Talk:Friedwardt Winterberg/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Changes

I had to undo the changes below by 69.22.98.146 (talk · contribs) as there was no external citation listed for them. See WP:CITE and WP:V. Provide a citation, and we can restore them. Everything else in the article is meticulously documented.

• "participation in a purely scientific nuclear fusion counsel originally established by Lyndon LaRouche" -- never heard of this "nuclear fusion counsel", and the name itself gets no Google hits, and from what I can tell there is no "purely scientific" anything established by LaRouche.
• "Although Dr.Winterberg participated in a purely scientific nuclear fusion counsel that was originally sanctioned by the La Rouche Society, he was never a member of their political organisation." -- I don't have any evidence either way on the membership. Citation?
• "Dr.Winterberg was never a member of LaRouche's political organisation, the LaRouche Society." -- ditto
• "Many felt that Rudolph, who had designed the Saturn V rocket that took Neil Armstrong to the Moon, had been unfairly treated by the US Government." -- need evidence that it was a wider campaign than the FEF

Again, happy to insert whatever can be verified (the "International Academy of Astronautics" is easy to verify, so it stays, though I have moved it to the section relating to his scientific work).--Fastfission 22:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I must inform you that the allegations in King's book on page 79 (chapter 10) have no source. All the sources for this chapter are listed on pages 384, 385. None of these sources contains the allegations. Dr. F. Winterberg (winterbe@physics.unr.edu).

Misleading Article needs Complete Rewriting

Dr.Winterberg was only a participant in purely scientific endeavors of LaRouche, and never politically. -- LaRouche was organizing scientists to promote Fusion energy, Winterberg's specialty -- that is all Winterberg had to do with LaRouche, it was purely scientific -- this is why your article is very very misleading. -- The Intro needs be totally rewritten. Licorne 13:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• I wrote the article based on what material exists in the secondary literature. See WP:CITE and WP:NOR. Everything is meticulously cited, and nothing additional beyond what is in the secondary literature has been added. If you have additional secondary literature, feel free to provide it. --Fastfission 16:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Please be clear, Dr.Winterberg was never a member of the LaRouche Society. Your article makes it sound like as if he were. Licorne 13:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a published source that says he was never a member? If not, how do you know? WP:NOR. --Alvestrand 13:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I was curious and emailed Dr.Winterberg at the University of Nevada, please you do the same if you don't believe me. Do you want me to post his email address here ? Licorne 13:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem with me - proper reference is "private correspondence", I think. --Alvestrand 13:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

OK Great, do please then leave it, how I added it to the article that he was never a member of the LaRouche Society. Thanks. Licorne 14:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

LaRouche right in the Intro ?

Is it really necessary to put LaRouche in the introduction ? ? Like it's a major thing in his life or something ? ? Why not take it out of there. -- Also, calling Mr.Bjerknes a self-published amateur historian, isn't there a more polite way to phrase that please ? -- Licorne 01:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

If you have documentation that Bjerknes is a professional historian, please offer it. The fact that he's self-published seems to be well-documented. --Alvestrand 07:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

There are nicer ways to phrase things, how about researcher or writer or author or historian, these words are commonly used in similar situations. --Licorne 23:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is LaRouche in the INTRO ? -- It is not a major part of his life, it is distorting, and misleading. -- The only so called connection was scientific. --Licorne 00:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Todorov?

For what facts in the article are Todorov's and Logunov's books references? --Alvestrand 22:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

They are commentary on the Winterberg vs Corry papers. That's why I put them next to Corry, many will want to see them. Licorne 23:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Reference for post-cold-war discoveries?

An edit [1] has inserted this claim in the article:

After the fall of the Berlin Wall, Winterberg and the FEF were proven correct when they were finally able to obtain documents from the former East German files which proved that the OSI, despite their earlier denials, had indeed collaborated with the communist government of East Germany in the Rudolph investigation.

However, this is unsourced. Does anyone have a reference, or should it be deleted? --Alvestrand 22:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure Dr.Winterberg would be glad to supply you with photocopies of the East German documents, his email is winterbe@physics.unr.edu Licorne 23:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

So what you're saying is, that you don't have a documented source for this? --Fastfission 02:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Revert it back, I have seen the documents myself. -- Did you contact Dr.Winterberg ? -- He can send them to you if you just ask. Why didn't you ask him ?

Licorne 03:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Fastfission are you afraid of Dr.Winterberg ? He doesn't bite. Just request of him the information, rather than reverting it all. He is just an email away. What are you afraid of ? Licorne 04:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

OK Fastfission here is a document from East German archives verifying that they had been in contact with OSI via US Embassy regarding Arthur Rudolph case. http://www.geocities.com/East_German_Document

Now please revert that section back, thank you.

Licorne 05:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the documentation, Licorne. But I can't verify your claim based on a scan that's so bad, it's even impossible to read what's on the page. (The cover letter, page 2, is readable, but doesn't say much, except that the copy should only be used for the personal "beilange" (defense?) of Arthur Rudolph). So under WP:NOR, I'm afraid you still haven't shown sources. --Alvestrand 06:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

LOOK AT THE second box it is now enlarged. I added a second enlargement view. Licorne 06:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

If that isn't enough just tell me and I will add even more documents, I have the whole portfolio. Don't erase it. Licorne 06:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Licorne, do you understand what WP:NOR means?

Your geocities website hasn't changed yet - the first doc is still unreadable - so you'll probably have to press "export" or something. Thanks for confirming that these documents are published by you and nobody else. --Alvestrand 06:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The first box is just to show the header, the second box shows the text closely, why did you revert it ? Put it back. Licorne 07:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

This is NOT original research, you can confirm it all with a simple email to Winterberg, why have you not done this ? ? ? Winterberg possesses the same documents which I posted. Contact him by email please, if you want a source go right to him he has it too. Licorne 07:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

REVERT IT BACK. You have no excuses not to. Licorne 07:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Licorne, documenting Winterberg claiming this is as much a violation of WP:NOR as having you post them on a website. And all the second JPEG shows is a 1992 letter from one "Fruth" to someone named "Rieger" that some 1983 correspondence is being passed - nothing about the content of those copies. Even if it wasn't original research, it wouldn't prove anything. --Alvestrand 07:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Look closely the content is Arthur Rudolph, the text confirms US prosecutors' correspondance on this case with East German government. I just added to it an attached letter from US government to East German government, the document 433.

You may easily contact Winterberg on this. The text is precise with official stamps. Email Winterberg if you need to, winterbe@physics.unr.edu Licorne 12:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Write it up. Submit it to a journal with review procedures. Get it published. THEN it may be possible to refer to it on wikipedia without violating WP:NOR. --Alvestrand 13:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

These are copies of reproducible documents sent by the official German government BundesArchiv, received by Dr. Winterberg, did you contact him yet ? Why not? I thought personal correspondance is considered acceptable by Wikipedia so email him, he is at winterbe@physics.unr.edu --Licorne 14:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)Licorne 14:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

What you are doing where you say "proved that the OSI ... had collaborated" is, in the words of WP:NOR, a "new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or arguments that, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation"".

If you manage to get such a thing reviewed and published as a "reputable source" outside of Wikipedia, Wikipedia can refer to it. But your interpretation of the documents you've shown cover pages for is not in itself a "reputable source".

I don't expect you to agree to WP:NOR. I'm just leaving this comment to make it 100% clear to those who come by and look at the talk page later that you're consciously and deliberately violating it, and that's why your changes will get reverted. --Alvestrand 14:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The letter from US Embassy clearly establishes that the OSI was in contact with East German government through the US Embassy in Berlin. It is in official record, photostatic copies I provided from Winterberg, did you email him yet ? WHY NOT ? ? -Personal correspondance is considered acceptable by Wikipedia. Licorne 14:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I was wrong at a previous crossroads. WP:V clearly doesn't permit private correspondence as a basis for assertions on Wikipedia. --Alvestrand 07:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

If those East German documents were to be found on a site somewhere could we then link to them from Dr.Winterberg's page ? -- What do you require ? -- Licorne 00:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Dennis King

Dennis King was a member of the communist Progressive Labor Party, click on his name to see. Licorne 23:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• What's your point? --Fastfission 23:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

It is a fact of value and interest in evaluating who had crticized Winterberg, the book is from a communist POV, important to note this. Licorne 23:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• The book isn't "Communist" in the slightest. It's anti-LaRouche POV, which I happily noted, but it's also the best-known book about LaRouche. The book does not, by the way, criticize Winterberg at all. It describes his participation, roles, and viewpoints, but does not criticize. --Fastfission 23:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Look at the Rudolph section, that's not King criticizing Winterberg ? -- Licorne

• Well, if you mean "report on strange things that Winterberg supposedly did" by criticize, then okay. But in any case, the book is not "Communist" in the slightest, and every reference from King that looks speculative is well attributed as "according to King" or something along those lines. --Fastfission 00:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It's right there on wikipedia that he is communist, WHY does it bother you to say it here ? -- Please explain, are you paranoid about communists or something ? Why not say it ? Why hide it ? --Licorne 00:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It isn't a "Communist" book in the slightest. And criteria for being labeled a "Communist" usually required having written something espousing Communist thought or being an active member of the Communist Party (being a member of an affiliate group only counts you as a "Communist" if you are talking with Senator McCarthy). The book has nothing to do at all with Communism. It's simply the wrong way to describe the book and the author, simple as that. --Fastfission 00:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

(anti-Semitic language from Licorne removed)

GPS?

I don't know much about Winterberg. But I think the section on GPS is rather misleading. GPS is not "an application of General Relativity". General Relativity is a complication that needs to be taken account to synchronize clocks and satellites, but the idea of using different run times of signals for triangulation is fairly basic, and not relativistic at all. Also, as far as I can tell, Winterberg only suggested to put atomic clocks into orbit to verify (or falsify) the predictions of General Relativity, i.e. to perform a purely scientific experiment. There was no suggestion to build a practical navigation system. This connection is very tenous.

Finally, the link provided only has Heisenbergs letter, which is a friendly acknowledgment of the artice, and some unrelated dicussion about the connection of GR to quantum physics (literally "Theory of elemental particles" — Heisenberg believed that gravity, and hence GR, were negligible for quantum physics). Friedbergs original article is not there.--Stephan Schulz 18:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The general relativistic corrections are essential to the ability of the GPS system to function at all. At the same time Winterberg's idea is a crucial fundamental test of general relativity, which worked. Also yes Winterberg's article in German is there following Heisenberg's letter.

—This unsigned comment is by 67.78.143.226 (talk • contribs) .

