogical argument, and stated plainly that it would be good to give a full formal treatment. He never produced such a treatment himself; that was not his strength.

At least that cannot be true at all, because he was - if I was informed correctly - a Prof. at CalTech like then FEYNMAN (the only ZWICKY accepted as genius beside) and was known to have said to his students once and once again that this or another theory was his one "to show how perfect he was" and that "he never had made a fault"!-???

I only found this paper myself in the last couple of days, when I was looking up some other material. I had always been well aware that Zwicky never gave the theoretical treatment necessary to show that a gravitational drag could work, and I had always been well aware that the inadequacies of his analogical argument meant that his gravitational drag suggestion never had much impact. But it was good to read that Zwicky himself was able to see that he had made a mistake in his original calculations. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 13:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

For me it SEEMS to be the basic dispute meaning that there exist only a zero Photon's rest mass - of course becoming zero in each calculus, even in mentioned 5D-calculations, but only as the first term of an increasing mass row - as only one and newests papers indicating also that the dissidents are right and less and less the others- Having no real stuff to only propagate a ZERO photons mass!-???

3. The matter of Ashmore's tired light proposal, which involves ideas that Zwicky himself correctly identified as hopeless back in 1929,

Until now you act as a PRETENDER only, without any named (better easy linked) evidences. 84.158.221.235 12:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

This is hypocritical, Kehler. You have been far more insulting and rude to me than I have EVER been to you. Despite your frequent claims to the contrary, I always have tried to avoid direct insults to your person, and you should have the basic decency to do that same.

I cannot realize any person insult (show me one) and if, it was reaction auout unfairness. May be also of one of my friens trying to answer for me at club becaus I normally not react personally?

You are welcome to disagree with my claims. I certainly disagree with yours. That is not a good basic for the kind of open crude rudeness you show here. When you make explicit attacks on my person you show yourself to apply much lower standards of basic civility that I have shown to you. Please try to stick to substance.

As a matter of fact, you are wrong. I have several times given multiple links to long and detailed discussions of the errors in Ashmore's model, which I produced for another forum.

WHY DID YOU NOT DEMAND THAT NEWTON HAS TO REVISE HIS PHYSICS?

ANSWER by 2 old, better skilled Dr. of Physics )and friends of mentioned 3 joined clubs) by phone. I give them by Email direct section-link to read more easily what you wrote, that is why I make subsections: for them - ok?:

...to your last but more: former sentences you quasi demanded that ZWICKY had not related to GR instead of his calculus. The sentence above said one of my friends very angry at phone when he saw your BARE MEANING; I was away (his anger still is stored) as one much more fulminate reaction (saying you know obviously nothing about physics and he would like to examine you in basic phisics as he formerly did as Prof. of Physics in High-school and college, etc. It was one of - his partly formerly by me only reproduced angry reactions to your - by him silly called demand that ZWICKY should have use GR instead for a for you visibly

All until today used and valid only differently called TIRED LIGHT versions.

I confirm my more skilled Astro-friends are not or not good at PC but have given me many hints, e.g.:

Physics are Physics, partly of its time, based on something found there and if it is well-known

Serious OR well-known stuff has to be reproducd in WIKI correctly with critics, without MEANING,ok?

In EN:WIKI article Non-standard cosmology we even missed - still red - article on Newtonphysics as above linked as serious alternative Paul Marmet discribed in his Newtonphysics showing basic GR-mistakes; as well nearly ecactly as independently did twenty years ago already our club friend Dr.Kießlinger. 84.158.247.101 09:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

3. continued ...and which involve trivial misunderstandings of well known phenomena like the Mossbauer effect, and violations of very basic principles of physics like conservation of energy and momentum.

REMINDER of REMINDER of REMINDER:

• a) Sorry, priorly was no Mössbauer but our common focus that he also used by us now so-called Photon's relativistic mass to impose his later so called Tired light. We nowhere saw that he corrected his opinion anywhere...
• b) linked and cited better physicist than you and all WP:PHYS will ever be: FEYNMAN not claimed Mössbauer effect but simply meant nobody can understand it how trasnparent media allow that photons can pass them without scattering and blurring in (non-crystal] amorphic but transparent GLASS

And ASHMORE took his TIRED LIGHT simply founded by Feynman's example of transparent glass (read if you haven't read Ashmore and Feynman to the same GLASS) and he said that (by Feynman as responsible named) electrons in the universe (simplified here:) have an electric "tension" and provoke photons to coordinate in a cooperation.

Like all "dissidents" I cannot realize at all what you write here! No related paper no link! Bare MEANINGS!-??? 84.158.221.235 12:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Shrug. I have read Feynman's lectures on the transmission of light in glass, and they do not speak of any redshift, or anything else remotely comparable to Ashmore's paper. Ashmore proposes an interaction of photons with free electrons in a diffuse plasma, in which the photon is emitted with a small redshift and no scattering angle. It is a simple exercise in high school physics to show that this violates the conservation of momentum and energy. Ashmore notes that the interaction occurs with electrons fully one meter from any other particle; and he has never quantified the energy momentum budget for his scattering process to show the conservation. This is a basic step in all scattering processes. This fundamental flaw in Ashmore's process is precisely the basis of Zwicky rejection in 1929 of scattering processes as a viable possiblity. (Section D of his first paper.) He described such processes as "hopeless", and he was perfectly correct to do so. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 13:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

My Dr.Pys. said angrily to that matter already formerly you even have to learn to read at first:

* THE MATTER HERE IS NOT REDSHIFT: You not only erased in "our" ZWICKY-article the (also here again and again and again mentioned but not at all realized) SCATTERING or BLURRING LIGHT by Compton effect as partly sole serious objection against TIRED LIGHT. FEYNMAN tauhgt you - if you really read him!-??? - what we commonly had multiply resumed that and how GLASS is an example of the contrary. And ASHMORE - if you really have read him - referred to the example of GLASS as well to that matter of HIS TIRED LIGHT to contradict the critics. 84.158.247.101 09:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

4. The matter of communication, with good use of markup and the need to focus on topics, and why it is a terrible idea to use section headings as a way of giving emphasis to a statement.

We cited ZWICKY Original! No more no less... - And everybody with a little bit of fairness has to follow HIS thougts, without depreciation reproducing correctly his way by HIS (shown as everywhere normal only not here in EN.WIKI) ambiguous, existing PHOTON'S MASS provoking Gravitational redshift, here by Poisson equation instead of taking singular suns or in the WIKI-article shown effects of a Neutron star. - ok?

BUT WHERE ARE ANY (LINKED) SOURCES ABOUT WHAT YOU PRETEND HERE ONLY AND EVEN AS (UNKNOWN) ZWICKY'S MEANINGS? 84.158.221.235 12:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

REMINDER of Reminder...: Focus Photon's relativistic mass to understand dissident's theories.

until now depreciated and defamed because of bare PRETENDING that this mass not exists...

The matter of what belongs in an encyclopedia

5. The matter of what belongs in an encyclopedia

Each relevant theory (here until today well-known and used as proved for a kind of Gravitational redshift) - even old no more "modern" mainstream - theory!- ok?

Fairly, without any depreciation but allowed a section about critics!

But not by any (mental or by ignorance existing) dictatorship by any "modern" "mainstream's" MEANINGS...84.158.221.235 12:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

In the meantime, I'm going to wait a bit to see if anyone from outside is reading this and wants to comment. Cheers —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 04:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The linked OPEN LETTER - meanwhile signed by more than 500 people and scientists - can say all!

WHO dares to become only a scapegoat for a mass of a kind of devote BB-priests?

If Physicists (must) write: we are faulty by 120 decades; shows this not a kind of BB-dictatorship?

Prof. Paul Marmet - his TIRED LIGHT-paper about NEWTONPHYSICS was linked above - died, wrote his son recently

Prof. ASSIS (2 new TIRED LIGHT papers linked above) wrote his meaning as cited above, you have only to read his above here linked and many other TIRED-LIGHT THEORIES.

Halton Arp wrote his good meaning about our by you erased ZWICKY section - as cited above.

Lyndon Asmore wrote me/us: I am in vacancy. Certainly he would dare to come to act over here by one Email only and you had already contacted him unfairly after having already erased all.

But (not only) he was already previously depreciated by your bare (sorry, highly unqualified!) BAD MEANING about his theory, but related with him personally as if I say your physics are "silly" or "krank".

They all experienced bare depreciation by (now also your) BARE MEANINGS, aome also in EN.WIKI, as I/we now...

Are you one of many priests of a "BB religion"? Brutally erasing all not convenient? By a kind of Inquisition?

84.158.221.235 12:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Who is conducting the inquisition here? I've not berated you for anything over the Big Bang. Why are you trying to rake me over the coals for this? There is a rich irony in you speaking of an inquisition here! Take that up with others if you must. We've got more than enough to discuss without starting up new topics. You are welcome to sign the statements, or propose alternative models to the Big Bang. I'm not conducting any inquisition on that; though it is looking like you are determined to try and hold me up to some kind of inquisition about my views on the matter. Suit yourself. I don't even bother to defend myself against this attack; I will continue to focus on other matters here. Cheers —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 13:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

YOU (instead called BB) referred to: "modern physics", "mainstream", "standard" cosmology...

