Talk:Burkhard Heim

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

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

message: Hi.  HappyCamper has asked me to translate a text in French which could contain information on Heim that could be useful in this article.  I see that there are issues of neutrality going on, not to mention that, simply adding to the article the direct translation of a text found at this website may constitute a copyright violation.  In light of all of that, I'm posting here my translation of the text, so that the people who are more involved with the article can decide how to best use it.  For the original, please visit the indicated website.
Redux's translation:
"Northeim, Hannover.  
A German physiciSTS of international fame, his works were translated by physiciSTS with the Sandia Lab, in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
He worked under difficult conditions.  Both his hands were amputated following a lab accident during World War II.  He also suffered from advanced deafness as well as being almost completely blind.  He had to undergo more than 50 surgeries in order to recover some part of his basic abilities.  He taught  and work as a deaf, blind man.  Through the years, with the help of his wife, who served as his secretary, and equipped with a special gadget, he had the texts read to him and memorized them.  He enjoyed a prodigious memory and became a “human computer”, recording in his brain formulas and knowledge, categorizing thousands of pieces of information while being capable of imagining and creating.
He believed that it was possible to both increase or annul gravity.  On January 7, 1969, at the Institute for the study of force fields of Nordheim, near Goettingue, in the region of  Basse Saxe, he stunned his colleagues by demonstrating in practice that it was possible to create artificially a gravitation field, transforming light into magnetism.
Ten years earlier, he had already demonstrated, in theory, the possibility of transforming an electric field into a gravitation field and vice-versa.  At the time his theory of the uniformity of the quanta of the force fields of gravitation and matter, which, in addition to describing physics and the biosphere, also disserted on psychology and the spiritual domain, was a sensation in the scientific world and made way for numerous publications that spanned from serious analyses to the phantoms of science fiction.  His theory is one-of-a-kind in modern physics because it allows, among other things,   to calculate exactly the masses of all particles as well as the most important constants.  His theory of fields deducts the existence of a hyperspace, a sixth dimension and has relevant consequences to cosmology, both technologically and metaphysically.  The Second Congress on his theory was held in 1998. 
Heim imagined devices in which photons lost their luminosity, that is to say, their energy.  They become invisible as the luminescent energy is transformed into gravitational energy which exercises magnetic force.  The savant inspired himself in air chambers to build an extremely sensitive detector that allows to register even the weakest pulses of gravitation.  This invention can be considered as the future corner stone of space propulsion and evokes an analogy between terrestrial science and extraterrestrial technology.   According to Burkhard Heim, discovery through cognition is common to all the sentient systems in the Universe, for they possess a common source.  So, for religious reasons,  he discontinued voluntarily his studies on cosmogenesis  and evolutional phenomena."
END OF TEXT</br>There are many technical terms in the text.  I did my best to word it as accurately as possible, but some review may be necessary as far as the technical stuff is concerned.  Regards, Redux 01:07, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Redux, your translation will help us assess what material can be added to the article. Thank you very much! HappyCamper 01:26, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

text: You are quite welcome.  About the Institute, they didn't give the name of the place, but rather discribed its scope and where it is located.  It could be that it is the "Institute for the study of force fields of Nordheim", maybe that's the actual name of the place.  Perhaps someone knows about that...   I didn't, so I stuck to what the text read.  Redux 01:48, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, after my latest biographical additons to yhe article, it should be clear that the "Institute for the study of force fields" is the "Institut fuer Kraftfeldphysik e.V.", from which a colleague embezzled funds, increasing Heim's distrust and secrecy. Nordheim was where Heim lived with his wife, so he must have registered the firm with HQ at his house. However, looking again at the 'Nachruf', there's a photo of Heim in front of his 'Kontrabator', which is presumably in the lab in his home in Nordheim. This is from 'Bunte' in 1957.
--hughey 10:59, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translated text 

message: I removed:
: , e.g., Anderson and Ahner (see  for a related paper by these authors with a higher dimensional theory reminiscent of Heim's)
Without some evidence that Heim did suspect A&A, this seems inappropriate. And higher-dim theories are pretty common. William M. Connolley 19:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism 