You're right about the article. Sorry, I overlooked the later pages of the PDF (the new Safari version inlines PDFs, and extra pages are not immediately obvious). I stand by the rest of my comment. Rocketry is also "essential" for GPS, as is the invention of paper or basic analysis. Yet, we don't mention GPS on Isaac Newton. Nothing remotely like GPS is mentioned in the article. --Stephan Schulz 20:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Herr Schulz, Please read up some on GPS, you will see Winterberg's crucial calculation is directly used in GPS to calculate position accurately, the same calculation, the same equations in gravitational redshift. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 17.255.240.78 (talk • contribs) 2006-03-15 00:40:22 (UTC)

Also Herr Schulz, you are wrong concerning the letter with attached letter from the BundesArchiv, which makes it pefectly clear the OSI contacted the communist government through the US embassy in Berlin, you obviously are not taking a moment to read the letter. Please do it carefully. Danke. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.78.143.226 (talk • contribs) 2006-03-14 20:29:23 (UTC)

Herr Schulz, they are not cover letters at all, they are crucial exerpts. Please read them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.78.143.226 (talk • contribs) 2006-03-14 20:34:47 (UTC)

If you want to be formal, it's Dr. Schulz, please. Stephan is fine as well. The first of the images is unreadable. The second one seems to be a readable blow-up of the core part of the first. It's a cover letter for a copy of "Note No. 433". The last one seems to be an except of this note. The part that is there is a request by the US embassy for information about Rudolph, nothing more. This does not support any conspiracy theory.--Stephan Schulz 21:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't expect any answer from 67.78.143.226. It's a known Licorne sock puppet, so it's been blocked. You're right of course, but Licorne will never admit that, I think. --Alvestrand 21:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I knew the first. The style is unmistakable. Thanks for letting me know about the second.--Stephan Schulz 22:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Dr Schultz, the letter which shows the OSI corresponded with the East Germans very much interests those who have followed the Rudolph case, because it embarrasses the US government which always denies working with the communists on Rudolph's case. You should not delete it because it embarrasses the US government which is good. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 17.255.240.78 (talk • contribs) at 00:25:29 2006-03-15 (UTC)

Documents Now Complete

Thank you Stephen Schulz for your recent emails, the OSI Documents are now professionally done and complete, I will insert them using the phraseology you suggested, thank you. http://www.geocities.com/osi_documents

I have indeed received email from both Prof. Winterberg (who is a very charming person!) and from a Dean Mamas that I don't know otherwise. I've also checked the posted documents. They appear genuine, and I'd accept them as such. What they do show is that:

• Prof. Winterberg has requested, but not received a certain "Note 433" from the US department of Justice.
• The (Office of the) Attorney General of the GDR confirms that the GDR had passed on information about Rudolf through diplomatic channels, but in a fairly public manner that was commented on in the press at the time.
• The (post-unification) German Federal Archive has send a copy of the ominous "Note 433" from the old GDR archives to Rudolf's attorney in Germany (who, apparently, has passed it on to Winterberg).
• The note is a request for information about Rudolf's role as the director of the "Mittelwerke", a Nazi rocket factory, and in particular about his influence on the use of "slave labour" there.

Given this information, I think the following would be a fair statement: "In 1992, Winterberg received documents showing that in 1983 the OSI had requested information about Rudolf's role as a director of the German "Mittelwerke" rocket factory from 1943 to 1945 from the GDR, which passed on the results of their investigation. The case was public enough that Western German newpapers commented on this cooperation."

In my opinion, anything more would be speculation. --Stephan Schulz 22:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. And for the record, I am reverting Licorne's posts simply as a matter of policy at this point. He is not welcome to post here anymore on account of his vitriolic anti-Semitism, and though he sometimes scrambles around the blocks temporarily, he will soon run out of ability and patience, especially if he is not given further opportunity to provoke a response. --Fastfission 22:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll put it in. --Stephan Schulz 22:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Q: I see that the current geocities documents seem to indicate that the US embassy in Germany asked a question of the DDR government in 1983. I'd like to see references showing:

• that the DDR government replied
• that the West German newspapers picked it up (newspaper name, date)

before saying that this happened. Call me paranoid.... also, the page is not entirely consistent with the Arthur Rudolph page (this page says he "designed" the Saturn 5 rocket; his own page says that he was director of the program). Illustrates the need to say things in one place, and source them..... --Alvestrand 02:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a glaring inconsistency - that is probably just a matter of perception. If we can make it more precise, fine. As to your other questions: The first part of "Document _B.pdf" is the reply of the Attorney General of the GDR to a request made by Winterberg. In that, the Attorney General acknowledges the original reply (to "the United States via diplomatic channels") and points to three newspapers, including the "Frankfurter Rundschau", a well-known liberal (US sense) German newspaper, discussing the case. Date of puplication for all articles is given. I don't particularly trust the GDR, but I think they are competent enought not to lie about something that is that easily verified for any journalist.--Stephan Schulz 08:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I did not read this carefully enough. As I read it, I see two West German papers, and one newspaper published in New York mentioned - all in 1983-1984. So something was mentioned around the time the original reply was sent, based on something related to the case. The other thing I remembered that I don't have a reference for is that OSI claimed that it had not communicated with the DDR government about the case. To my mind, not doing so would have been criminally negligent. But - "cooperation" and "communication" are different things, so in theory, they could have been communicating while truthfully denying that they were cooperating..... if such a denial exists.

I may be growing too skeptical - Licorne's games with evidence in the Einstein/Hilbert case have led me to doubt his interpretation of just about every word he says. --Alvestrand 11:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

History of debate now redacted

It seems that not only has Winterberg beaten Max Planck Institute into removing the toned-down response to his attacks on Cory et al from the institute website [2], he's gone to the Wayback Machine and gotten the old copies of the original response removed (all dated versions of the URL now return a redirect to [3]).

So much for a scientist's respect for the integrity of the historical record. --Alvestrand 05:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Dennis King again

Former political affiliation of LaRouche biographer King in the PLP, a group he left over 15 years before writing LaRouche book, is irrelevant to bio of Winterberg in which information from King's book is only mentioned briefly. Also, the Winterberg bio falsely suggests that King was a member of PLP when he wrote the book on LaRouche. The link to bio of King will provide the reader with background on King, including his former affiliation with PLP.--28 Sept. 2006

I agree that King's PLP background is not especially at issue here. What is at issue is the fact that his book is a collection of outlandish fantasies. Example:

"This effort was symbolized by a photograph of a four-pronged object, glowing with light, that appeared from time to time in Fusion and New Solidarity. Its shape was reminiscent of the swastika. A caption in a 1978 issue of Fusion said it was a plasmoid created at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in the 19508, when a scientist supposedly collided four plasma beams to "form a rotating plasma structure whose dynamics are governed by a 'balancing' offerees." [4]"

We also learn that photos of spiral galaxies remind King of swastikas. Apparently he reacts to photos of physical phenomena like a Rorschach test. It tells us nothing about LaRouche or his associates, and much about Dennis King. --172.193.208.43 14:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Werner Heisenberg's letter not published by a creditable source

I'm not sure if anyone else noticed, but the letter in question is published at a geocities account whose only purpose is to publish the letter. While I'm not personally doubting the letter is real, there is not much to stop anyone from manufacturing such a letter and posting it as a source. The older page text indicates it was original a curiosity not a source; perhaps it could be moved to the external links section. - Davandron | Talk 04:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

- Dear colleague, what letter about you ask? http://bourabai.narod.ru/winter/heizenberg-e.htm ?

Karim Khaidarov, Bourabai Research, Kazakhstan http://bourabai.narod.ru/ http://bourabai.georisk.kz/

Documents

The "documents" linked under Rudolph controversy: [5]

Document A

This is a response to Winterberg on a Freedom of Information request from the Department of Justice. Winterberg asked the DOJ about diplomatic note 433 sent by the OSI to the East German police; the DOJ said they did not have it. He also asked for a list of OSI employees and they declined to answer on privacy grounds.

Document B

This document is in German. This is a response from the East German Prosecutor General to Winterberg It states that:

• Rudolph was the director of the Mittelwerk
• The US sent a diplomatic note (contents not noted)
• There were related news articles in a Duesseldorf newspaper and a New York newspaper on 4 January 1985.
• Neal Sher (of the OSI) has a newspaper from the West Germany newspaper Frankfurt Rundschau from 22 October 1984, "a copy is attached"
• Page 2 are referrals to archives in Potsdam and Berlin

Document C

Again in German.

• Page 1 is to an attorney in Hamburg (probably Harald Duhn, the attorney general of Hamburg); dated 4 March 1992 from the prosecutor general of the GDR. It is a response to a letter from 3 January 1992. It references a phone call on 27 February 1992. The response is for a request of diplomatic note 433 from the US Embassy, sent on 27 July 1983. It is signed on behalf of "Fruth".
• Page 2 is a copy of note 433 (in English). It is a request from the US Embassy to the East German Ministry of Foreign Affairs on behalf of the OSI. It then has a synopsis of Rudolph during his time at the Mittelwerk. It then asks the East Germans for any archives on Rudolph, and notes that Professor Walter Bartel of the Humboldt University in Berlin may be of help. There is no signature.

Document D

This appears to be the next pages of document C. The OSI is specifically requesting document linksin Rudolph and :

• The use of slave labor
• Sabotage reports
• Working and living conditions of the prisoners
• The labor supply office
• The significance of initials in a book by Bartel

It is stamped by the embassy, but not signed

Conclusion

The US asked East Germany for information on 27 July 1983. The East German prosecutor general sent a copy to the attorney general of Hamburg 4 March 1992. The OSI can't find the note. There is no copy of any response to the request. Newspaper reports related to this request were published on 4 January 1985. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 23:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

personal communication

a personal communication from Dr. Winterberg via email, he was never a member of any Larouche organisation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.153.75.132 (talk) 23:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems from this edit that Winterberg is editing the article himself again. --Alvestrand 14:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

LaRouche picture inappropriate

Lyndon LaRouche never played any major role in Dr. Winterberg's career or life, it is inappropriate to display his picture here. A picture of Nobel prize winner Werner Heisenberg with Dr. Winterberg would be much more appropriate. Dr. Winterberg had discussed Fusion with LaRouche as he has done with many others and still continues to do so today. But a photo of LaRouche is just a smear and is entirely inappropriate here. 67.78.143.227 19:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought this was a Winterberg edit, but the IP's WHOIS is in Virginia, not Nevada, and the traceroute says "Tampa". It's clear from earlier edits that mr. Winterberg doesn't like the picture, and doesn't like being associated with LaRouche. Under WP:BLP rules, if he feels smeared, we should have very good reasons for including it, methinks. --Alvestrand 20:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks like much sourced info besides the photo was removed, so much that some material is without context. BLP calls for removal of unsourced or poorly sourced info, not everything that might upset the subject. While we may trim the number of mentions, or their length, to delete all mention of the subject's scientific engagement with LaRouche seems to be a case of re-writing history. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

On further investigation, this IP seems to belong to permanently banned User:Licorne. I've blocked the IP and rolled back the edit - banned users shouldn't edit. --Alvestrand 04:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The changes have been re-added, this time by User:134.197.11.61 - on this IP's talk page, he claims to be Winterberg, so previous reasoning applies. I'm not rolling this one back. --Alvestrand 15:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I've restored some sourced text, but left the photo out. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Winterberg was never a member of LaRouche's organisations