REMINDER: We were mainstream BB-proponents, but now I resume that we mainly all got angry and - partly only by named GENERAL UNFAIRNESS!-??? - have supported here now all meanwhile hundreds of thousands to be found in GOOGLE by qualified terms search objecting BB and meanwhile hundreds of serious papers (about ten newer links found above only of ESA, NASA, Institutes, Professors, Doctors, and people like ASHMORE, supporting until recently any modified or not TIRED LIGHT initiated by ZWICKY). Showing: There are much more objecting against BB than confirming BB.

AND sorry: What had got to know - initiated by John Dobson enhanced speech over here as RESUMED abnove and by his - for me at most convincing - most serious objection(s) confirmed and even enhanced by (at the Astro-fair met, discussing well-known) French Prof. They had meanwhile more and more convinced us that in reality the dissidents are the mainstream but that any mainstrem has of course the illegal power to repress facts.

What we want in WIKI fairly

REMINDER of REMINDER of REMINDER of... Our - common! - aim is that any meaning-terrorism has to be stopped (also by BB-proponents) erasing arbitrarily also in WIKI all they do not like. Well-known theories have to be cited "AS IS" not discredited by a MEANING of any WIKI-USER or ADMIN. but with known critics at the end of artices without depreciating by WIKIPEDIAN USER MEANINGS.

A Photon's relativistivc mass at first, cited above, found even in FR.WIKI and DE.WIKI. RESPECTING ALL DISSIDENTS utilizing as facts: Einstein effects and Gravitational redshift. LINKED FIRST-CLASS RELATED PAPERS TO ANY KIND OF MODIFIED TIRED LIGHT THEORIES, supporting ZWICKY.

To restore - but enhance of course - all of our fair ZWICKY-section about Tired light fairly. with all serious there related first +second class sources with partly cited links to originals. anyhow anywhere fairly but WITHOUT TENDENCIOUS BARE MEANINGS (OF ANY WIKIPEDIAN USER OR ADMIN). A theory and fist +2nd class papers "AS IS", have not to be touched by any meaning of redactors.

Therefore we demanded to impose for understanding priory WELL-KNOWN of at least 100 dissident's theories, ok?

May be that anyone of our club has not strictly obeyed that principle as well!-??? - But that is the WORLD-WIDE ACKNOWLEDGED CONSENT PRINCIPLE FOR SERIOUS(!) ARTICLES (too many ignore it, indeed), ok? Please stop involving your and other's MEANINGS in ORIGINAL SOURCES; stop WIKI-USERS bad behaviour. 84.158.212.84 10:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC) My problem is at phone my friends reprimand my writing anywhere only after seeing it of course - ok? Sorry, by proposal of one of my friends was capitalised: NAMES and already multiply formerly written things as a kind of CRYING LOUDLY here - because multiply before not seen nor realized papers, cites and links!-??? 84.158.205.9 10:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't edit other people's comments

Sorry I tried to answer to a sentence in what you wrote in a section without modifying your writing anyhow. Your original next sentences was disrupted but continued correctly if the next sentence had a quite different content. I cannot find to have modified sentences of you, but if I really have done so: sory, sorry indeed and please restore any modified SENTENCE then to original whereever you see it (but please no continuation to another matter).

AS ANSWER TO THE FOLLOWING: 84.158.216.207 10:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I did restore it already, where I noticed. I understand that it was not deliberate. I just want to emphasize the need to be careful. You really should not break up my paragraphs; but since this page is really only being used between you and I, it is not a vital concern. I reserve the right to put my paragraphs back together again if they have been split up. If I do this, I will make every attempt to keep your own text clear; but if you put comments in the middle of a connected paragraph, they might get moved.

I'd really advise you to try writing with less capital letters and more continuous sections of plainly stated text. But it's up to you. I don't mind.

Thanks —Duae Quartunciae

Simultanous edits, a problem mainly if others shall see it until ~100 miles away to help a bit.

Exactly here passed the same, corrections thereby not done, let it some days, please.

Others shall realize it as well (instantly my named two physics-friends are not at phone but also they must see it to be informed, and what happens if e.g. Monday some come already back from their vacancies and have not seen it but begin to edit?). 84.158.211.30 11:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I have take this section out of the box, because that is probably very confusing for someone trying to add further comments. I have left all the content in place in this section. For my part, I am happy for this whole section to be deleted completely anytime you like; but I have left it here for the moment, and will not remove it myself unless asked.

I would recommend that if there are several people editing this page, that you each open your own Wikipedia user account and use that. It is very easy, and it gives various advantages. It's up to you; but at this stage I have no idea how many people I am talking to or who has written what. For the time being, as long as you all keep using the anonymous dynamic IP cluster, I'm going to regard you all as one person: Mr Kehler. I trust that will be okay? —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 11:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

What is this discussion trying to achieve?

(This section consisted originally of one very long connected body of prose. Comments are welcome, and I expect the original text will get broken up a bit as a result. If anyone wants to read the text of this section as originally given, here is a link to the original: [7])

Mr Kehler, what are we trying to achieve here?

You've asked a lot of questions; much too many for me to give answers to them all. I'll try to answer a few from time to time.

Here is what I am trying to achieve. I am trying to help you understand how to work effectively within the Wikipedia community. I've been side tracked from that into other matters from time to time, but basically, that is why I set up this page. There are certain guidelines in place that apply to every article, and every topic, from history to science to culture to geography to film stars to religion. Within those guidelines, Wikipedia gives more scope to unconventional ideas than you could ever hope to obtain in another encyclopedia.

You have made certain demands, and I am frankly having a bit of trouble figuring out what they really mean. But it doesn't matter, because I have no standing here at all. I've been editing Wikipedia for about six or seven weeks only. I do have a lot of experience already in different online contexts, and experience as a teacher and as a professional academic. That doesn't count for a thing here. I'm just an unexceptional editor, like you. I have no possiblity whatsoever to modify the basic Wikipedia guidelines, even if I wanted to.

Very good WIKI-guidelines but bad handling?

I think the guidelines are mostly pretty good.

Sorry, there are prior WP:PRINCIPLES (a CONSTITUTION) and subordinate administrations named GUIDELINES.

I'd like to try and help you work within that system, if you like. If you choose instead to make demands for new and different guidelines, then you will fail.

Positive seeing them is well doing, abusing them mainly destructively anyhow is very, very bad - ok?

Wikipedia is a private organization, and they don't owe anything to you or to me. I know people who have left Wikipedia because of their concerns with how it works. Ironically, the people I know who have left object mainly to the fact that it is too easy for unconventional ideas to be included. Your objection is the opposite, that you are not able to your ideas included. Complaining to me does no good. I can explain why I personally like the system, but I can't change it for you. I can help you use the system. It won't give you everything you want; but it might give you something.

WIKI-guidelines correspond to fair redactor's guidelines

Arbitrarily ignored by you what we want: see big box, last main-sect. No real answer to main matter; no reaction to focus multiply cited +written - WIKI-FAIRNESS?

We read WIKI guidelines as worldwide WELL-KNOWN for all serious redactors; as written in our biggest box above,

But - let's say like in above linked OPEN LETTER - that all meanwhile extremely only in one direction (here BB) taught students and young scientist have lost any capability to even understand or reflect any (above mentioned) different Theory. 84.158.207.102 00:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Is "conservative" equal to "ignorance"?

An encyclopedia is conservative. For example, you object to the fact that I call the "Big Bang" conventional science.

Error, sorry to disrupt again your section: "modern physics", "mainstream"... "meaning", not "conventional"...

MEANINGS must be erased also here while critics are allowed finally in each article but a theory itself must remain "AS IS" without any falsification by any redactor's meaning - and so we did: with first and second-rank sources, links and cites (my friends finally made it a bit confusing when I was not there)! 84.158.207.102 00:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

But that's a simple statement of fact. You may consider it unfair, but that is a different question. Sorry, FAIRNESS is MAIN WIKI-principle, similar to by Feynman objected cult science - or not? Again no answer to what I put in consent into big box above, exactly conform to WIKI-guidelines.

What is a case in "the scientific community"? That (your) mysteries are Physics?

To fix the "fairness" you need to make a case in the scientific community.

Make a case? What? How to do HERE? Is the linked OPEN LETTER not a sufficient case for itself?

"THE" mentioned "scientific community" not exists but "mainstream dictatorship" and war about nothing: If Photons have a zero mass as EN.WIKI means or a by Planck given frequency a real mass + gravity. Reason of stupid scientific war?: One not accept the other, the other not one by zero or not only.

All dissidents mainly fight against one sole valid "mainstream BB-dictatorship" 90% (my estimation) known papers are or refer to dissident's papers; only here not well-known gravitation effects of photons but called also here Einstein effects of real light (photons).

Only here in EN.WIKI a Photon's relativistic mass not exists at all! To hide an other for "mainstream" not convenient truth of light's or photon's? ::: Not at all found here wat found in FR.WIKI and DE.WIKI, here erased if anyone - until many Professors assistants I was told by now 3 Professors and a son of one - only tried to write something here not liked by a "BB-caste". 84.158.207.102 00:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The encyclopedia is going to report the current state of play.