message: Why is there nothing about these theories in Stephen Hawkings books ? After all, that's what he's working on.. unified theory
:Burkhard Heim's work is not an accepted part of mainstream physics.  As I recall, Hawking's books deal primarily with established physics (such as general relativity) and to a limited extent with mainstream efforts at unification (he mentions string theory, for example).--Steuard 23:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Illobrand Von Ludwiger told me that Hawking had been approached and asked to look through Heim's work, but he had refused as the 3 volumes are in German, which he does not understand sufficiently well. That's where Hauser and Dröscher are improving on the situation - they are prepared to publish in English. Already they've  'taken the world by storm' with their AIAA papers and the New Scientist publicity. Next year will see peer reviewed papers with more technical backround that given in the aerospace presentations. And don't poo-poo that please - the enemies of Heim-theory must eat humble pie for a while after their humiliating defeat in the attempts to delete the theory page :-) . --hughey 16:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe I've read this too.  Stick to the Facts 04:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No references by Hawking? 

message: Burkhard heim has been in the news recently concerning the idea of a hyper engine that would use electromagnetic fields to affect gravity.
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg18925331.200-take-a-leap-into-hyperspace.html
I wanted to point out that this had already been accomplished by one nikola tesla: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla#Theoretical_inventions
Unfortunately information concerning his "flying machine" seems to have been removed. 
I was wondering if any one out there would be so kind as to post information relative to the work of Nikola Tesla on electromagnetism and gravity, along with that of Burkard Heim.
There’s so little information!
If not, would it at least be possible to provide a link on one another’s articles?
WikiWorm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.35.26.22 (talk) 16:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tesla did it 

message: This article has a lot of unsourced statements and hype.  Statements like "Fortuitously in the same year, Walter Dröscher, a theorist at the Vienna Patent Office, began to work with Heim. The first result of their collaboration cumulated into the second volume of Heim's major work, appearing in 1984. It is almost error-free, in contrast to the first volume which was not reviewed to this extent" ring my alarm bells.  In what way is it "fortuitous"?  Who has declared the work "almost error free"?
Geoffrey.landis 20:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the biographical statements on Heim come from von Ludwiger, although this could also be from Andreas Resch, Heim's publisher. "Error-free" refers mainly to the correct reproduction of equations. Resch stressed what a difficult task it was to publish Heim since Heim himself was blind, his mathematics advanced and he had also developed a terminology of his own. I believe i read the latter quote somewhere in an article by Resch but can't find the passage now. I did find an article where Resch talks about the problems of publishing Heim, though. Mbechmann (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 06:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced hype 

message: :Image:Heim51.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 22:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Heim51.gif

message: I would note that the section on 'Academic and work history' does not cite even a single reference for the entire period prior to Heim's death. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: HrafnTalkStalk(P) overlooked the paragraphs carrying the American Psychological Association stylized citations.  To avert an edit-war, footnotes have been added and all citations have been converted to footnotes.Tcisco (talk) 07:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: User Tcisco overlooked the fact that they didn't raise this point until 8 days later. The APA refs are easy to overlook, and covered only a minority of the tagged material. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Near ubiquitous unverifiable information 

message: Can an article published on the website of the 'Society for the Scientific Investigation of Anomalous Atmospheric and Radar Phenomena MUFON-CES, Inc.' be considered a WP:RS? It looks a very WP:FRINGE source. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it can be considered a WP:RS.  For example, the committee funded by Rockefeller and chaired by Peter Sturrock and formed from  mainstream scientific community recognized and incorporated papers from MUFON-CES with the analyses of anomalous airial phenomena (see Peter A. Sturrock (Study Director)(1999).  The UFO Enigma.  New York, NY: Warner Books, Inc.  ).Tcisco (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I remain skeptical. I will refer this to WP:RS/N. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

text: I will note that the article appears to be an obituary from a student of Heim's; in conjunction with some of the other notes on this page of unsourced or dubious-sounding information, I worry that the obituary is not an objective assessment of Heim's life or work.  Phlaximus (talk) 19:18, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