This Wikipedia article is trying to smear Dr.Winterberg by trying to associate him with LaRouche. - Winterberg was never a member of LaRouche' organisations and had only scientific contact with LaRouche who was interested in Fusion research. Jimmy Wales should call Dr.Winterberg at his office and clear this up (winterbe@physics.unr.edu). Dr.Winterberg certainly wants it posted here, it needs be in the article: he was never a member of LaRouche's organisations as Wikipedia is unfairly implying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.186.213.96 (talk) 14:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

But the article never says that he was a member of LaRouche's organization. The fact that there was contact is well documented by sources, but nobody has written that he was a member, and I don't see it as an implication of what's written there. The unsourced addition is trying to deny a claim that isn't made. --Alvestrand (talk) 14:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The implication is there. It is wrong and unfair. Contact Winterberg: winterbe@physics.unr.edu 72.186.213.96 (talk) 15:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hm. Can someone with access to the King book state that "King does not claim that Winterberg was ever a member of LaRouche's organization"? That should be a statement for which it's easy to refer to reliable sources, and may go far towards meeting Wikipedia's requirements under both WP:BLP and WP:RS. --Alvestrand (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

King's book is now online. Unfortunately the index isn't. Google finds this passage: [6]

• But LaRouche's followers in the early 1980s went far beyond anything in The Intercom Conspiracy when they started publishing hot tips on how to make H-bombs and death rays in league with Dr. Friedwardt Winterberg, a character as odd as anyone in an Ambler novel. Besides his political activities as a nemesis of the Justice Department's Office of Special Investigations, Winterberg is also a brilliant research physicist. According to Edward Teller, he has "perhaps not received the attention he deserves" for his work on fusion. For the LaRouchians, he is a unique commodity--his value resides in what he lacks. What Winterberg lacks is a Q clearance. He therefore cannot be accused of leaking classified information. As a physicist, he can always say he rediscovered the information on his own in his Nevada desert laboratory. In fact, he does indeed figure out the principles of secret weapons on his own. It is his hobby, just as other people breed hamsters. Winterberg sincerely believes that it is ridiculous to classify such matters, for the essence of science is the free flow of information. In 1981 LaRouche's Fusion magazine published Winterberg's diagrams of various devices, such as a "Nuclear X-Ray Laser Weapon Using Thermonuclear Explosives." Later that year, the FEF published his Physical Principles of Thermonuclear Explosive Devices, a how-to manual on H-bombs, with the neutron bomb thrown in as a bonus.
• Of course, the LaRouchians had been hinting at such knowledge ever since they set up the FEF in 1974. Predictably, they strove to develop ties with governments desirous of becoming the next nuclear power: India, Iraq, South Africa, Argentina, Taiwan, and Libya. Government nuclear experts in at least two of these countries (India and Argentina) have met with FEF representatives, and the foundation and EIR have arranged speaking tours for Dr. Winterberg. In the wake of the how-to manual, EIR seminars in Washington and European capitals were well attended by appropriately obscure diplomatic clerks from various Third World embassies, with Mossad agents discreetly blending into the background.

According to this, it looks more like the LaRouche movement were "following" Winterberg rather than the other way around. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I just found this, from a different chapter: [7]

• For Dr. Winston Bostick and Dr. Friedwardt Winterberg, physicists on the outer fringes of Star Wars, this common interest involved more than SDI. ...
• Winterberg was a fusion specialist with the University of Nevada's Desert Research Institute. He volunteered ideas on beam weapons to the Air Force in the late 1970s, and later speculated on the subject for LaRouchian publications. In 1980 he described LaRouche as having the "most scientifically founded" program of any candidate for the U.S. presidency. The FEF published his Physical Principles of Thermonuclear Explosive Devices (1981) and also sent him on overseas speaking tours.

Again, this does not describe Winterberg as a follower. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Correct, he was never a member. 72.186.213.96 (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The unforunate problem here is that we have no source that says, "he was never a member". We can't prove a negative. I'm not sure how we can address this best. Has Winterberg ever publicly stated that he was not a member? If so then we can use that statement as a source for saying something like "FW has stated he was never a member". Absent a source, all we can do is describe the relationship as King has done, and try to avoid any implication that Winterberg was a member. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Where do you want him to say it ? He then will. Tell me where. Do you want his email, it is winterbe@physics.unr.edu He will say it for you, just say where you want it, he will do it. 23:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.186.213.96 (talk)

Does the Winterburg have a blog, or can he get a letter published in an archived newsletter? One of those could easily be used to provide a verifiable source for his statements. Any other details or perspective that he can add would enrich this article and the record of his life.

On reviewing the article I saw only one phrase that seemed to imply an actual collaboration. In that case I changed "involved in" to "published by". Aside from the promotional lecture tour and the quoted compliment of LaRouche's platform, there's no indication of a close involvement, so that text may have given more of an implicaiton of Winterberg's being a follower. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

He has his University of Nevada professorship page, he would post what you need there, so ask him, he is at : winterbe@physics.unr.edu 72.186.213.96 (talk) 00:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Professor pages aren't ideal because they seem to disappear, but it'd be verifiable while it's there. Winterberg can put whatever remarks about himself and his page and we can use those to make summaries of his statements. It wouldn't be appropriate for me to ask him to do so, but if you want to notify him that his page can be used as a source for his own views than there's nothing wrong with that. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

(Refactor) Since we can't find a source saying he was a political follower of LaRouche and we can't find a source saying he wasn't a political follower of LaRouche, perhaps it's best to say nothing at all about that aspect of it. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 01:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Dennis King is not a reliable source for this or any other topic. It's like using the John Birch Society (which does publish!) as a source for the claim that Dwight Eisenhower was a commie. --Leatherstocking (talk) 03:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

King is the best 3rd party source for LaRouche, and his is the only biography of LaRouche published by a major publishing house. It was well-reviewed by many major newspapers. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

King seems to have some fanbois here at Wikipedia, but no self-respecting encyclopedia would use him as a source. --Leatherstocking (talk) 16:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

What 3rd-party source would a "self-respecting encyclopedia" for LaRouche's life story? Anyway, unless there's a specific problem with the King reporting in this matter, I see no reason to discount his book as a source for this article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

While Winterberg may have never been a follower of LaRouche, or a member of the movement, he apparently has maintained a cordial relationship. In 2003 he gave an interview to 21st Century, the successor to Fusion.[8] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Fusion Activism

Outerspace weapons do not belong in this section. Also, to say the FEF is a Larouche organisation is like calling the Washington Times a Moonie paper, it is inappropriate. Also, King is not a reliable source that Larouche funded Winterberg's speaking tours, which he did not. University of Nevada pays for his conferences.66.194.98.181 (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

A) Do you have a source for the funding of the speaking tour? B) The Washington Times is identified, where appropriate, as belonging to Rev. Moon's organization. The FEF was a part of the LaRouche movement. There's nothing inappropriate about mentioning that connection. C) If material is in the wrong section the appropriate action is to tmove it, not to delete it. I am going to restore the sourced material you deleted. If there are sources for other material then feel free to add that. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Winterberg never attended the Krafft Ehricke memorial conference

Here is one unsourced inaccuracy: Winterberg never attended that Krafft Ehricke memorial conference in Berlin as it is claimed. So that section about LaRouche's efforts has nothing to do with Dr.Winterberg's article and should therefore be removed. 72.186.213.96 (talk) 23:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

LaRouche's personal efforts and actions do not belong here

LaRouche's personal efforts and actions have nothing to do with this article about Friedwardt Winterberg. 72.186.213.96 (talk) 00:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

FEF

Winterberg was not the only scientist writing for the FEF, looking at any journal from the FEF shows a number of scientific contributors. 72.186.213.96 (talk) 14:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.186.213.96 (talk)

Names and citations, please. "any journal from the FEF" is not a citation, and "a number of contributors" is not a name. Winterberg's association is well documented. --Alvestrand (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

No Major Role Here

Someone is trying here to smear Dr.Winterberg by writing the name of Larouche all over the article. Larouche played no major role in Dr.Winterberg's career, and Dr.Winterberg published his work with many organisations besides 'Larouche'. Larouche and his activities should be removed from the article. They play no major role here. 65.32.128.178 (talk) 02:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

My guess is that Winterberg's accepting the support of Larouche was harmful to his career, but it's well documented. Removing it amounts to a whitewash. Restoring. --Alvestrand (talk) 03:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

My guess is that Alvestrand is the one who has always been trying to smear Dr.Winterberg. Alvestrand even had once tried to put Larouche right in the Introduction, ridiculous ! 65.32.128.178 (talk) 03:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous IPs have been trying to remove this information from the article for years. I see no reason to let them have their way. See the rest of this talk page for details of previous discussions. --Alvestrand (talk) 12:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It is just a smear, that is the reason. What Larouche thinks and does has no business here in Dr.Winterberg's article. It is Alvestrand who is doing this. 65.32.128.178 (talk) 13:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The FEF Section

LaRouche does not belong in the section about the FEF. The FEF is a separate legal entity which belongs to Dr. Morris Levitt, the Executive Director. The FEF does not belong in any way to LaRouche, LaRouche therefore does not belong in that section.

I also request that this entire now archaic discussion page be now archived and removed entirely. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.104.5 (talk) 15:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Not in accordance with cited sources. What King says about it is here. For an apparently pro-LaRouche source claiming the same association, look here.