Each encyclopaedia has not only to write about "mainstream" but also about bare NEWTONPHYSICS and other well known theories "AS IS" not allowed: falsifying by anybody's meaning - but at the end citing critics of course. 84.158.207.102 00:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Dominate mental dictatorship's "mystery" meaning is now the Physics?:

That means reporting that in the world of astronomy, the fundamentals of Big Bang cosmology are used by all but a tiny minority of astronomers. Cosmological redshift is regarded almost universally as a consequence of the cosmological expansion of space from a condition of extreme heat and density some 13 to 14 billion years ago. Theoretical cosmologists are hard at work on all kinds of variant details within that basic framework.

All dissident argue commonly a false interpretation of HUBBLE who finally confirmed never having supported BIG BANG but ZWICKY's Tired light (TL) theory AS "LESS IRRATIONAL" (!!!); thus even much better fulfilling the reality than BIG BANG.

Truths falsified (by BB-mainstream?) historically in nearly all BB-papers, and in (too) free WIKI! Even newest papers say: BB in some manner not can what TL can, e.g. linked here also at the bottom. Facts + theories of their time: Nobody has to falsified it by his meanings; NEWTONPHYSICS is such an immune matter and its facts, ok? 84.158.207.102 00:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Can (even by you called) 2 times a "mystery" be a basis for serious Physics?

The question of dark energy and apparently accelerating expansion since about 4 billion years ago or so is a total mystery.

Exactly! Any encyclopaedia can of course reproduce a good theory AS IS.

A "mystery" is irrational as even HUBBLE confessed! - Also WIKI falsifies real history to the matter. Hubble not supported depreciated ZWICKY and not BB! Nearly steadily falsified in history as here. Especially scientific mysteries cannot be an physics basis but got the most unserious part of BB. By mathematical trick theory produces a mystery solved by 120 decades difference to former mathematics.

Sorry, what you write then is no mystery at all, well-known (not by you?):

The question of what happened as you approach conditions where classical relativity becomes singular is also a mystery.

We imposed in EN:WIKI the so called - In EN:WIKI only unknown second - worldwide named INNER Schwarzschild solution theory: A few time after only in EN.WIKI unknown first solution, Schwarzschild gave Einstein his - in his section by us added and rv - second solution of his GR:

A supermassive homogenous ball replaced already in 1915 (or 1916) that "mystery"; rv! Like our same trial to impose well known 6 solutions to one of the articles GR-SOLUTIONS. For our two Dr.-physics another big WIKI-shame:

Visible lack by related ADMINS +WP:PHYS no knowledge to clear (beneth BB in art.) GR-solutions.

There are a number of other major puzzles; this is an area of active research and theory. But the basics of expansion of space and a finite age to the universe as we know it is a foundation for all deep space astronomy as it is pursued today. An encyclopedia is not going to change that. It can only report the current state of play.

A PLAY NEED MORE THAN ONE PLAYER to make a serious fair game; if only one dictates the game, a fair game is over...

AGAIN YOUR MEANING but the dissidents have published theories fulfilling measured(!) better redshifts and 2,7°K! BACKGROUND RADIATION was related to ZWICKY's theory already many decades before mentioned "correction" of a constant by 120 decades in order to fulfil BB's dictatorship - see above links of Prof. ASSIS to (also) his TR-papers. 84.158.207.102 00:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You are quite right that there are some exceptions. Not all astronomers accept the Big Bang model.

Not all? Nearly nobody believe in a mass off mysteries for BB. A matter of religions incl. cited Pope Pius XII.

Your answer to the OPEN LETTER, objected

However, you are not going to get a useful idea of numbers by counting the people who sign the cosmology statement you mention so frequently. That statement is open to anyone at all, and most of the people who sign it have no standing. The original 33 signatories all had a good basis for recognition as dissidents within the astronomical community. A "GOOD BASIS" MUST BE ENOUGH ALSO FOR WIKI TO TAKE THEM MORE SERIOUSLY - or not?

Already this confessed fact has to suffice also for WIKI then. Their mainly Gravitational redshift related theories using "good reason" by here a tleast 33 proponents are sufficient also for WIKI to take them more seriously but without any input of depreciating MEANINGS - or not?

Most of the current 500 or so signatories do not.

Your MEANING is no FACT. Like some first BB proponents here still made a good job, even convincing me. We had initially 60% of our physicists (meanwhile about 30% resting) while 90% normal astronomers were - as now experienced - ever been sceptically to too many BB-MIRACLES without any basis in phyics.

Called here Big bang religion beause MYSTERIES normally(!) belong to Religions but never to Physics.

ok? 84.158.207.102 00:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

A web page that anyone at all can sign if they feel like it simply does not count for much as a way to survey astronomers.

The OPEN LETTER says correctly: There exists no more any fair contest because of a "mainstreams" mental and financial (as kind of actual) "dictatorship meaning" dominates. A dictatorship typically not allows other meanings and suppresses people either by bare might or putting MYSTERY (e.g. what made you angry again: Our German "by God given" Hitler was named "the highest Legal Right itself"). They put thoughts in brains of their people. Those have only THINK one way then, but have to forget to REFLECT what they think (remember your allergic reaction about - by us here felt and written above - most awful dictatorship the world ever had to suffer).84.158.207.102 00:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

One of the guidelines here is that alternative models can be discussed if they have some kind of reliable publication record.

Answer:

DO YOU AT LEAST TRY TO UNDERSTAND OR ARE YOU A BB-BELIEVER AND PRIEST OF ALL ITS MYSTERIES?

Then please take the holy bible saying: If God wants he can do everything! That means what my priest told us, that HE can produce for all of us a kind of a 3D-solids implying "cinema" (also of the universe of course) to hide the reality - or not?

Like in it's contents in the world untouched (because untouchable) NEWTONPHYSICS, the "model" of ZWICKY is untouchable as written by him AS IS; but BB fans dared to put false and depreciate MEANINGS within sections that he was "overruled", no "mainstream", no "modern physics", ot had not considered GR or BB-physics - and other for us bare stupor. But you erased it.

THE MEANEST IS IF YOU IMPOSE "MYSTERIES" TO SUPPORT BB BUT DARE(!) TO OBJECT OLD ZWICKY THEORY! AND OTHER DEFAMED, NAMED DISSIDENTS THEORIES. A WAR, IGNORING A REALITY OF NON-ZERO PHOTON'S MASS...

What has more weight: Facts or misunderstood barely abused WIKI-Guidelines?

The term reliable is defined in the Wikipedia guideline: WP:V. That is not going to change. You can use it, or you can forget about Wikipedia. You can try to persuade other people that Wikipedia is dreadful. But you are not going to change the guidelines. It just won't happen.

REMINDER of REMINDER of...:

WE CITED ORIGINAL ZWICKY PAPER BUT YOUR FIRST ACTION IN WIKI ON JUNE 13 WAS YOU ERASE IT! ERROR: WIKI-GUIDELINES ARE 100% CONFORM WITH ABOVE REPRODUCED SERIOUS REDACTOR'S GUIDELINES! But a caste of preoccupied USERS and ADMINS absurdly interpret WP-Guidelines inverse to what meant.

All here anyhow active dissidents of BB have had experienced here OUR problem; obviously like a religious in mystery believing mass of obedient mainstream believers. Like a caste with ordination to erase even most precious work of the highest experts of their time? - Having imposed MYSTERIES successfully in physics!-??? Forgotten all other physics of their time?

Some matter has to be treated IMMUNE like NEWTONPHYSICS or ZWICKY "AS IS".

It cannot be discussed but can have of course critics to be put in a last section. Please hear linked FEYNMAN videos: How respectfully he treats the old physicists especially old NEWTON but also other old men of physics. The best example of by WIKI demanded FAIRNESS: Here how to treat all serious Theories fairly, here mainly Gravitational redshift related kinds of bare variations of ZWICKY's Tired light. 84.158.207.102 00:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Good WIKI example (for me better Brans-Dicke related!?)

Here is an example of a guy who is working within the system. Garth Barber has developed his own cosmological model, which he calls Self-creation cosmology. Crucially, he has written quite a number of papers about it, and had them published in well recognized professional journals. Other scientists have commented in turn on his model. Most of them are critical, I think; but no matter. The publication record means that his model meets the requirements for a reference in the encyclopedia. Garth has done a fair bit of work setting up a page on the model. He recognizes frankly and honestly that his view is a minority. He acknowledges up front that he writes with a particular point of view. All of that is okay; we all have a point of view. As a result, Garth now has quite a solid Wikipedia page on his model. The page has problems. It's neutrality is disputed. Most physicists here give it little credence. But Wikipedia is not dominated by physicists, and Garth can reasonably claim that the page is well within the guidelines. Other editors will back him up on this.

I don't know if it is true, but someone here said that a German Berlin Astronomer had tried to input (translate?) in EN.WIKI the content of German DE.WIKI section, likely what we call now - only to prevent your problem - more exactly Photon's relativistic mass. 84.158.207.102 00:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You have said that you like the Brans-Dicke theory. It has a page here as well.

I saw it and was astonished about the high qualification of the writer, a problem is that some written terms are not self-explaining e.g. by direct links, the best way (not only for high impeded people).

Especially its enhanced GR eliminates some - e.g. by above linked Paul Marmet as obvious faults called - basic "mistakes" of the 4D-GR 84.158.207.102 00:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not real active,

A shame!

I've read a bit about it, mainly in Missner Thorne and Wheeler, but I don't have the kind of depth of understanding that would let me contribute much to the article as it stands. You may be interested that Garth describes his own Self-creation cosmology model as a variation of Brans-Dicke.