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

message: The article claims According to Weyl, a brief description of Heim’s lecture was recorded in the proceedings of the Society for Space Research, where the word Weyl links to Herrmann Weyl, a well known mathematician and theoretical pysicist. As source for that a link to two paper given is given. The author of the paper is "A. R. Weyl". Herrman Weyls full name was "Hermann Klaus Hugo Weyl". Herrmann Weyl died 1955, the mentioned paper were published in 1958 respectively 1959. So the source of that claim is certainly not the established Hermann Weyl but another Weyl (probably a german aircraft engineer). --78.54.148.0 (talk) 10:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  A. R. Weyls contribution to theoretical physics might be of (limited?) historical interest, but he's certainly not a well known scientific expert or has a reputation for his original work on that topic. There was a hype at that time to "try your self" on a theory of gravity, which produced a lot of paper without any impact. So let A. R. Weyl be the aircraft engineer. As a proof to Heims reputation among theoretical physicists he is not much good. --80.171.229.220 (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  No link to Hermann Weyl 

message: Von Ludwiger claims  Dem Attentäter, der die Sauerstofflasche absichtlich mit Öl verunreinigt hatte, konnte Heim verzeihen, so dass dieser sein Leben behielt. (The assassin, who intentionally conatminated the oxigen bottle with oil could be forgiven by Heim, so that he could keep his life). No further details (Name, motivation, trial, ...) are given. Sounds impropable to me.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.54.148.0 (talk) 22:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not really improbable by itself, although i think the term "terrorist" (in the article) is misleading. Heim worked on explosives in the broader context of the german war effort, so it might have been an act of sabotage. However, in the biography of von Ludwiger on Heim, published in 2010, this detail is missing. In there, it is not described as an oxygen bottle but rather as a special explosive which was accidentally contaminated in production. I haven't read the whole book yet but checked the chapters concerning the time from the incident until around 1947 and there's no mentioning of assassination/sabotage, so it looks to me like vL stepped back from his claim. I would suggest considering taking this detail out. --Mbechmann (talk) 07:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Von Ludwiger obviously contradicts himself. There is no evidence of stepping back. Taking into account, that that event was a dramatic turn in Heims life and that von Ludwiger is the Heim-biograph this leaves some questions open. Either von Ludwigers credabilty is damaged (and thereby one of the most important and quoted sources to Heims life) or Heims biography is missing an important part. Both consequences are not trivial to the article about Heim. So taking that simply out and sweep it under the carpet seems not appropriate to me, esp. since Heims work is in in general between controversional and rejected among physicists — if not ignored. --80.171.229.220 (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claimed assasination 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Burkhard Heim. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060624142807/http://www.komplett-media.de:80/katalog/H%C3%B6rb%C3%BCcher_Neuheiten_DAS_NEUE_WELTBILD_DES_PHYSIKERS_BURKHARD_HEIM_CD_BUCH_Paket,150,2987,d.html to http://www.komplett-media.de/katalog/H%C3%B6rb%C3%BCcher_Neuheiten_DAS_NEUE_WELTBILD_DES_PHYSIKERS_BURKHARD_HEIM_CD_BUCH_Paket,150,2987,d.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Burkhard Heim. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060110095553/http://www.newscientistspace.com:80/article/mg18925331.200 to http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/mg18925331.200/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Burkhard Heim. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150720003611/http://www.heim-theory.com/Contents/contents.html to http://www.heim-theory.com/Contents/contents.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:33, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It seems to me that there's a lot more information about Heim's publication history / anecdote about conversation with famous theoretical physicists than there ought to be in this article. Though Heim appears to have published extensively with regards to his theories, most of the publications were not in peer-reviewed journals. The anecdotes about his interactions with people like Heisenberg and Von Braun look just a bit like an effort to legitimize Heim's work by putting him in contact with prominent physicists. Given that Heim Theory's unification is not accepted by modern physics, and hyperspace flight remains in science fiction, I propose moving Heim's publications to a list of works at the end of the page, and severely curtailing the biographical section to include only the most salient points. Phlaximus (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Since genius is not contagious, his contacts to famous physicists are not relevant, and neither are his non-peer-review publications. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive Information in Academic History