I can certainly believe Winterberg regrets his foolishness in associating with LaRouche's front organizations and wants to erase the traces of his involvement, but that's not a reason to remove the well documented relationship from this article. --Alvestrand (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Dennis King is completely wrong. King is just one source, and King was a known communist party activist who hated SDI and FEF some of whose members worked in SDI related ideas. So King invented a connection with LaRouche which is unfounded. The FEF never ever belonged to LaRouche, nor did LaRouche found it. LaRouche was interested in Ronald Reagan's SDI and the FEF, but LaRouche neither founded nor directed either the FEF or SDI. The Fusion Energy Foundation still exists and on their website there is no mention anywhere of anything LaRouche, who was merely interested in their research. LaRouche was not even a scientist, just a blowhard who never founded nor directed the FEF. Wikipedia should never depend on one source, this rumour about LaRouche being the owner of the FEF was started by Dennis King who was just a communist radical out to smear the SDI and FEF with LaRouche. 66.194.104.5 (talk) 15:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Then why do other sources, like the Executive Intelligence Review article I quoted, associate the FEF with LaRouce? (SDI is something completely different.) Note that King seems to have been very much attacked by LaRouche and his followers - but it was LaRouche who was convicted in court on what King claimed about him, not the other way around. Any claim about what King was or was not needs verification, too. --Alvestrand (talk) 06:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is a list of the FEF Board of Directors, LaRouche is not one of them. http://geocities.com/fusion_activism/ 66.194.104.5 (talk) 20:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

That is a geocities directory. It is not a WP:RS. And the board of directors has very little to do with whether it is a LaRouche-associated organization or not. --Alvestrand (talk) 06:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

BTW, 21th Century Science and Technology brings an interview with Winterberg, complete with a picture of him appearing at the LaRouche-organized Krafft-Erliche conference that was so vehemently denied earlier in this article. --Alvestrand (talk) 06:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It is a FALSE STATEMENT by Wikipedia that the FEF is 'a division of' LaRouche's organisation. Some persons at the FEF may have once known LaRouche but the FEF is a separate autonomous legal entity, LaRouche has no control over, he is not even on the Board of Directors, legally nothing. The geocities site serves simply to display the Board of Directors, LaRouche is not one of them anywhere. Dennis King is a known radical communist party activist, look at his Wikipedia article Dennis King. He is therefore a radical unreliable source who made the FALSE claim that the FEF is 'a division of' LaRouche's organisation.66.194.104.5 (talk) 15:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Being a radical doens't prevent one from writing a factually accurate book. King's book was published by a highly respected publishing house and it fully meets Wikipedia's standards for reliability. Nothing in it about the subject sets off any red flags. Certainly the complimentary comment from Teller isn't a problem, is it? As for FEF, there are numerous other sources, including U.S. prosecutors, who have characterized it as a part of LaRouche's organization. Here are some other sources we can use for the connection between FEF and LaRouche:

Members of a U. S.-based pro-nuclear organization are raising money in Canada for a right-wing political party that among other things preaches anti-Semitism and considers Metro Toronto a key target for recruiting. The Fusion Energy Foundation, which advocates unlimited expansion of nuclear power generation, was set up five years ago by members of the U. S. Labor Party, a radical and cult-like group that has campaigned for world industrialization. Although FEF members deny that the foundation is linked financially to the USLP - known in Canada as the North American Labor Party - the two organizations share office space in New York City. In many cases their memberships overlap. And despite a U. S. law that prohibits candidates from receiving donations from outside the country, an FEF spokesman said the group is gathering funds in Toronto for the party's leader, a 1980 U. S. presidential candidate. ... Richard Sanders, a 37-year-old unemployed taxi driver, orchestrates the activities of both the NALP and the FEF in Metro Toronto. Mr. Sanders has run for mayor of Toronto in the past three elections; in 1978 he received 40 votes, and accused his opponents of rigging the balloting. Mr. Sanders was reluctant to talk about party financing in a recent interview, but he did say that money raised in Canada for the FEF (incorporated in New York State) is kept separate from USLP funds. After that, I send the money down to New York. I don't know what happens to it once it gets down there, but I don't worry about those things. . . . It would be hard to prove that anything that was taking place was wrong. At the same time, money earned through the sale of LaRouche literature is sent to the leader's U. S. campaign committee, Mr. Sanders said. U. S. law says candidates for political office must not solicit, accept or receive a contribution from citizens of another country.

Nuclear Group Raises Funds For Right-Wing Party In U.S. Ross Laver. The Globe and Mail. Toronto, Ont.: Jan 2, 1980. pg. P.5

A pro-nuclear energy group founded with the help of politician Lyndon LaRouche said yesterday it will try to make "a laughingstock" out of Henry Kissinger by pushing an assault complaint against his wife. Dennis Speed, regional coordinator of Fusion Energy Foundation, said it was at his suggestion that a group member filed charges after being involved in an altercation with the Kissingers. Ellen L. Kaplan, 29, who appeared with Speed at a news conference here, said Nancy Kissinger tried to choke her after she spotted the couple Feb. 7 at the Newark (N.J.) International Airport and asked the former Secretary of State: "Is it true that you sleep with young boys?"

US / WORLD NEWS BRIEFS; KISSINGER TARGET OF COMPLAINT (AP). Boston Globe (pre-1997 Fulltext) [Boston, Mass.] 5 Mar. 1982, 1.

Note, Dennis Speed was often described as a spokemsna for Lyndon LaRouche.,

For Chuck Cosby, his involvement with the LaRouche organization began six years ago, when he did stop at one of those airport tables. "I was coming back from a business trip. I was tired and exhausted, like everybody," he said. "Then I saw this sign about `nukes and kooks.' I thought it was another person attacking nuclear energy. Then I looked again. It said, `More nukes, less kooks.' You have to remember that back then, all you heard was anti-nuclear stuff. To see somebody in favor of nuclear power was a little shocking." Cosby had always been fascinated with technology, and had always believed in the promise that nuclear energy would create a better world. On the spot, he took out a subscription to the LaRouche-affiliated technology magazine, Fusion. Eventually, Cosby attended some meetings and classes held by LaRouche followers. He subscribed to other LaRouche-affiliated publications, including a $396-a-year weekly called Executive Intelligence Review, which carries articles on world affairs.

GETTING BEHIND LAROUCHE -- CALM, YOUNG FOLLOWER IS DISTURBING EVIDENCE THAT POLITICAL EXTREMIST ATTRACTS MORE THAN NUTS ERIK LACITIS. " Seattle Times [Seattle, Wash.] 8 Apr. 1986,D1.

Four organizations associated with Lyndon LaRouche yesterday appealed contempt findings and assessment of civil fines for their failure to comply with grand jury subpoenas for their records. The subpoenas were issued more than a year ago by a federal grand jury in Boston which is probing credit card fraud by various entities and individuals associated with LaRouche. According to a brief filed by Assistant US Attorney Daniel I. Small, the "initial investigation indicated an extensive use of credit card numbers by LaRouche-related entities and individuals resulting in hundreds of unauthorized charges apparently totally hundreds of thousands of dollars." After hearing arguments yesterday by attorneys Matthew H. Feinberg and Kenneth J. Aronson for the LaRouche organizations and by Small, the three- judge panel took the case under advisement. On March 29, 1985, US District Judge A. David Mazzone ordered each of four organizations, Campaigner Publications Inc., Caucus Distributors Inc., National Democratic Policy Committee and the Fusion Energy Foundation, fined $10,000 for contempt.

FOUR LAROUCHE ORGANIZATIONS APPEAL CONTEMPT FINDINGS, FINES William F. Doherty, Globe Staff. Boston Globe (pre-1997 Fulltext). Boston, Mass.: Apr 9, 1986. pg. 30

SARASOTA, Fla., April 26 -- Charles R. Zimmerman is an elderly, forgetful and bewildered millionaire who says I'm mad at myself now for turning over hundreds of thousands of dollars to the network of organizations around the political extremist Lyndon H. LaRouche. Mr. Zimmerman, a retired executive of the Bethlehem Steel Corporation, is one of a number of elderly or infirm people who, according to public records and their own accounts, have been the target of money-raising efforts by Mr. LaRouche's Presidential campaigns or by organizations linked to him. ... Mr. Zimmerman, a thin man whose red hair has turned white, lives alone in a small, comfortable apartment in a high-rise retirement development here. Above his desk is a plaque from the Fusion Energy Foundation bestowing its Benjamin Franklin Award Honoring Special Contributions to the Future of Science. Near his telephone are pages of notes he said he wrote while a caller from the LaRouche organization described what good work they do. The notes mean nothing to him now, he said, but they include phrase after phrase straight from Mr. LaRouche's political ideology: Drug traffickers; George Shultz a traitor; Soviets promoting AIDS; Dope lobby.

Apr 27, 1986 LAROUCHE TACTICS PROVOKE DISPUTE AP, New York Times, Apr 27, 1986

His organization is based in Leesburg, Va., and includes what Federal records describe as a labyrinth of related groups that shuffle money and employees among one another. The four involved in the subpoenas here are the National Democratic Policy Committee; Campaigner Publications Inc., a multimillion dollar company, according to court records; Caucus Distributors Inc., which pays bills and salaries for various LaRouche activities, according to court records; and Fusion Energy Foundation Inc., which promotes reseach in nuclear energy.

LAROUCHE GROUPS' DEBT TO U.S. MOUNTS DAILY JOEL BRINKLEY, Special to the New York Times, May 19, 1986 Sec: B National Desk p: 7

Behind the recent victories of the Lyndon LaRouche organization in Illinois' Democratic primary -- and its reputed fielding of more than 750 candidates nationally this year -- is a fund-raising and business network that generates tens of millions of dollars a year, far more than any other extremist party in U.S. history. From a heavily guarded estate in Loudoun County, Va., and office buildings in the nearby town of Leesburg, Mr. LaRouche's cadre organization, the National Caucus of Labor Committees (NCLC), controls more than two-dozen financially commingled political, business, nonprofit and intelligence-gathering entities with operations throughout the U.S. and in more than a dozen foreign countries. The aim of this activity is not profit in the ordinary sense. According to defectors, the NCLC spends the money (much of it raised through controversial, high-pressure loan-solicitation tactics) as soon as it comes in. It is used in frenetic attempts to advance the influence of Mr. LaRouche, a three-time presidential candidate, who champions nuclear power and "beam weapons," advocates a quarantine of AIDS victims, rails against alleged Zionist-British subhumans, and -- in turgid ideological tracts -- suggests a kind of national socialism based on a "class dictatorship-in-fact" of imagined pro-LaRouche industrial capitalists. The business network, defectors say, is essentially an elaborate shell game, with cash always in motion from shell to shell to avoid taxes and court judgments and to disguise various questionable transactions. The tax exempt, nonprofit Fusion Energy Foundation (FEF), and political action and election campaign committees are frequently used. An interview transcript quoting an NCLC defector, introduced as an exhibit in the case of "LaRouche vs. NBC," reads as follows: "Money from the . . . profit-making organizations went into political campaigns and was not correctly reported. Money from the tax-exempt {FEF} was given to the political campaign, unbeknownst to the people who made the contributions. . . . Someone would contribute to the {FEF} because they believed in nuclear power and their contribution would turn up as a contribution for . . .{LaRouche's} presidential campaign." The structure of the network makes government investigation difficult. Mr. LaRouche and his followers compound the problem by claiming that any probe is politically motivated, and by launching civil-rights suits against the investigators.

The Empire of Lyndon LaRouche By Dennis King and Patricia Lynch. Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: May 27, 1986. pg. 1

Note: Here King is published by the Wall Street Journal, hardly a radical source.

Maryland is one of four states in which state securities administrators have issued cease-and-desist orders against Caucus Distributors or another LaRouche-related organization, Fusion Energy Foundation. The other states are California, Alaska and Indiana.

LAROUCHE GROUP BLAMES PRESS, FEDERAL PROBE FOR ITS CASH WOES Seattle Times, June 9, 1986

BOSTON, July 4 -- Four organizations linked to the political extremist Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr. could be fined up to $17 million under a decision upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The ruling, issued Thursday, involved groups that have not paid fines they incurred by refusing to produce documents subpoenaed in an investigation of credit card fraud. The fines were imposed in 1985 by Federal District Judge A. David Mazzone. Prosecutors say the groups made unauthorized charges of $500 and $1,000 to credit cards of people solicited to buy magazines. The groups were Campaigner Publications Inc., Fusion Energy Foundation, National Democratic Policy Committee, and Caucus Distributors Inc.