I will try to read your link.

A shame because it's more flexible than GR, especially by its constant! Open to declare "mysteries" as physics!-???

Ashmore

On the other hand, there is Lyndon Ashmore. There's no page on his theory, and no prospect for a page on his theory. That's not because of the various errors that I have described briefly. It is because there is no publication record. He has one paper in a journal with no academic standing, and no-one cites it. He has a book he wrote himself.

We know only as by him mentioned and cited serious fact: A colleague found his above linked page with its summaries, based at least on by us linked FEYNMAN's original example of not declarable exceptions: Amorphic glass, not blurring, not scattering at all as mainly objected to ZWICKY's theory is namd by ASHMORE - no more, no less was cited and linked by us - rv... 84.158.207.102 00:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

And he has no record whatsoever of any impact in the scientific community; apart from a few physicists hanging around in web discussion forums who have pointed out where he violates basic laws of physics. That's just not any kind of basis for citing him in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia has decided there needs to be a basic level of verifiable publication before the model is significant enough to mention. I think that is an excellent principle. You might object. But our views make no difference; the guideline is there and we can either use it, or give up on Wikipedia.

ASHMORE is only one having tried to declare like ZWICKY himself why TIRED LIGHT must neither blur nor scatter - the main sole remaining objection against ZWICKY!!! - nor photon's have to obey then to a COMPTON EFFECT; and FEYNMAN was the first declaring such exceptions by the example of non crystal amorphic glass, claiming Planck-effects, Feynman said: neither understood by him nor by Einstein nor by anybody in the world (have you read Quantum entanglement as now real founded elimination of Einstein's SPOOKY THING?).

There's one other point you fail to understand about Wikipedia. When you write material for an article, you are giving it away. You no longer any right to control it, or to prevent other editors modifying it in turn. The Wikipedia guidelines actively encourage editors to be bold in removing content that they consider inappropriate.

Sorry that is exactly the reprimanded as only unidirectional reading of WP-GUIDELINES:

At first saying to have the courage to help to enhance WIKI, e.g. in by you cited WP:BE BOLD! Not supporting BARE DESTRUCTION of serious enhancemants as we tried, neither by Users nor ADMINS, As you meant falsely not indentified users must be erased? Meanwhile real destructive RV-HUNTERS...

You became such a RV-HUNTER!-???

Your WIKI-WELCOME June 13; same date first task: erase our ZWICKY sect.; collected IP: all we did, You began to rv all we did; then identified (my father's by me used) Email name while I'd no DSL. All we did here erased totally since you hunted our IP! - Dissidents said: This got also their main WIKI-problem.

Secondarily of course correct: If users - as I saw awfully - really write (bad) meanings, even bad insulting words, others must of course erase it. But not: serious founded theories - IMMUNE, UNTOUCHABLE for the whole scientific world. 84.158.207.102 00:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

That's important, because a lot of people write bad material. It is never totally lost; you can always look up the old versions. Just as I replaced a lot of text you had written, so you also replaced mine.

INDEED!!! - That's why I understand ADMINS and USERS very well doing so in such bad cases.

But: What was also anyhow faulty to name and describe (old status linked above) 6 well-known(!!!) in Wiki-articles linked GR solutions, even named by WP-MARKs as quasi bad articles? Our both physicists tried to impose 6 serious solutions to fulfill the task of the article? - We felt that BB-proponents obviously hunt everything not supporting only BB...

My friends even corrected in EXACT SOLUTIONS a initially cited Einstein tensor, here written contravariant there covariant, here not corrected at all by WP:PHYS. Sorry this showed for us a very, very bad knowledge of the matter by involved related WP:PHYS stuff 84.158.207.102 00:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

When that happens, it is called an "edit war", If two editors cannot reach agreement as to the version to retain, and keep replacing each other's content, then other editors join in. And when that happens, it helps in a big way to understand the guidelines. Insisting that it's unfair to delete other people's text merely shows that you don't understand the system you are using. That's a tactical mistake, because it only exposes you to ridicule for being clueless.

CORRECT !!! - But thus a "mainstream" can of course suppress effectively dissidents by a meaning dictatorship you never experienced in your steadily FREE WORLD (even not understanding my and our old men's allergies?).

We seriously linked and cited all we wrote in a consecutive way without producing a new theory as falsely pretended as reason to erase it.

We want: Serious theories can be reproduced AS IS; then YOU can search critics at bottom to show... 84.158.207.102 00:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Why totally removed with even "first class original material"?

In fact, when I removed some of your material in the Fritz Zwicky biography I did it with considerable caution.

As mentioned: ALL was rv! Indeed too many were involved here, making the content not false but a bit confusing, ok?

But finally the whole section - with all first and second class links - erased with its contents completely!84.158.207.102 00:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I noted my intentions in the discussion page first. I explained my concerns. And, after no-one spoke up on the matter, I went ahead and made the changes as described -- two days after describing what I would be doing on the discussion page. I would have been within recommendations to proceed much faster. Editors are encouraged to bold when they see ways to improve an article, in their own judgment. If there are problems, it is easy to revert. I made use of some of your material, and removed other parts, for reasons that were explained in advance. That's what you are meant to do. You don't have any rights at all to keep your material once you have written it. Demanding such rights will backfire, because it only shows you don't understand the system that is provided for us all to use. A much better approach would have been to assume that I was actually trying to improve the article, and try to see the nature of my concerns and how you could address them. Just abusing me as unfair was a guaranteed way to show that you were failing to follow recommended guidelines. I did everything by the book, and was always willing to negotiate, though I certainly had definite views on what was best. Cheers —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 14:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

1. Above you got two meanings of really first rank dissidents meaning both that the content of that section well reported the related physics.

2. You didn't see how sorry claimed to be one for us unknown USER (I must search him in TALK) about your changes.

3. And you did not see our objections ageist bare meanings to the matter without knowledge at all, not at all seeming to be qualified. E.g. by you involved WP:PHYS member User:Submillimeter and his - for us stupid - meaning that no scattering e.g. by Mössbauer effect can only by valid in crystals (against claimed FEYNMAN to his amorphic glass being more than crystal clear) and other non-physical BARE MEANINGS about for them unknown physics. If "mainstream" MEANINGS dominate serious physics AS IS , WIKI will soon be lost!-??? 84.158.207.102 00:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

BACK TO THE ROOTS, EVIDENTS: PHOTON'S NON-ZERO RELATIVISTIC MASS

WIKI-ADMINS (like you) refuse to realize not only orignial cited FR:WIKI and DE:WIKI content but also - arrogantly? - to realize - here even partly in English written, here imposed -

An English speeking German University-source to photon's proved mass

University articles, one linked and cited here, showing quite clearly: Masses of photons by gravity were prooved in 1960! http://leifi.physik.uni-muenchen.de/web_ph12/versuche/09photmasse/photmasse.htm

• ORIGINAL ENGLISH - HERE COPIED - EXPERIMENT:

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

Claiming first Einstein effect, trans.: If photons have a mass they must be influenced by gravity fields. Especially when passing the sun they must deviate (Original: „Wenn Photonen eine Masse haben, so müssen sie auch durch Gravitationsfelder beeinflussbar sein. Insbesondere bei der Passage am Sonnenrand sollte eine Ablenkung des Lichtes eventuell beobachtbar sein.“)

Then second Einstein effect called Gravitational redshift, trans.: Physicists REBEKKA and POUND have shown in 1969 Einstein's predictions of a photon's mass in earth, with following (remark: above already cited) content, original: "Den Physikern Rebka und Pound gelang im Jahre 1960 eine Bestätigung der einsteinschen Vorhersage einer Photonenmasse in einem "irdischen" Experiment über das in der folgenden Textpassage berichtet wird"):

If EN.WIKI like you simply consistenty refuse to realize that basis of Tired light and other theories, both at least by a really correct WIKI-content (by ZWICKY but not at all BB confirmed) Einstein effects.

Your section Tired light is bare meaning and ignorance

You had erased therin ALL, even our correct cites and links e.g. PNAS citing ZWICKY trans. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/15/10/773.pdf of PNAS First class origin and trans. ZWICKY ORIGINAL PAPER with a direct link to explain what he really wrote instead of what a total laymen like you wrote then mixed mainly up with (your) meanings. Was it to hide the real content, using photon's mass? But not existing in WN.WIKI therefore not understood? Until today by preoccupation? Ignored prob.: Zwicky's (nearly all BB-dissident theories) based on not found Photons relativistic mass YOU WROTE MEANINGS and MEANINGS... - not only e.g. in your (by us made by you erased) section, cited:

Tired light

"When Edwin Hubble discovered a linear relationship between the distance to a galaxy and and its redshift expressed as a velocity[12]..."

HUBBLE never comitted BB (your "velocity"), but confirmed ZWICKY in 1953!

Our links to original Hubble cites were erased at first, see related TALK. In order to hide the real history?

"Zwicky immediately speculated that the effect was due not to motions of the galaxy, but to some inexplicable phenomena that mysteriously caused photons to lose energy as they traveled through space."