AROUND THE NATION; LAROUCHE GROUPS FACE $17 MILLION IN FINES, AP, New York Times, Jul 5, 1986

LEESBURG -- Lawyers for an elderly California woman, armed with a $135,000 judgment, are asking Virginia courts to seize assets of an organization tied to political extremist Lyndon LaRouche in order to recover money she lent the LaRouche group. The organization, Fusion Energy Foundation, acknowledged owing the money to Grace M. Lindros, 71, of Los Angeles in settling a lawsuit in California in January. Mrs. Lindros had charged representatives of Fusion, LaRouche's presidential campaign and another related group used "oppressive and fraudulent tactics" to persuade her to make three loans totaling more than $125,000 and then failed to repay them. "They virtually cleaned her out," said C. Brian O'Gorman, her attorney in Goleta, Calif. "They overcame her will and convinced her to sign over very large amounts of money to entities about which she knew nothing." Fusion Energy Foundation Inc. is one of several groups under investigation by a federal grand jury in Boston into allegations of credit card fraud. It faces multimillion-dollar contempt-of-court judgments stemming from that case. LaRouche, a frequent fringe candidate for president, is listed as a director of the foundation. Fusion Energy agreed to a repayment schedule to settle the woman's suit, but one check for $7,500 bounced and, after several months of payments, no more were received, O'Gorman said. Her lawyers filed a motion for judgment in Loudoun County where LaRouche makes his headquarters, seeking to force the organization to make payments or to have the court attach assets to obtain repayment. No hearing has been set. ... LaRouche's spokesman, Christina Huth, and the executive director of Fusion Energy Foundation, Paul Gallagher, did not return a reporter's telephone calls seeking comment. ... According to her suit, Mrs. Lindros said she was first persuaded to lend LaRouche's presidential campaign $950 in April 1984 and 11 days later agreed to lend $25,000 to another LaRouche-related group, Campaigner Publications Inc. Four days later, she was persuaded to lend another $100,000 to Fusion Energy Foundation. According to the suit, the LaRouche group's fund raisers refused to accept a check and took Mrs. Lindros to her bank where they "insisted that she immediately transmit the funds by wire transfer to defendants' account in New York," a method that prevented a stop payment order. O'Gorman said Fusion Energy offered its settlement the day before the case was to be tried in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The claim in Virginia includes the $100,000 loan to Fusion plus interest, attorney's fees and other costs totaling $135,783.32. No settlement has been reached on the smaller loans to Campaigner and The LaRouche Campaign, he said.

LAROUCHE GROUP FACES JUDGMENT. William M. Welch Richmond Times - Dispatch . July 14, 1986:7

And so on. I could cite a dozen more articles about legal cases that link FEF to LaRouche. The connection was clearly established repeatedly in law courts. It's not just Dennis King's radical theory.   Will Beback  talk  20:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Newspaper articles are not correct sources. We shall be displaying here additional legal documents of the FEF where LaRouche's name is nowhere to be found. LaRouche was never the owner nor director of the FEF. Above already furnished FEF document shows nowhere his name amoungst the directors. 66.194.104.5 (talk) 20:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

This editor is apparently banned user Licorne. You are no longer allowed to edit here, and your contributions will be reverted. Please find another hobby.   Will Beback  talk  21:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

And for anyone watching: Newspaper articles in reasonably-major newspapers *are* considered reliable sources. --Alvestrand (talk) 12:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Bjerknes?

Winterberg is not a co-author of the copyrighted article by Bjerknes, therefore reference to Bjerknes must be eliminated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.197.31.75 (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about that, but the Bjerknes website is self-published and shouldn't be used as a source for a 3rd-party, like Winterberg. If the same assertion appeared in a reliable source then it might be included.   Will Beback  talk  01:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The association is fairly well-documented, but since Bjerknes is deemed not notable enough to have his own Wikipedia article (Christopher Jon Bjerknes was deleted some time ago), I don't see much reason to include it here. --Alvestrand (talk) 12:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It may be well-documented, but the documentation we use here would have to be better. The mere fact that a 3rd party doesn't have a WP article isn't a reason to delete any mention of them if they are otherwise relevant to this article.   Will Beback  talk  23:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Arthur Rudolph

"Rudolph was later acquitted of all charges and his German citizenship was restored."

As I understand the events, this statement is not correct. According to An American in Exile: The Story of Arthur Rudolph by Thomas Franklin, the Hamburg prosecutor found no evidence to go forward with any prosecution, thus Rudolph was not actually aquitted. As best I can tell he was never actually charged by either government. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"negotiated to have him leave the country and stripped of his U.S. citizenship."

As I understand it, the OSI never actually had the authority to revoke anyone's citizenship. If they found that an individual had aquired citizenship under false pretenses they could turn it over to immigration. Rudolph gave up his US citizenship voluntarily under an agreement where he also stated that he did not contest the charges. Thus, "stripped" is not a good description of the actions involved. The text of the agreement is published in American in Exile. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It's my understanding the OSI actually has a team of lawyers that sue in a civil court to have suspected war criminal's citizenship taken away. I don't think immigrations has anything to do with it at that point. In many cases (like with Rudolph) they can scare them into renouncing it voluntarily.Physiker121 (talk) 04:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

"Rudolph's record as a potential Nazi war criminal at Peenemünde"

The accusations were for actions at the Mittelwerk, a very different place. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 13:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Natural Philosophy Alliance (NPA)

The home page of the Natural Philosophy Alliance (NPA) http://home.comcast.net/~Deneb/ on paragraph 7 has a statement:

"Our foremost watchword is tolerance . Physics has sunk into its current mess largely because of lack of it, while some other sciences, such as the earth sciences, have made remarkable progress since 1950 by practicing it. Beyond science, we also strongly oppose political, religious, racial, and ethnic bias: for example, our criticisms of special and general relativity do not involve any kind of criticism of Einstein as a person, or of his political and ethical views--or even, in most cases, of his other valuable scientific work."

Therefore, it has no anti-Einstein charter. Furthermore, the following persons are listed as notable members: G. Reber, H. Arp, R. Hatch, E. J. Post, D. E. Spencer, A. Assis and P. Graneau but not F. Winterberg. Therefore, the following sentence and reference in it must be eliminated: "Winterberg is a notable member of the fringe group 'The Natural Philosophy Alliance'[3] that has an antirelativistic, anti-Einstein charter." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfuelling (talk • contribs) 21:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC) Sorry, did not sign my comment above. Sfuelling (talk) 01:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Not fringe, huh? Look at the NPA charter before you talk:

"Principle #1 DO NOT BE OVERWHELMED BY EINSTEIN'S HIGH REPUTATION.

The great majority of attempts to point out flaws in special relativity (SR) get nowhere just because the listener simply refuses to believe that Einstein could be wrong, especially as regards his most honored theory, and will not follow any argument aimed at trying to prove him wrong. This amounts to what logicians sometimes call the fallacy of argument from authority, which means that the specifics of the case are put aside and replaced by faith in the high reputation of the thinker. We all know Einstein fell short in some areas, and that almost every great scientist did imperfect or even mistaken work in addition to his/her good work; it is therefore not inconceivable Einstein could have made more errors than we currently attribute to him.

Principle #2 REALIZE THAT THERE IS NO TRULY CONFORTING WAY TO TELL AN EARNEST SUPPORTER OF A WIDELY-REVERED THEORY THAT IT IS TOTALLY INVALID.

Therefore much of what follows may seem harsh and even hostile to firm believers in SR; but I am doing my best to at least adhere to high standards of courtesy and to avoid personal attacks. I believe the most satisfying way for a believer in SR to react is to stand aside and be as objective as possible, and then to be one of the first to join the dissident physics movement, as a way of optimally rescuing his or her own reputation. We could use more help, and we would welcome it from the ranks of the current establishment.

Principle #3 DO NOT ASSUME THAT IF SPECIAL RELATIVITY WERE INVALID, THIS FACT WOULD LONG AGO HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED WITHIN ESTABLISHMENT PHYSICS.

The reason it has not been is that almost everyone with a sufficiently bold and critical view of the subject to develop sound arguments against SR has not been allowed to flourish within the establishment. Great numbers of reliable accounts of such intolerance have been told.

One of the most recent comes from a new NPA member who, when doing graduate work in physics around 1960, heard the following story from his advisor: While working for his Ph.D. in physics at the University of California in Berkeley in the late 1920s, this advisor had learned that all physics departments in the U.C. system were being purged of all critics of Einsteinian relativity. Those who refused to change their minds were ordered to resign, and those who would not were fired, on slanderous charges of anti-Semitism. The main cited motivation for this unspeakably unethical procedure was to present a united front before grant-giving agencies, the better to obtain maximal funds. This story does not surprise me. There has been a particularly vicious attitude towards critics of Einsteinian relativity at U.C. Berkeley ever since. I ran into it in 1985, when I read a paper arguing for absolute simultaneity at that year's International Congress on the History of Science. After I finished, the Danish chairman made some courteous remarks about dissidents he had learned about in Scandinavia, and then turned to the audience for questions. The first speaker was one of a group of about 4 young physics students in the back. He launched immediately into a horrible tirade of verbal abuse, accusing me of being entirely wrong in my analysis, a simplification of the Melbourne Evans analysis--"Evans is wrong; you are wrong," he shouted. He accused me of being way out of line to present my "faulty" arguments on his prestigious campus. When I started to ask him "Then how would you explain...", he loudly interrupted me with "I don't have to explain anything." The rest of the audience felt so disturbed by all this, that the question session was essentially destroyed.

In many other cases over the years, whenever anger and verbal abuse has been introduced into confrontations between dissidents and members of the physics establishment, the great majority of the time it has been the establishment person who has broken the limits of courtesy first, and usually, the dissident never has responded in kind. A disinterested psychologist, observing several such incidents, would doubtless conclude that the establishment people seem to have something to fear or to feel guilty about.

A further notable example of the intolerance: In 1947, a Harvard undergraduate physics major presented his advisor with a proof that the alleged 1919 confirmations of general relativity--which triggered a sudden widespread acceptance of both special and general relativity--could be interpreted by a Newtonian type of physics (Several others have done this also). No attempt was made to refute his proof, but he was advised to find another major. So he went into geophysics, made a great deal of money on mining stock, and over 20 years later he found a way to publish his proof in an appendix of a special issue he edited of a major journal.

And still further: In 1964, a physicist at the University of Kansas, where I hoped to write a Ph.D. thesis in history of science that discussed various problems with SR, not only refused to join my thesis committee, but threatened to destroy my Ph.D. program if I went ahead without him or some other physicist on it--even though I was working in a field outside of physics.

Yes, folks, these stories represent only the tip of the iceberg.

Principle #4 DO NOT ASSUME THAT THE WORST ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY TYPICALLY REPRESENT ALL SUCH ARGUMENTS.

We in the NPA are also plagued by sloppy thinkers who might well be called "cranks," who if given wide publicity would harm our cause. As I once argued to a newspaper editor in Ottawa, Canada, vainly urging him to publish my answer to a local establishment physicist who had harshly criticized us dissidents in that paper, if you were in an Ottawa restaurant and noticed that all 5 people there were speaking French, you could not reasonably assume that the next person walking through the door would also be speaking French. (Ottawa is right along the boundary between French and English speakers. This is no attempt to insult French speakers; the story could just as well be told with English speakers already inside.)

The essence of the problem of why there are so many inadequate arguments against SR is that its flaws are so obvious, to anyone not overwhelmed with unquestioning respect for the powerful and prestigious, that it does not take an exceptionally bright mind to spot them. It does, of course, take a very good mind, and a lot of research and/or laboratory work, to produce a very strong disproof, not to mention a good alternative theory. But at least, they have gone farther than have most establishment physicists.

Decades ago a rumor circulated that only 12 people in the entire world could understand SR. Today, there may still not be 12 in the realm of establishment physics, for a real understanding of the theory amounts to realizing that it is hopelessly invalid. Yet there are many 100s, maybe even 1000s, of censored dissidents around the world who understand at least this much about it; and all of them, regardless of how talented they are and how convincing are their arguments, deserve high praise for at least reaching this point in their understanding,

Principle #5 REALIZE THAT A GREAT DEAL OF SCIENTIFIC DATA CAN BE INTEREPRETED IN MORE THAN ONE WAY.

You only have to consider the sun in the sky to realize this. We even use the language of the long-discarded Ptolemaic theory to describe how it rises, moves, and sets, even though we believe it is really the earth that is moving. Thus both interpretations still live. The question here is not which is correct (and if we took SR truly seriously, we would have to cast this matter into doubt again), but simply the fact that there are two possible interpretations. The 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment can be interpreted in at least four other ways that do not support SR.

Every last experimental test and technological application alleged to confirm SR, including the CERN meson lifetime experiments and nuclear energy, can definitely be reinterpreted in terms of other, more objective and logical, theories.

Principle #6 PHYSICISTS TODAY OFTEN MISINTERPRET THE MEANING OF WELL-KNOWN EXPERIMENTS, EVEN THOUGH THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION IS EASILY AVAILABLE IN THE BASIC LITERATURE.

The best example of this phenomenon occurs when the 1887 M-M experiment is said to disprove the idea that light velocity can be added to that of the source, or to prove that aether cannot possibly exist. In fact, as was realized from the beginning, and as is often stated in early 20th-century literature, assuming that the light moved at c + v or c - v leads to the very same null result (assuming the tiny fringe shifts were within the range of experimental error--which not all today agree with) that is used in support of SR. Only DeSitter's double star argument, first published in 1910, was historically decisive in pushing aside Ritz's competing additive-velocity theory (but several strong arguments have since been advanced against DeSitter, too).

As for disproving the existence of the aether, all the 1887 M-M experiment could possibly do in this regard was to show that a device of this kind cannot prove that the aether exists, if it does. Likewise, you can't prove that there are no creatures roaming the jungles of Madagascar at night, if you try to photograph them at midnight with ordinary film; it would take infrared film to detect them then.

Principle #7 TAKE THE SAGNAC EXPERIMENT SERIOUSLY.

In this case, the "infrared film" needed was provided by Sagnac in 1913, when he looked for the aether with an interferometer that rotated, instead of translating in a near-straight line. Something caused his fringes to shift as viewed on the rotating platform, and these shifts meant that the velocity of light was remaining constant relative to the laboratory. Sagnac advanced this as experimental proof against the second postulate of SR, which it actually was. His method has been modified and repeated many times since his day, and currently is being tested constantly among the satellites of the Global Positioning System (GPS). Every single time, when rotation of a light path within a surrounding dominant coordinate system occurs, fringes are shifted, light velocities are altered, and the existence of a luminiferous aether is strongly inferred--all contrary to SR.

Establishment physicists have usually ignored the Sagnac effect, or once in a while they have attempted to explain it in terms of special or general relativity--but all of these attempts have fallen short.

Principle #8 USE LOGIC IN ANALYZING THEORIES ABD IN CHOOSING AMONG ALTERNATIVE INTERPRETATIONS OF DATA. LOGIC IS MORE CRUCIAL THAN EXPERIMENTAL DATA, IN THE SENSE THAT NO DATA CAN POSSIBLY CONFIRM AN ILLOGICAL THEORY.

There is no field of study not subject to the basic rules of logic, in arriving at its conclusions. The most fundamental rule of logic is The Law of Non-Contradiction. It states simply that you cannot contradict yourself in the course of an argument, and wind up with a valid argument. But SR violates this law right off the bat, because the first postulate implies that the second postulate cannot be true (at least, not if photons behave in the same way as does the object dropped from the mast of ship to test the Galilean relativity principle--Einstein's first postulate).

Einstein's famous thought experiment alleging to prove relative simultaneity also violates this fundamental law: First, it states that the light approaches the moving observer at additive velocities--which if true, would be a violation of the 2nd postulate of SR itself. Then later in the same argument, Einstein clearly implies (in a step not spelled out, but easily deducible, since he could not have reached his conclusion without it) that the same light reached the same observer at constant velocities--which is in direct contradiction to his earlier claim that it arrived at additive velocities. In a classic argument published in the Swiss journal Dialectica in 1962, American philosopher Melbourne Evans revealed this situation, and added that if Einstein had only remained consistent and not contradicted his initial statement as to light velocity relative to the moving observer, he could choose any velocity he wished, and simultaneity would always be shown to be absolute--which clearly it is, throughout the real universe.

Principle #9 THERE IS NOT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE EVEN CLAIMED TO EXIST AS CONFIRMATION OF THE RECIPROCITY FEATURE OF SR.

All experiments related to SR have been done in the coordinate system of the earth. No one has ever gotten aboard an object moving at relativistic speed relative to the earth, to test to see if the alleged effects are reversed, in the view of observers aboard the moving object, as SR says they are.

Principle #10 THERE IS NOT A SHRED OF REAL EVIDENCE IN FAVOR OF TIME DILATION, AS OPPOSED TO CLOCK RETARDATION.

Einstein is praised for having made a "leap of faith" beyond the pedestrian reasoning of Lorentz and others, by claiming that when clocks slow down in a relativistic fashion, it is really time itself that is slowing down. But every bit of alleged evidence proves, at most, nothing more than that the clock slows down. Too many physicists subscribe to the belief that there is nothing to time except what can be seen on the face of a clock; but that amounts to the ridiculous statement that a measuring device has been built to measure nothing but itself. This view is an extreme version of operationalism, a very simplistic version of Machian positivism. So the "leap of faith" claiming time dilation remains totally unsupported by facts; mere speculation, not science.

Principle #11 AVOID THE FALLACY OF MISPLACED CONCRETENESS.

Claiming that time is embodied in the hands of a clock is only one of several ways in which contemporary physics runs up a blind alley by committing this fallacy, which involves attributing the properties of substantial things to things that have no substance--such as time, space, and abstract coordinate systems. To say that space curves, or twists, cannot have validity as real science because space is nothingness, the receptacle in which all substantial things are contained, and yet without substance itself; and only a substance, or a line or surface derived from one, can curve or twist. Countless recent forays into speculative theory would never have gotten off the ground, if this criterion were respected and observed.

Both postulates of special relativity claim that the velocity of light depends on an abstract coordinate system (cs). But every cs consists of no more than abstract lines and points, none of which are capable of exerting force, over light or anything else. Only the first postulate, the Galilean relativity principle, can be rescued from this situation by rephrasing and adding conditions; the second one is totally hopeless.

Principle #12 THE WIDE ACCEPTANCE OF SPECIAL RELATIVITY CAN BEST BE EXPLAINED BY MEANS OF CONSTRUCTIVIST ANALYSIS.

The constructivist critique, related closely to the thought of Thomas Kuhn, claims that much if not most of scientific theory owes more to the cultural and personal biases, and the mental constructs derived therefrom, of the scientists themselves, than to data from external nature. Such critiques have been widely applied, and some of them are less than convincing, and may do harm by tending to cast doubt on the very possibility of attaining objective knowledge. But when properly applied the general approach has great potential for revealing error, wherever it does exist.

In the case of modern physics, the main bias seems to be one against logic, and in favor of the irrational and the bizarre. The strange new ideas of relativity, quantum physics, and big bang theory represent not only an attempt to defame Newtonian physics, but even an attempt to deny the supremely important achievement of classical Greek proto-scientific thought: affirming that we live in a rationally ordered world. One dissident pointed out that Einsteinian relativity sacrifices 300 years of modern physics in order to rescue Maxwell's equations; but it does far more than that: in a very meaningful sense it attempts to undercut the primary foundations of all western scholarship, both classical and modern. But the sources of the claims of irrationality and logic do not lie in the real external world; they lie in the minds of the physicists. It is their own mental preconceptions that are irrational, not the nature they purport to explain. They confront the evidence and "find" what they expect to find, not realizing that other conclusions might be drawn, by those who are convinced that the world is rational and that the rules of logic must be followed when interpreting it." —Preceding unsigned comment added by DS1000 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

If Winterberg is not a member of the NPA why is this relevant? From what he told me he presented a paper at one of their conferences but is not a member and does not support their charter. I haven't seen anything in the text or references that proves he is a member. Physiker121 (talk) 22:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Winterberg is lying, his profile is on the NPA website DS1000 (talk) 01:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Many websites have my profile, without being a member. Does the profile say "this is a member", or does it say "this person has spoken at our conference", or is it simply not saying why it is there? To me, [9] looks like it's not saying. --Alvestrand (talk) 01:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is the list of US members. He's there , all right DS1000 (talk) 03:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Not to be dense, or apologist, but I don't see a place on that page where it says "these are members". I think it not unlikely (given Winterberg's denial) that the NPA lists every scientist that has ever spoken at one of their meetings here. --Alvestrand (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

He gave a paper at their meeting, he has a personal page on their website, he is listed under the "US scientists" on their webpage, he is well known about his anti-Einstein stance, these are facts DS1000 (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Notice also they list Wilhelm Reich who died in a prison cell in 1957 - 35 years before NPA existed. Unless he somehow carved a time traveling orgasmatron out of prison soap so he could join that organization you have to concede not every person on that list is a member.Physiker121 (talk) 17:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Winterberg says he is not a member and that the NPA is just using his name as a ballon. We must give Winterberg the benefit of doubt, and DS1000 is way out of line to call people liars here, DS1000 is violating Wikipedia courtesy rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.78.143.227 (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Physical Interpretations of Relativity Theory XI

The conference 'Physical Interpretations of Relativity Theory XI' can hardly be called a 'fringe' group. According to their website http://www.physicsfoundations.org/PIRT_XI/general.html:

"The conference is sponsored by the British Society for Philosophy of Science, the Physics Department of the Bauman Moscow State Technical University, the Calcutta Mathematical Society and is sponsored and organised with the assistance and support of the School of Computing and Technology (Prof. Peter Smith), University of Sunderland, Great Britain. Support and assistance was provided particularly with respect to publicity, by the Europhysical Society; the Foundation Louis de Broglie; the London Mathematical Society; the Royal Astronomical Society; The Institute of Mathematics and its Applications; Institute of Physics; British Journal for Philosophy of Science; Foundations of Physics; General Relativity and Gravitation; International Journal of Theoretical Physics; American Institute of Physics."