ZWICKY NEVER "SPECULATED" and nothing MYSTERIOUS.

he was one (of few) genius. He calculated clear, very seriously, see http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/15/10/773.pdf

• There he took the time differential of a potential field
• and the momentum of a mass
• taking on p.778 - in EN.WIKI ignored, multiple named - everywhere else in the world but not here well-known
• formula for a Photon's relativistic mass formula multiply shown above,
• then also by Einstein used retarded potentials.
• His result was never objected mathematically by other serious physicists as you pretended
• "stubborn" named ZWICKY never revised himself and said this proudly to his students.

"He considered the most likely candidate process to be a drag effect in which photons transfer momentum to surrounding masses though gravitational interactions; and proposed that an attempt be made to put this effect on a sound theoretical footing with general relativity. He also considered and rejected explanations involving interactions with free electrons, or the expansion of space. [13]"

Nowhere in his ORIGINAL PAPER is shown anywhere what you write freely against our cites of his linked related paper, you rv

ZWICKY never claimed mystery things as you write. Indeed, why should HE confirm GR or even BB if his calculus was perfect already for its own, and even better reproducing REDSHIFTS and other effects like Pioneer anomaly - partly until today?

"Zwicky was skeptical of the expansion of space in 1929, because the rates measured at that time seemed too large. It was not until 1956 that Walter Baade corrected the distance scale based on Cepheid variable stars, and ushered in the first accurate measures of the expansion rate.[14].

Zwicky was well known to be never "sceptical" about his work and never revised himself as you wrote.

Cosmological redshift is now conventionally understood to be a consequence of the expansion of space; a feature of Big Bang cosmology[15]."

MEANING and MEANINGS and MEANINGS finally that BB quasi overruled all by - by its by you so-called - real mysteries.

Your TALK to Tired light was pure depreciation

"This article is still a mess.

• There are indications that much has been written by a modern day advocates of the "tired light model", which has no serious standing in astronomy at all. I've already deleted a paragraph about an alleged Mössbauer effect on photons in deep space, which is as silly a notion as you can possibly imagine.

It was proposed by an amateur critic of modern cosmology, Lyndon Ashmore. Nothing of the kind can be found in the scientific literature.

Only that he quite exactly cited FEYNMAN's meaning about transparent media as glass. Your original linked ASHMORE

"A photon undergoing compton scatter will be deflected and thus be deviated from its orignal path and thus 'miss' the earth. The only photons we receive come direct - as in light coming through a transparent medium. They are absorbed and re-emitted in a straight line and lose energy by the electrons recoiling. It is thus not compton."

• YOU IN ZWICKY TALK:

There is still a paragraph called "Feynman's explanation, rehabilitation of Zwicky", which is also extremely silly. It is presented as if Feynman was supporting the tired light model, and Zwicky's ideas on tired light have regained credibility. This is ridiculous. The material cited to Feynman is makes no mention of Zwicky at all, but rather to the transmission of light in a medium like glass. This is also part of Lyndon Ashmore's confusions on Mössbauer effect, as he relates this to light passing through a thin plasma. The very first paragraph says that Zwicky is mainly known for tired light. That's false also.

Searching ZWICKY TIRED LIGHT you find ~ 10.000 answers in GOOGLE, but not if combining him with other things.

He's much better known for proposing dark matter; and probably better known for his observational work and for his proposal of gravitational lensing. Duae Quartunciae 10:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)"

• You priory even confessed to know quasi not enough about astronomy, why dare you then to rv what two DR.-physics wrote? (As original English please correct in that part 2 faults to "sceptical" (no k) and "travelling" (2 ll))

YOU WROTE: "We have a bad problem with this article in relation to tired light. " - sorry who was WE, if you acted alone??? "I have deleted two sections which were especially badly supported and were, in fact, founded on totally unphysical crank science that has no publication record.

• There's lots more still here that is badly flawed. Tired light is a long since refuted idea in physics.

It has no credibility. Modern day tired light advocates do not use Zwicky's model in any case; they propose unphysical interactions with matter particles in deep space.

YOU confessed now: BB needs a MYSTERY to work... 84.158.238.28 03:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, nearly everything in this article starting from the section heading "Tired Light" right through to the section headed "Hubble's Meaning" should be deleted,

Because he confirmed ZWICKY and that he never committed BB as always written falsely?

and replaced with a brief description of what Zwicky himself actually proposed and the fact that it was never generally accepted and is now long since falsified. Most of the material I think should be deleted is actually an attempt to argue an extreme tired light model quite different to that of Zwicky, and one which is universally dismissed as nonsense by working astronomers. Duae Quartunciae 11:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)"

Sorry what can be false in FIRST RANK ORIGINAL SOURCE as linked and copied cited in PNAS origina trans. - F.Zwicky: On the Red Shift of Spectral Lines through Interstellar Space p.775ff; result p.777, using by nearly all dissidents and us taken multiply explained Photons mass ny ZWICKY in p.778?

• TO ASHMORE YOU MEANT: "I require help here from the Wiki community. I am new to how we should handle this. I mean no personal offense to Lyndon Ashmore, but his material was incorrect and has no standing or recognition in the scientific community."

Resume to that (intended?) confusion

SORRY BUT YOU OBVIOUSLY NOT KNOW WHAT IS: FACT, THEORY, PAPER, CRITICS, YOUR INCOMPETENT OWN MEANING! all parts mixed there together and you are really daring to name ASHMORE as you did, where he was quasi exactly citing FEYNMAN as we had cited and linked Feynmans words to a transparent matter like glass? - Oh, Oh, oh... 84.158.228.61 03:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for a list of issues

Since my previous contribution, there have been 17 edits, introducing 26K of new text and 19 new sections. diff for 17 edits from 00:08 to 04:05, 3 August 2007 —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 06:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I am honestly trying to sort through this and deal with the various issues you raise; but I am not physically able to deal with all of them. Many are not particularly relevant to me; though if they are especially important we may be able to talk about them. Many are things Mr Kehler considers very important, but I may have missed them entirely in the flood. Many are matters I have dealt with already; but Mr Kehler simply keeps raising again and again repeatedly, insisting that my answers are invalid in some way. The result is that new additions to this page keep getting exponentially longer, and all without any consistent approach to organizing them into a coherent structure. The English is poor. I don't mean that as a personal attack, but simply as one of the issues we are going to have to manage somehow. We can't speak in German, because I have no capacity for German at all. So unfortunately, if we talk it will have to be in English. All I ask is that you try to be a bit patient with me, and appreciate that I will, from time to time, find it difficult to understand what you are saying. The physics is not a problem to me at all; this is simply a language issue.

Partly accepted, but citing linked first rank papers (e.g. ZWICKY PNAS with his PHOTON's MASS) cited exactly - why erased by you? - cannot be a here as problem pretended langage problem at all but is a problem of even not understanding what wrote the highest qualified Astronomer of the last century! - Already soon depreciated? Is it correct that there exist not any paper from his main Observatory working-place?

Ah! I understand what you mean! I had given a link to the Smithsonian/NASA astronomy abstract service, whereas you think it would be better to link to the pdf preprint at PNAS. At least I think that is what you are getting at? I personally find the NASA service to be more useful, especially at Wikipedia, because it gives a higher level entry where you can easily check for citations and so on; and still also get the full article. It is by following citation and double checking sources that I find useful additional information on the subject. But I can understand that most readers will not already be familiar with the basic material, and will find it more useful to go direct to the preprint of the full article. So I have gone ahead to put in the links to the pdf preprint; though I have left the ADS link in place as well.

Answered lately (cross-edit had erased it): Sorry, but NASA links or resumes cannot prove what ZWICKY exactly wrote (cited by us) using explicitly photon's gravitation effects declared by its non-zero mass and 2 Einstein effects. 84.158.213.226 11:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The following comments are a bit confused, because I did not understand what you were saying. I have struck out what is probably not relevant. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 18:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

We both had edied simultaneously. Desastrous for us if you write about 6 times faster...

In the article discussion page I have already explained why I made some major deletions, and other editors have also listed some of the guidelines under which those deletions were appropriate. I think you may be asking also about my use of footnotes rather than putting a full citation inline with the main text to Zwicky's 1929 paper. I certainly did not erase the reference, but made it a footnote. My view as someone with many years of experience writing in various contexts, including professional scientific and technical literature, is that the footnote convention is the best way to present references like that. It is consistent with how I have cited relevant literature throughout the biography and in every other article I have contributed to in Wikipedia. It conforms to the recommended style here.

However, Wikipedia is a collaborative work. If you think you can improve the article, you are still at perfect liberty to do so yourself. If all you want to do is move the reference up into the main text, I will not complain and I will not revert. I will not mention it to any other person. I might clean up the English if necessary, with a view only to being helpful.

What we had requested, ok! 84.158.232.73 11:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a good chance, however, that some other editor will put it back as a footnote, simply because the footnote convention has such wide recognition as good style. You need to understand that I have no right to demand it remains a footnote, and you have no right to demand it go in the text. Instead, we all try to make the biography the best we can, and if an irreconciable difference shows up, there are various ways that gets addressed, with a formal dispute resolution process.

Then cited ORIGINAL ZWICKY until HUBBLE must remain. 84.158.232.73 11:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to raise a fuss simply about the location of the reference. If you want to move it, go right ahead. I won't complain to you or to anyone else. If you make other changes, as is your right, then I am very likely to dispute them, as is my right. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 17:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I am still unsure how many people are writing to this page.

I WROTE MULTIPLY: Instantly I am alone and why, but there are phone calls as indicated. — comment by W.Kehler

Thank you. I take it from this reply that you are the only person who is actually writing directly to this page, although you are talking about it with your friends on the telephone. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 17:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Mr Kehler is here, of course. He refers to help from other people in his club, and to various scientists he knows, but I am unsure whether there are several people adding new text, or just one person adding the text with the help of information and advice from others.

Do you reaasize what you have done by destroying a kind of engaged elder men's work? That only pensioned people of our club can act instantly here by phone if they are not yet too much "blurred", Tired as by "scattering light"? Especially in vacancies? Most of them gave up angrily, as I told you saying they will never do anything more for WIKI.

Two tried with a unique personal IP (at children's or friend's PC because OMs are rarely skilled in PC) to enhance German articles - of course erased rv! As written! Now usual? A jow of destruction of others hard serious work?

I saw: in one IP others had worked in DE.WIKI; not clear if his children, friends or "aliens"? Able to give a low WIKI-classification of a user? With the effect of a quasithen automatic rv?

Mr Kehler, I worked hard to make the biography of Fritz Zwicky the very best I could. I took care to follow all the guidelines for contributing material to Wikipedia. I made myself available in the discussion pages to other editors, and I discussed in advance the various changes I was proposing. The material I have provided builds on what went before, and I expect and hope that other editors will come along in the future to continue the same process. Along the way what I have written will in turn be replaced and improved and cleaned up as well.

Anyone who contributes to Wikipedia needs to understand that. Wikipedia is not a way to publish your work. It is a way to donate your work, for others to use or discard with total freedom. The work of previous editors is not lost at all. You can still find it in the history lists, and you all have complete freedom to take that work and use it again however you like. Here's the link to the page before I changed anything. [8]

Our citations of ZWICKY, FEYNMAN, HUBBLE original words by first and second class rated links cannot be anyhow by anoone rated as "our work" what we named absurd abuse of WIKI-principles (I must confess: Only the first small part of our first section "Tired light" is - for skilled physicists well-known - a theory by 2 physicists from ~1880 based on Gauss' theorem; we did not find a good link to ~1880. 84.158.244.236 11:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You have no right whatsoever to demand Wikipedia continues to publish anything you donate here. None. Your work, and mine, and that of others, gets evaluated and built upon or discarded as a community of editors decides. You may be as critical as you like of the Wikipedia system and of those who contribute to it. But you don't have a right to demand they publish things as you personally see fit. You can either try to join in and work with the community; or you can take your ball and go play somewhere else. All the material you submitted is still here. Feel free to take it away and publish it somewhere else where you have more appreciation. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 17:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is what I propose. I have gone through the most recent additions, starting from section "What we want in WIKI fairly" and proceeding to the end, using the revision established on 04:05, 3 August. I have made a list of what seem to be the questions Mr Kehler would like addressed. The idea is simply to have a short statement of the issues that we could discuss. To the best of my ability, this list is neutrally stated, making no arguments for or against, and worded to avoid any presumption about the correct answers. I have given a link for each point, going to a particular section within the 04:05, 3 August revision of this page, to a place where the issue was raised.

Please feel free to rearrange or modify the statements in the list if you think they can be worded more clearly. Please also add important points that I may have omitted, and which are not covered under the existing points. We don't want to make it too long, but serious omissions should be corrected. You may also delete or replace anything you don't think is sufficiently important. Please try to keep the wording neutral and very short. Be warned: I will ruthlessly remove all arguments inserted into the list.

After this edit, I am going to wait for a little while, so that Mr Kehler can improve the list. Please humour me, and let your next edit just address any improvements or additions to the list, without giving more argument.

Indeed, a big disruptive problem was when here and there was an edit of this simultaneously.

If Mr Kehler can do that for me, then I will in return give a short statement of my own perspective on each of the issues raised; and then after that perhaps Mr Kehler can pick one or two of the issues he considers most important for an ongoing argument over our differences. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 06:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

VERY, VERY WELL if remained as focus finally, but give me - and perhaps to others now time.

I mean: Next week a few come back? Priory having to work! They got as TIRED as Zwicky's light.

I am not in any rush. I can make my response to this list a week from now if that is what you would like. However, your edits so far seem to miss the point. You seem to have ignored my request to provide a list without arguments and presumptions in advance of the answers.

If all you want to do is shout at me some more, or make firm declarations about how ignorant I am, or list all my supposed errors and misunderstandings, or just assert again a lot of claims of your own, then I guess I can't stop you. But it's a really really bad way to operate at wikipedia. I was hoping to identify a concise and managable list questions or issues where you genuinely would like to know my reply.

I'll work with whatever you can give me; but I'd really prefer a mutually agreed upon list of neutrally stated issues. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 17:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE RESTORE ABOVE YOURSELF OUR DIRECT ENGL. PNAS-LINK instead of your NASA metalink: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/15/10/773.pdf that readers can realize directly that our original cites and first class (e.g. PNAS-) links were better and quite correctly cited: p.775ff. result p. 777 and use of the related most important formula in p.778.

I have moved this up out of the list of issues section. I now understand what you mean by the citations. You prefer having the web link for Zwicky 1929 going to the PNAS preprint in pdf, rather than having the link go to the NASA/ADS abstract server. I have no objection to this; it makes reasonable sense. I've put the PNAS preprint links in, as I believe you prefer. The list of issues should be kept, please, for questions you would like me to address. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 23:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Dissident's Email-statements

(This section transfered here from my user talk page. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 15:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC))

INFORMATION: I got meanwhile 3 Emails from "dissidents" of the OPEN LETTER and tried today to induce them to say and act themselves in or after linked ISSUE-section. Most clearly wrote Jastrzebski:

• "The relativistic mass of the photon is hf/c^2 as it has always been (which is known to most high school students) so what are you trying to prove or just to do sending me thus about the BB and the mass of photon?"
• He confirmied that PHOTON'S RELATIVISTIC MASS is the only one, even MEANING "gravitation has been explained ninety years ago and the Big Bang died about 20 years ago" (resumed remark: by all mentioned crucial objections?) and must be considered (Remark, word in German written by him, as) "kaputt"! 84.158.209.42 10:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I have always known that the relativistic mass of a photon is hf/c^2. The only difference is that I tend not to use the phrase "relativistic mass". Modern texts on relativity tend to prefer using the term "mass" for the frame invariant "rest mass", which is why the phrase "relativistic mass" is not used so often. But there is no associated change whatsoever to the theory. This is nothing but a choice of terminology. I know what relativistic mass means, I have no problem reading papers that use the term, and the particular choice of words makes no difference whatsoever to how you calculate the motions of a photon and the interactions with other particles and with gravity and general relativity. This is not a topic for debate here; please keep that to the other page. Thanks —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 11:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Please realize that neither BB nor (rather only:) EN.WIKI not "know" or even deny it; you had ignored here also the existance of a non zero mass... 84.158.252.111 11:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The main problem is that the mass of photons is ambivalent taken in physics.

About ~1905 to ~1930 (said French Prof.) Einstein was so glad, got prices for "his" predicted and proved Einstein effects based on photon's gravity and its mass; but ~1948 he wrote that he favorizes (in 4D spacetime only?) a zero rest mass. Since that, Astronomers no more understand one another and make mentioned "war"?

Mentioned Prof. meant: Instead of taking a normalized linear metric, physicists should take an invariant "volume metric" instead, e.g. for 3D visible for the famous BB-balloon:

Each volume element of an inflated balloon remains always the same, gets thinner but "broader".

Could such a metric - here according to dr/dt - solve problems differently? E.g. a related Lorentz-transformation? And the view of c² (in such a stretched volume) instead of only taking c? Anyhow interesting at least to normalize the volume instead, also suitable to solve Einstein'S problem of the connservation of mass by a simple transformation of the Einstein Tensor? 84.158.208.213 13:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

My old Dr. told me at phone: At his time he understood Einstein tensor as - only then remaining invariant - (physics of a) gum element of an inflating balloon. No problem while having a constant momentum. A bigger problem needing all components, inflating water instead: It produces oscillations in the balloon, needing tensor components in all directions. I think this could even solve the transformation problem84.158.208.213 14:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not relevant to this user talk page. If you want to debate physics; get an account so that you can fill up your own pages with it. Or put it in a new section at User:Duae Quartunciae/W. Kehler. No offense intended, but I am closing this topic, and will delete further comment on the matter here. Thanks. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 13:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

ok, but not an aspect of interest? 84.158.252.111 11:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if you have problems reading my request, or just think you are free to ignore it. In either case, you continued to add more stuff to this section of my talk space, and so I have simply picked up the whole section and moved it over here were you can continue. No offense intended, but my talk space is not going to be taken up with debates on basic physics. We can continue here later on, when I have a bit more time. Best wishes —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 15:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Instantly I do not know what you mean. I answered (also here) indeed even twice, both was lost again by CROSS-EDIT and you are much faster than an impeded one; then I had to go. Now I've lost the context to what you meant over here exactly. I put an answer lately above 84.158.252.111 11:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

A list of issues

(This section can be freely edited by any user. The aim is to give a simple list of issues that Duae Quartunciae should answer. Please just list questions where you would like an answer. Your own claims and your own arguments should go in the next section. Please apologize: User Kehler is not native English speeking).