Therefore the sentence "In 2008, Winterberg delivered a paper on his theories against Einstein and against non-Euclidian geometry to the Physical Interpretations of Relativity Theory fringe conference.[20]" and reference has to be removed. In addition, the cited article by Winterberg has nothing to do with the Einstein-Hilbert dispute, in which section this comment has been inserted, and is not against Einstein but against non-Euclidean geometry, fashioned in particular by 10-dimensional string theories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfuelling (talk • contribs) 21:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

No comment on that, but I'd simply add that calling a group "fringe" is a POV. It'd be better to avoid that term, but if we have an adequate source for it then we might attribute it. "PIRT, described as a 'fringe group' by John Doe,...".   Will Beback  talk  23:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Two issues: Sfuelling only contribution since he signed up on wiki has been whitewashing Winterberg's wiki page.Secondly, it is easy to see that PIRT is a fringe conference, just look at the papers by : Viv Pope, Kracklauer, Stepen Crothers, Sankar Hajira and...Winterberg. Their claim of being associated with Foundations of Physics, Philosophy of Science, IJTP is also bogus. No self-respecting journal would have anything to do with PIRT DS1000 (talk) 23:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Commenting only on the "fringe" issue: Please see WP:NOR, a core policy. We can't make those kinds of judgments on our own. If these entities are "fringe" then we should be able to find a reliable source calling them that. If nobody calls them that then we shouldn't either.   Will Beback  talk  00:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed allegation that 'Physical Interpretations of Relativity' is a fringe group. I believe that F. Winterberg is no more or no less against Einstein than Einstein was against Newton, in the scientific sense, of course, only. F. Winterberg has repeatedly praised Einstein, Grossmann and Riemann for their contribution to gravitational field theory. But science has to progress and not become dogma. In addition, this comment about PIRT is of no relevance for the Einstein-Hilbert dispute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfuelling (talk • contribs) 01:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

In addition, there are so-called 'fringe' contributions at any kind of conferences. Conference articles and abstracts are NOT peer-reviewed (or peer-previewed)! Therefore it does not imply that a particular conference is 'fringe'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfuelling (talk • contribs) 01:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not sign my previous comments. Sfuelling (talk) 01:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what conferences Sfuelling has attended, but most serious conferences at which papers are presented peer-review them before the conference - I've been on multiple review panels myself. The quality of the reviewing is a chief determinant of the reputation of the conference. --Alvestrand (talk) 00:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• If folks can't come to an agreement on this, and if they keep reverting each other, then the page will have to be locked down with no editing allowed. PLease address each other's complaints and try to find a compromise acceptable to everyone.   Will Beback  talk  01:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
• DS1000, please don't keep reinserting "fringe" until you've found sources for those characterizations.   Will Beback  talk  02:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I removed fringe but have a look at the papers by : Viv Pope, Kracklauer, Stepen Crothers, Sankar Hajira. I sourced the conference site, the full papers can be viewed. Winterberg spew is not very far off.DS1000 (talk) 03:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

If we can't find a source then we can let readers decide for themselves.   Will Beback  talk  06:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The nice thing is that in the PIRT XI conference papers we have the COMPLETE source. Easy to judge. DS1000 (talk) 14:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Winterberg's Imperial College address had nothing to do with the Einstein-Hilbert Dispute, and so does not belong in that section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.78.143.227 (talk) 19:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what the "criticized Einstein" edit was about. Regardless of how many times Einstein's name is mentioned I don't see anywhere in that paper where he is criticized as a person. The term "string" comes up 14 times by the way. Physiker121 (talk) 02:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you let yourself write hyperbole like "It was Einstein’s obsession that geometry is marble and matter is wood, and that all attempts to find the fundamental law of nature should be directed by the quest to turn wood into marble.", and "One therefore can say: If Einstein is right then there can be no God. The opposite though, is not true. True rather is, if God exists then Einstein must be wrong", then "criticizing Einstein" should be appropriate. But after re-searching the paper, I agree that it also critizices string theory. But I'll let the current text stand. --Alvestrand (talk) 07:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that first statement as anything more than a harmless metaphor. As far as the second is concerned, if someone were to say that about me I would take it as a compliment because as far as I am concerned there is no god. Didn't Einstein once say that god doesn't play dice with the universe? I can't be sure but I doubt Heisenberg took it personally. The whole point of that paper as far as I can see was to discuss a scientific topic - not as a personal attack on Einstein. Physiker121 (talk) 06:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The word "obsession" is an attack; dragging in Einstein's personal views into an article purporting to be about physics says that the author thinks Einstein's personal views (as opposed to his physical theories) matter to his arguments. I think it's pretty obvious. --Alvestrand (talk) 14:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It is? Maybe I'm just dense but I always thought obsessive behavior was part of the job description of any great scientist. I think you are making way too much out of this. Here is an article about Einstein where they also describe him as having an obsession, and I seriously doubt they are trying to attack him http://dipc.ehu.es/digitalak/orriak/english/quantumdilema.html Physiker121 (talk) 16:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I think our disagreement is obvious to anyone reading this dialogue by now. I'll stop here. --Alvestrand (talk) 17:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Archiving of this page

Given that the page is 100 Kbytes large, I'm going to set up archiving for it.

A 90-day age limit should be appropriate. --Alvestrand (talk) 12:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

GPS again

• In 1955 in an ASTRONAUTICA ACTA paper Winterberg proposed a test of General Relativity, by using atomic clocks placed in orbit in artificial satellites. At that time neither atomic clocks nor artificial satellites even existed. Winterberg received a letter in 1957 from Werner Heisenberg expressing enthusiasm for Dr. Winterberg's proposal, which today is the basis of the Global Positioning System (GPS), and the only practical application of General Relativity. Neil Ashby presented in Physics Today (May 2002) an account how these relativistic corrections are applied, and their orders of magnitude.

This reference (http://www.ipgp.jussieu.fr/~tarantola/Files/Professional/GPS/Neil_Ashby_Relativity_GPS.pdf) does not mention Winterburg. What is our source for Winterburg having a direct connection to GPS? This was also discussed previously, see Talk:Friedwardt Winterberg/Archive 1#GPS.   Will Beback  talk  22:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no evidence for this "leading to" the development of GPS. I see no one suggesting this other than a non-scholarly bio from his University which clearly does not qualify as a reliable source, nor does it actually make any supporting statements or arguments for the claim. Yes, relativistic effects are accounted for in GPS but the original paper is not about use for navigation, it is about testing for relativistic effects. One might equally argue that Sputnik led to the development of GPS or more believably, that LORAN led to its development. There is no need to over-reach on this. State the work for what it was. Mention that relativistic effects in satellites are indeed observed in the GPS system and need to be accounted for. Claiming that this paper led to the development of GPS is, to be polite, unsupported. BobKawanaka (talk) 23:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The reference you call a bio was actually an article from the school newspaper. You don't have to look very hard to find numerous sources giving Winterberg credit for his ideas leading to GPS - albeit indirectly. As I see it, he was the first to propose using atomic clocks on satellites which is a necessary part of GPS. I think the main connection is there, though the relativistic calculation is important too. If you look at the Wikipedia article on GPS they also give him credit for his idea of using atomic clocks on satellites so there is obviously a connection. The main significance is that he proposed this at a time before satellites existed. Physiker121 (talk) 04:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

His name was first added in this edit, which doesn't say that his ideas led to the development of the system. A slightly more laudatory edit was done slightly later, probably by a banned Wikipedia user. But even that did not give him credit for inspiring the system.

That's the problem with using Wikipedia as a reference for Wikipedia: If the original addition does not reflect the source accurately, later references risk propagating the error.

Anyway, I removed the mention in the "history" section. Banned users shouldn't edit. --Alvestrand (talk) 05:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anybody was using wikipedia as a source for wikipedia except as a point of discussion here. I also find it rather odd you would delete that persons edits when the same information can be found in more reputable sources like this one where Winterberg is mentioned as the first to use that concept. Physiker121 (talk) 05:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

We should also verify the journal article in which the subject is purported to have proposed adding an atomic clock to satellites. "Astronautica Acta II, 25 (1956)". There are two claims: one is that he made that proposal. the other is that he was the first to make the proposal. The latter will obviously require a 3rd-party source.   Will Beback  talk  06:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The original German language journal Astronautica Acta (not to be confused with Acta Astronautica) is now defunct so you are unlikely to get a copy of that paper outside an old research library. It has been posted on this website as I am sure you have seen before judging from the archive. You can see he proposes using atomic clocks there. A referencing article where Winterberg's original paper is discussed in detail can be found here. You can also see he is the first person referenced to use the idea. Physiker121 (talk) 13:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for providing those links. The first one is to a Russian site that appears to be promoting Aether theories. Presumably it's a correct copy of the article, titled "Relativistische Zeitdiiatation eines künstlichen Satelliten". The English-language abstract says:

• Considering the theory of relativity there come forth measurable supplement limbs of the Doppler effect which are closely connected with Einstein's dilatation of time. In the problem at hand the basic element is not the Special Theory of Relativity but, according to the existence of fields of gravitation, it is the General Theory of Relativity. The considerations which are competent for the Doppler-effect are transferred logically to clocks on the satellite and on the earth, the motion of which is compared. The measuring of the divergence of the motion of the clock and thus the measuring of the time dilatation is made possible through comparison of two quartz-clocks (so-called atomic clocks) with molecule resonance lines on the artificial satellite and on the surface of the earth. Thereby it shows that the clock on the artificial satellite compared with a clock placed on the surface of the earth, in the course of a year will lose several thousandths of a second, that is, a measurable amount.

That clearly talks about atomic clocks in satellites. The second paper is more equivocal. It never says that Winterberg was the first to propose it, it simply says that he was the first to propose one of the time dilation equations. Maybe we can find a way of saying that.   Will Beback  talk  19:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe this reference then. I don't think Winterberg's equations work very well without atomic clocks so I think what he wanted to do is connected with that. Physiker121 (talk) 23:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I beleive the relevant part of that paper is this text in a footnote:

• F. Winterberg, in 1956, developed the theory of a possible experiment for comparing the behaviour of an atomic clock on the Earth with that of an identical clock on a satellite: the suggested experiment was considered as a test of general relativity. The theoretical approach was the same as that used by Hafele.