PROBLEM:

1. Ignorance of a (not only here in WIKI, see e.g. article photons) simply not yet existing (but needed for understanding) Photon's relativistic mass $m={\frac {h\nu }{c^{2}}}\,$ - producing both Einstein effects by its mass and gravity, see [[9]]
2. Main related problem: Total ignorance of that kind of a photon's mass provokes a kind of physicist's "war": 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.
3. Special related problem: In article Fritz Zwicky, section "Tired light" related citations were erased (also in Tired light article) about ZWICKY's usage of that Photons's relativistic mass supporting a total ignorance of that (also "his") photon's non-zero relativistic mass as correctly cited and linked by us as found in first class reference link PNAS, Zwicky original paper. It is the basis for a later so-called Tired light and was used also by ZWICKY as (his) photon's mass explicitly, see p.778. [[10]] - erased (rv).
4. Many theories cannot be understood without accepting their basis: A non-zero photon's mass.
5. Until today theories using a non-zero photon's mass declare Hubble's redshift differently than Big bang and must be respected as imposed fairly also in English Wikipedia for people's understanding differences of theories as found mainly in other languages (even Wikipedia).
6. A total lack of knowledge anywhere about an until today accepted premise provokes depreciation by pure ignorance. Of course also a misunderstanding of nearly all related papers until 2007 (linked).
7. Ignorance - even simply pretending that non-zero mass cannot exist! - prevents even a minor respect for alternatives and provokes grave misunderstandings and such a mental "war": Related theories (better named now more neutrally "Downscaling photons") use Tired light until today, but remain anyhow depreciated and defamed incl. their users and proponents by mentioned ignorance.
8. Indeed, subjectively Einstein "himself one of the founders of quantum theory, disliked this loss of determinism in measurement (hence his famous quote "God does not play dice with the universe" (here e.g. that E=mc² should be equivalently seen to Planck's E=hv giving above mentioned mass), see [[11]] and [[12]]. Nevertheless Einstein accepted fairly Planck's theory.
9. “In fact, gravity is in many ways a much better quantum field theory than the Standard Model, since it appears to be valid all the way up to its cutoff at the Planck scale. (By comparison, the Standard Model is expected to break down above its cutoff at the much smaller TeV scale.)” [[13]].

REPRIMANDED: WIKIPEDIA PRINCIPLES AGAINST EXPERIENCED ADMINISTRATION

1. Why did User:Duae_Quartunciae start searching for 84.158.*.* contributions, erasing all? [14]
2. Fairness as a principle for Wikipedia. [15], [16]
3. Contradictory handling of photon's zero rest mass and non-zero frequency depending photon's relativistic mass not found in in EN.WIKI against partly or completely found e.g. in FR.WIKI, DE.WIKI, ES.WIKI. [[17]]

WIKIPEDIA PRINCIPLES DEMANDED:

1. Alternative theories to be presented "AS IS" by their supporters at first, at last its critics, no redactor's meaning anywhere allowed. [18]
2. Such a proper handling generally, here especially of serious alternatives to the Big Bang. [19]
3. Proper handling of the photon's relativistic mass as a special indefinit case of a normal relativistic mass in Wikipedia articles for understanding one side the other. [20]
4. Restoration of the main former CONTENT (not the form with enhanced English) of former tired light section to Fritz Zwicky biography, if possible content until subsection Hubble's meaning but enhanced by in the matter of Tired light really skilled physicists. [21]
5. No depreciation of tired light section in Zwicky's biography by redactor's meanings especially not in any the matter describing article, section or part. [22]
6. Restoration of CONTENT of a removal of citations by Richard Feynman, especially citations, confirming such phenomena previously for transparent glass - like interstellar gas or "ether" amorphous (non-crystal) - by Feynman himself and by nobody understandable quantum mechanic's effect in [[23]].
7. No depreciation of Lyndon Ashmore pretenting exactly the same in [[24]] explained by Ashmore in a talk with User:Duae_Quartunciae (there SYLAS) in [[25]]: transparent matter not blur or scatter like glass. Ashmore's or another known theory is important with no blurring or scattering in transparent amorpous intersrellar gas, indicated by Asmore similar to Feynman sying that nobody understand the effect especially for glass, reproduced by us [[26]], see [27], but erased menawhile.
8. HISTORICAL FACTS PERVERTED: We want a restauration (a by us so-called further ZWICKY's rehabilitation) that Hubble in reality never committed himself to Big bang and finally even wrote in 1953 that Zwicky's Tired Light is "less irrational" than BB. Such clear facts, well-known as written, must remain irreversible and cannot be touched anyhow by any redactors meaning; two by us linked sources were [[28]] and [[29]].

NOT ALLOWED: FALSIFICATIONS OF THE HISTORY AND PROVED FACTS:

1. Evident falsifications of the real history that Hubble had confirmed anyhow the Big bang must be corrected as we did (rv!). This not only here but in all related Wikipedia articles according e.g. our intention (rv!) in [[30]].
2. In reality Hubble found only a redshift-distance-relation and no reason! But such a relation is not only supported by Big bang but equivalently e.g. by Tired light using a real photon's mass.
3. Such unfairness as inserted correctly by us, all erased (rv): Mentioned Tired light section in "our" Fritz Zwicky article was inserted because the original Tired light article - already in the first section - objects already initially - by bare redactor's unfair meaning! - a Compton effect. The effect must not exist: Amorphous glass makes no blurring only by a redactor's meaning in [[31]]. A former attempt of my friend to correct it therein was erased.
4. In one article [better in Tired light) have to be added all important content and links supporting Tired light theories until recently, e.g. named "downscaling photons", by newest ESA paper [Another look at the Pioneer anomaly] with additionally mentioned premise that photons have a (non-zero!) mass. One of the related articles has to be enhanced or our related correct content anywhere restored.

Better: In ZWICKY's biography only his paper contents, the rest in Tired light and Non-standard cosmology.

NOT ALLOWED: REDACTOR'S MEANINGS (TO BE ERASED) ABOUT THEORIES, SCIENCE ARTICLES, SCIENTISTS...

1. Prof. A.K.T. Assis supporting until now also Tired Light in History of the 2.7 K Temperature Prior to Penzias and Wilson and Big Bang and The Redshift Revisited
2. Halton Arp enhanced 2007 Further Evidence that the Redshifts of AGN Galaxies May Contain Intrinsic Components, M.B. Bell1
3. Prof. Geoffrey Burbidge and Margaret Burbidge as one serious mathematical GR-solution.
4. Perhaps imposing anew even Ashmore's Tired Light.
5. In an article about Newton physics would be good to imply a resume of Einstein's Theory of Relativity versus Classical Mechanics, by Paul Marmet.

REAL MATHEMATICAL SOLUTIONS OF THE GR NOT EXIST IN TWO ARTICLES

1. Both to GR related articles with solutions rated as quasi bad in [[32]] and [[33]] (still with incorrect contravariant Einstein tensor, status Aug 07!) both should be enhanced. We gave 6 well-known solutions erased by Admin. Our old version showed 6 well-known real solutions [[34]].
2. An additional article EXACT SOLUTIONS makes no real sence; additionally once covariant once contravariant written Einstein tensors in both is a tremendous fault (until recently).
3. Schwarzschild solution, CONTENT of our enhancement has to be resored: EN.WIKIPEDIA article not support clearly two different well-known solutions as given by Schwarzschild in 1916 between few months to Einstein. The first is called "outer" or "extern Schwarzschild solution" to be valid extern of the Schwarzschild radius.
4. The worldwide so called Inner Schwarzschild solution not exists until today (Aug. 07) in EN.WIKIO proving a lack of Admins' physical knowledge: It "describes the gravitational field outside a spherical, non-rotating mass". A here not known Inner solution (input by us but rv) replaces sophistically a not allowed singularity of a black hole by a solid super-massive spheric ball within the Schwarzschild radius (where light can no more escape).
5. You find in ES.WIKI even additonally a mathematically equivalent Big light solution (a kind of many Big bangs). Both by Schwarzschild to Einstein originally given (by us enhanced, rv) mentioned solutions are especially found and well described in DE.WIKI or e.g, [[35]] and [[36]].

NOT ALLOWED: CENSORSHIP, E.G. ANTI-GRAVITY ARTICLE; PLEASE RESTORE CONTENT OF OUR INPUT

1. In article Anti gravity User:Duae_Quartunciae had also erased what is partly mentioned above in section [[37]] by his MEANINGS. We mean that to such a strange thing there cannot exist even a minor physical consent. Therefore people can only (even must here) be informed about what exist. In such a case (even if seen by users or admis as serious or less serious) the reader has to get priory information to decide for himself what he believes and what not. No user or admin has got by WIKI-PRINCIPLES any Right of censorship to eliminate here bare information about such an ambiguous stuff. My friends, then I, found many more and less serious papers and linked them into the article Anti gravity (this happened while searching about photons and gravitons).

EINSTEIN'S MAXIME: ALSO VALID EVERYWHERE IN A FAIR WIKIPEDIA INCL. BIG BANG, TIRED LIGHT...

1. "Every theory is killed sooner or later... But if the theory has good in it, that good is embodied and continued in the next theory. — Albert Einstein" - found in EN.WIKI...

I N V I T A T I O N : PLEASE CLICK AND PUT YOUR COMMENT HERE

I erased your personal part. I think most people are in summer vacancies. Let's wait at least 10 days or even more.

Another problem is that elder people have obviously their problems to edit something here.

Those who were already selected anyhow to be continuously erased (rv) systematically (like our real enhancements to WIKI were erased meanwhile even completely) they obviously got more tired than ZWICKY's TIRED LIGHT to help WIKI anyhow any more (the most qualified to the matter had resigned!?).

You can see at least that I write for most of them and in their sense by the following resume:

Jim Jastrzebski wrote me, 05.08.2007 15:46:39 WESZ

see e.g. The Einsteinian Universe, [38], Jastrzebski: (He indicated 07.08.2007 17:47:50 WESZ to write himself; in vain while page was stopped?):

• "The relativistic mass of the photon is hf/c^2 as it has always been (which is known to most high school students) so what are you trying to prove or just to do sending me thus about the BB and the mass of photon?"

He confirmed and meant to that PHOTON'S RELATIVISTIC MASS

• "gravitation has been explained ninety years ago and the Big Bang died about 20 years ago" (resumed remark: by all mentioned crucial objections?) and must be considered (Remark, word in German written by him, as) "kaputt"! 84.158.209.42 10:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Dr.Kießlinger wrote me, Email, trans.

Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 5:03 PM Subject: Re: Jastrzebsk understood OPEN LETTER-PROBLEM: IN USA EXIST ONLY PHOTON'S ZERO REST MASS

Introduction, resume: Sorry to be unable to edit myself without help directly in WIKIPEDIA but

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

DESCRIBING LENSING as first Einstein effect:

"Thus light has the mass hf/c^2 initiated in the direction crosswise; but this mass is of course no rest mass. The movement crosswise the light distraction in the gravity field changes the direction of the ray of light by the gravity effect without acceleration, i.e. without energy alteration, crosswise. That is described in my book on side 24 ("directional dependence of a mass").

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"How can one explain this situation Wikipedia administrators?

I don't know, because they are not able to listen."

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Prof. Assis wrote me again (first, see above) but only

(See above his papers links he sent me about TIRED LIGHT! Obviously more and more MAINSTREAM?), on 06.08.2007 20:12:56 MESZ

"Dear Kehler, thanks for keeping me informed. Yours, Andre Assis"

His first one was cited above (wishing good luck for a desperate fight).

Halton Arp wrote

Thema: OUR ZWICKY ARTICLE (remark: section erased completly by you), Datum: 19.06.2007 12:17:11 WESZ

"Dear W.Kehler,

I have looked over the Zwicky article in Wikipedia and find it reasonably good and complete. The English could be improved but it is quite understandable now and I see no need for editing it further. The tired light and dark matter was covered in the article. I, personally, do not ascribe to any form of tired light (I have instead an intrinsic redshift for young matter). But Zwicky's early contributions to the problem are well elucidated and the force of his personality and intelligence comes through well in the Wikipedia article. - Sincerely, Halton Arp"

Thema: AGAINST BIG-BANG, Datum: 27.06.2007 15:03:50 WESZ

"Dear W.Kehler,

If you get enough mass to redshift the light, the gradient between 0 and high redshift is so sharp that it would smear out the quasar/galaxy lines. This is not observed.

I think the evidence is for elementary paricle masses to grow with time. Then young matter will emit weaker (intrinsically red shifted) light. "Seeing Red" page 250. What did Zwicky say to me the night I was developing pictures of M 87? See my book "Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies" page 136. - Regards, Halton Arp

Indirect information about Professors Hoyle, Burbidge, Narlikar 2005

A Different Approach to Cosmology, Hoyle, Burbidge, Narlikar: PUBLISHED RESUME speeking for itself:

" The astronomical community is wrongly interpreting cosmological data by using the standard Big Bang Model. In this highly controversial volume, three distinguished cosmologists argue this premise with persuasion and conviction. Starting with the beginnings of modern cosmology, they conduct a deep and wide review of the observations made from 1945 to the present, explaining what they regard as the defects and inconsistencies that exist within the interpretation of cosmological data. This is followed by an extensive presentation of the authors' own alternative view of the status of observations and how they should be explained. Along the way, the book touches on the most fundamental questions, including the origin, age, structure, and properties of the Universe. Writing from the heart, with passion and punch, Hoyle, Burbidge, and Narlikar, make a powerful case for viewing the universe in a different light, which will be of great interest to graduate students, researchers, and professionals in astronomy, cosmology, and physics."

""Professor Sir Fred Hoyle, Britain's greatest living astrophysicist...launches his most comprehensive attack against the Big Bang theory, in a book with the archly subversive title A Different Approach to Cosmology...when Hoyle makes a cosmic pronouncement, it is invariably worth hearing...Together with two other respected astrophysicists, Hoyle systematically reviews the evidence for the Big Bang theory, and gives it a good kicking...it's hard not to be impressed with the audacity of the demolition job...I can only hope that I possess one-thousandth of Hoyles' fighting spirit when I, like him, have reached my 85th year." The Sunday Telegraph

"The writing style is lively and personal, and the scientific arguments are written in such a way as to be accessible to upper-division undergraduate students in physics and astrophysics. The book is very well referenced and illustrated with suitable and approproate illustrations. Recommended for upper-division undergraduates, graduate students, and two-year technical program students." Choice

"This is a fascinating book, expressing the views of three scientists who choose to go against the conventional cosmological wisdom. It is extremely important for such skepticism to exist and for such books to be written." - Physics Today

"The book is a serious and professional contribution to scientific cosmology." - Sky & Telescope

"Throughout the last few decades, Fred Hoyle, Geoffrey Burbidge, and Jayant Narlikar have done the cosmology community a great service by developing and defending a serious alternative to Big Bang models of cosmic origins. A Different Approach to Cosmology is a summary of their work...by elucidating one of the hot Big Bang' competitors, the authors provide a good educational exercise for any graduate student interested in fundamental cosmology." - Science"

Paul LaViolette wrote, additionally to formerly given links

Von: Starburstfound An: Wfc kehler

You may be interested in this webpage reviewing my work disproving the big bang theory. http://www.etheric.com/Cosmology/redshift.html Sincerely, Paul LaViolette

My personal meaning, supported obviously by a "real mainstream"

...mainly supporting a kind of TIRED LIGHT all using obviously non-zero Photons' relativistic mass, ignored in USA nearly completly (as if a BB-religion has to be supported, only needing zero REST MASS).

I personally meanwhile mean (obviously already according to the mass of astronomers!?):

Linked highest qualified astronomers meanwhile represent in total "the" REAL MAINSTREAM, but those not few ones are not sponsered (like an in reality BB-minority) with immense money to defend a religious kind of "MYSTERY" BIG BANG (as also you explicitly wrote; we had called it (proved by a last section in Big bang article:) a "Big-Bang-religion").

Ashmore said 30 faults of BB need "mysteries". Mysteries need only one theory in comparision to a few banal faults of all other alternative theories 84.158.252.111 10:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Long anouncement of a short seminar for BB opponents written by one of them

Guys, I set a seminar on my talk page meant to explain, from a POV of a physicist problems with BB.

Except, an argument raised by Stephen Hawking that BB didn't delivier a single verifiable prediction yet while a real science is supposed to make predictions, a sufficient reasons for BB not being a science is a basic BB's assumption of possibility of creaton of matter from nothing. It makes from BB a pseudo science, or a religion: a false explanation of made up observations. It doesn't even make out of BB a magic, which is a false explanation of real observations like e.g. "universal gravitational attraction" that does not exist in the universe, at least according to general relativity, but it is close enough to the real thing that it may be used by astrophysicists as if it were true and no harm is done. BB is not even close to the real thing since even its observations (expansion of the universe, while what we see is only a redshift) are made up (like in a typical religion).

The main assumption of BB follows directly from an assumption by Wheeler that the spacetime is curved for which there is no evidence and exists an evidence to the contrary which has been also noticed by Narlikar. For those who can't tell the curavature of spacetime form the curvature of space I might add that while space is a 3-D object the spacetime is 4-D object and so it may have fourth dimenssion compensating for the curvatures of the first three so that the 4-D object — spacetime — comes out as flat, which actually must happen if energy is to be conserved globally.

The seminar is meant for those who are interested in science, especially those who ask questions about what they don't understand (even if the questions are based on false assumptions). An activity forbidden in the BB religion — see epistemological theorem made up by one of high prists of BB, John Baez — on my talk page in section Why astronomers believe in BB and physicists don't. Apparently it is since the astronomers found an easy explanation of the effect of Hubble redshift without thinking about the consequences and the physicists don't care about the redshift (they think it's going to be explained anyway if not now then in the future) as much as about the consequences of the explanation which shouldn't violate any known physics (also an opinion of Feynman).

The seminar contains an explanation of Einstein's gravitation and how it explains the Hubble redshift. It shows on an example of Landau's Theory of fields (to avoid tiresome suggestions that I made it all up) that there is a strict conservation of energy in gravitation. People not interested in science, who just want to comment on their attachment to BB "don't need to apply".

Please log in and sign your questions with 4~ and don't start them with a blank that I will have to remove afterwards (as I'm removing them in this page). Use rather a colon (or a few) for an indent. Jim 11:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)