I don't see any problem with stating something like that. But let's leave GPS out of it since we don't have a source connecting Winterberg to its development.   Will Beback  talk  23:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't leave it out altogether. The two things he first proposed are necessary for GPS to function - atomic clocks and his relativity correction equations. It's been said that without that correction GPS wouldn't work at all - reference. This isn't to say he developed GPS, but I don't see anything wrong with saying his ideas about atomic clocks and relativity corrections are a necessary part of GPS to function. Physiker121 (talk) 05:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

We can say that if we have a source for it. Otherwise we're making our own conclusion.   Will Beback  talk  05:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The significance of this paper at the time was clearly the derivation of the equations for a practical discussion of the behavior of a clock in an actual satellite in Earth orbit. The Twin paradox thought experiment had been around for more than forty years at this point, i.e., the concept of putting a clock on spaceship and measuring the divergence of the onboard clock versus the stay-at-home clock was certainly not novel at this point. Improving technology at that time was leading to the possibility of an actual experimental test rather than a simple thought experiment. The "ground-breaking" tone of prior edits on this paper does not seem warranted. BobKawanaka (talk) 20:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think what Winterberg was proposing has anything to do with the twin paradox where you have one fast moving twin that ages slower than one on earth. What Winterberg was proposing was to measure time dilation due to gravity - the gravitational red shift - as it is sometimes called. This comes from Einstein's general theory of relativity as opposed to the special theory of relativity. Many people in Winterberg's day didn't think it was measurable on/above earth and many people didn't think there was such a thing in the first place. Winterberg proposed a way test/measure the effect using those equations and atomic clocks. There is a lot more to this than you realize. Physiker121 (talk) 23:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The point is that the idea of putting a clock on a moving spacecraft, was clearly not novel at the time, clocks in spaceships were central to thought experiments in Relativity for forty years. You contend the idea for putting a clock in spacecraft is somehow an idea first had by Winterberg. Furthermore, you should realize that via the Equivalence Principal the Twin Paradox can be resolved in a General Relativity framework, i.e., gravity and the pseudo-force experienced by an observer in a accelerated frame are actually the same thing. Your statement that people didn't think there was any such thing is sorely mistaken. Eddington et al. made their confirmations of General Relativity in 1919. Testing General Relativity in a weaker gravitation field (such as the Earth's) was an important, well-known requirement for further verification of the theory. Again, there is no reason to over state this as ground-breaking or a foundation for GPS. It was a good paper with some good mathematical derivations in a difficult subject. BobKawanaka (talk) 00:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

His idea was putting an "atomic" clock on a satellite and that was novel in his day and necessary to obtain the required accuracy. With regard to the twin paradox being derived through general relativity through the equivalence principle, I think you know as well as I do that's not what he was proposing. Yes, the general theory of relativity was experimentally confirmed via astronomical observation of massive objects some time before, but few people thought gravitational time dilation could be measured on earth and Winterberg came up with the method for doing it using his equations and atomic clocks. Physiker121 (talk) 03:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

We still need a source for the Heisenber letter.   Will Beback  talk  23:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The letter can be found in this published source or online here.Physiker121 (talk) 03:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the letter. My German isn't what it used to be but I translate that letter as a simple polite thank you ... saying "thanks for the offprint that you sent me, I found it interesting" and then goes on to talk about general relativity/gravity not being integrated with quantum field theory yet. He makes absolutely no specific mention of the proposed experiment. I've no axe to grind here but let's not keep over-reaching on this. BobKawanaka (talk) 22:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The text says:

• Winterberg received a letter in 1957 from Werner Heisenberg expressing enthusiasm for Dr. Winterberg's proposal.[9]

What words does Heisenberg use to express his enthusiasm?   Will Beback  talk  22:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually what he said is he found the possibility "very" interesting, which sounds like enthusiasm to me. If my research advisor said something like that to me that's how I would interpret it.

I think you guys are getting a bit on the picky side. This article is receiving more scrutiny than any I have ever seen on Wikipedia. I am just trying to help out by providing sources - not trying to submit a research paper for review.Physiker121 (talk) 00:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we say that he found the idea interesting?   Will Beback  talk  00:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Because that's not what he said. He said he found the possibility "very" interesting. I think there is a difference between interesting and very interesting.Physiker121 (talk) 00:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I could accept "very interesting" - it's better than "enthusiasm", for which it is not a synonym. The letter clearly indicates that Heisenberger did not want to take time to follow the math of Winterberg's article - it was not what he was working on at the time. --Alvestrand (talk) 03:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I've edited the text to read:

• In a 1955 paper Winterberg proposed a test of General Relativity using accurate atomic clocks placed in orbit in artificial satellites.[8][9] At that time atomic clocks were not yet of the required accuracy and artificial satellites did not exist. Werner Heisenberg wrote a letter to Winterberg in 1957 in which he said the idea sounded "very interesting".

I hope that's acceptable.   Will Beback  talk  04:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

That's fine with me. Physiker121 (talk) 14:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Paper is actually dated 1956. (yes, submitted in '55 but because we don't know what's gone on in the interim edits of journal submissions, it is customary to use the date of publication, not submission of first version). I would also say that editors would be less likely to be "picky" were the text more npov. Finally, it appears that Singer is also given credit for this same idea and mathematical derivations, in fact, there are several papers in which only S. F. Singer is mentioned as the original proponent of the idea. cf. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v188/n4755/abs/1881013a0.html and http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v124/i4/p996_1 BobKawanaka (talk) 07:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

And by the way, this seems to have crept to 1954 via the University Bio ... is there another paper that we're unfamiliar with or is it just a sloppy reference by the University? BobKawanaka (talk) 07:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, the Singer paper is here: "Application of an Artificial Satellite to the Measurement of the General Relativistic "Red Shift"". It's marked "Received 4 June 1956". Anyway, as long as we're not saying that this subject was the first to propose the idea, then we're on safe ground.   Will Beback  talk  07:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

This is something I wanted to research further before saying anything more about that. Up to this point I have been mostly providing references for what is there as opposed to adding text and additional claims. It's my opinion that Winterberg was first, but I need to research that thoroughly before saying it in the text. Physiker121 (talk) 14:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a reminder that we can't add our own, original research. WP:NOR. Regardless of what we find in archives, etc, we can't say he was first unless we have a reliable source that says so.   Will Beback  talk  21:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that the faculty webpage is a reliable source on this ... no original sources of the time are given, the faculty webpage is not an academic/contemporaneous source, the date is wrong and finally, as above, others can lay claim to being first also, sometimes without reference at all to Winterberg. I really don't think the page warrants a lot of text on who was "first" with the proposal ... I'm happy to add Singer et al. if we go down that road but really, I think it reads better if the claim to being "first" is just removed. In any event, the faculty webpage is not a reliable source on this topic. (They would be a reliable source on his employment at their University etc., but not the primacy of the satellite proposal). BobKawanaka (talk) 07:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

With regard to Singer, if some people don't give Winterberg proper credit that doesn't mean he wasn't first. The main problem is he published it in German so some people weren't aware of it. I have been in the middle of those types of disputes myself. I think it's pretty clear Winterberg was first with the idea - the submission date proves that. The main question I have right now is what month was it actually published? I don't know enough about that journal to say right now which is one of the things I wanted to look at. Singer's was published toward the end of the year.

I am not responsible for what is in the text. It was done way before my involvement. Had I written it I would have included proper sources for everything from the start. But rather than hack the article apart I think it's better to point out the questionable things and add sources as they become available. Physiker121 (talk) 11:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC), i

First, as Will points out, it's not our place to look at dates (particularly ones that are close) and decide who's first, that's Original Research and not something that we should do. Rather, we should be citing contemporaneous and more expert sources than ourselves ... in which case Singer would have the upper hand. I'm not saying one person is or isn't first, frankly, it's a minor issue which really isn't worthy or arguing primacy over, it's a derivation not an original theory. Traditionally, people who have made derivations/discoveries independent of one another and within a short period of time, are given equal "credit" on such things. But, as I said, it's not really worth arguing who's "first". If you insist on claiming primacy, we'll have to have a whole section on who did what and when which seeems a bit over the top to me, but I'm only one editor, others may have different thoughts on this. This would surely read better if it weren't continually pitched as a hagiography. BobKawanaka (talk) 12:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I am thinking there might be a better reference where that priority is discussed in more detail. I need time to investigate it. Physiker121 (talk) 12:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I hate to keep coming back to this same issue, but I've found another problem. The seccond paragraph of the intro says:

• He is known for his proposal to put accurate atomic clocks on Earth-orbiting satellites in order to directly test General Relativity...

While we've determined that he made such a proposal, do we have any source that shows he's known for it? Is this what he's best known for, as implied by listing it first? From my perspective, he's far better known for his work on the use of fusion in space travel, and other things. Maybe we should either drop this from the lead or move it to a less prominent position if there are no third-party sources indicating he's known for this.   Will Beback  talk  01:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes we did. I already posted this one way back in the thread. I haven't had a chance to add it to the text yet.Physiker121 (talk) 04:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Great! What does it say about the subject?   Will Beback  talk  05:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess you forgot you already commented on it:

• F. Winterberg, in 1956, developed the theory of a possible experiment for comparing the behaviour of an atomic clock on the Earth with that of an identical clock on a satellite: the suggested experiment was considered as a test of general relativity. The theoretical approach was the same as that used by Hafele.Physiker121 (talk) 12:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this doesn't count as a reliable source.[10]. (skip tothe very end.)   Will Beback  talk  08:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think every single source for Wikipedia has to be a journal article. It's nice if it is but it's not necessary in every case. I think the quality of the source required depends on how extraordinary the claim is. If I were to say he developed GPS I would need a high quality source to back that up. But just to say that relativity and atomic clocks are required for GPS to function (provide a high quality source for that) and say Winterberg proposed those things in 1955 in the next sentence - this is something that would be obvious to the average person and I don't think a high quality source would be required. The trick is to state it in a way that people are not misled into thinking Winterberg developed GPS. If you look at other Wikipedia articles, very few of them have all journal articles as sources.Physiker121 (talk) 12:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Most of the references re: GPS are of the sort "and without atomic clocks GPS wouldn't work" "without relativistic equations GPS wouldn't work"... true enough, but not really relevant, GPS also wouldn't work without artificial satellites, radio telemetry, the transistor, etc. etc. ... the importance of having a relationship to the genesis of GPS is not that some critical components were proposed to be used ... the importance is that the original idea was for one of navigation and it clearly wasn't. So I really think any relationship to GPS here is parenthetical ... it is interesting enough to be mentioned but in passing. As to primacy of Winterberg's proposal on a satellite test of General Relativity, I think it better to simply say that he made an EARLY proposal. Singer comes out in the same year with the same idea and like many of these things in the sciences, the idea itself was probably in the air. BobKawanaka (talk) 08:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Winterberg submitted his 9 months ahead of Singer. Even if it were "in the air", Winterberg is the one who wrote it up and submitted it first. I have some questions about the month each was published and accepted, but there is no doubt Winterberg submitted his first. In any of the published papers I have seen where Singer and Winterberg are both given credit, Winterberg's name comes first.

With regard to GPS being mentioned in passing, in this article it is no longer mentioned at all which I think went too far. In fact, it went farther than even what you changed. This seems strange since it is also in the GPS Wikipedia article.Physiker121 (talk) 21:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)