Hi everyone, I am cleaning up my discussion page so that I can focus on the recent deletion of the wave structure of matter (WSM) articles from Wikipedia. The previous content of this discussion page is here: Discussion to Oct2006

Below I have collected relevant information from various pages on what grounds were given for this deletion (it was originally deleted while I was away on holidays - so this is my first chance to reply). From the details below it is clear that while the page up for deletion was on the history of the wave structure of matter, the admin (Kimchi.sg) seems to have decided to delete all wave structure of matter pages without discussion or consent of others (which I assume is contrary to the principles of wikipedia). I have written to Kimchi.sg, but they did reply, and have now put up a post on their page saying they are away from wikipedia till mid 2007. Anyway, I will wait till we have more comments (at bottom of this page) and have re-written WSM article to better encyclopedia standards, then I will formally apply for WSM page to be re-included (hopefully over the next 2 weeks).

Please feel free to add comments at the bottom of this page. Thanks. Haselhurst 05:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Wave Structure of Matter pages from Wikipedia

A discussion on deletion of this article is logged at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the Wave Structure of Matter. You can appeal deletion at WP:DRV, but please do not recreate this article at different titles. Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 18:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete this, as well as Wave Structure Matter and Milo Wolff based on the same rationale. Kimchi.sg 17:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Wave Structure of Matter

This is part of four article series (!) about a heterodox theory of physics by, among others, Geoff Haselhurst, who helpfully created much of the articles here as Haselhurst (talk · contribs). It is part private theory and part POV-fork of Quantum theory (and related articles like De Broglie hypothesis). The main article Wave Structure Matter should be condensed to the standard treatment of fringe theories and satellite articles deleted. --Pjacobi 08:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Pjacobi 08:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. --Coredesat 10:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Kookery. -- GWO
Delete all four Incoherent articles about fringe theory of Milo Wolff which misleadingly presents it as respectable. I confirm that Haselhurst (talk · contribs) has apparently collaborated with Wolff, so WP:NPOV-WP:VAIN-WP:NOR vios also. In addition, I believe (Haselhurst disputes this) that Haselhurst may have violated copyright of images he apparently obtained from a website which allows personal use but requests fees for web page use. Despite many talk page messages urging Hazelhurst to improve/explain over many months, this has not happened.---CH 00:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not understand this. Contributions to the history of atomic theory should should rest on standard text books authors like Max Jammer. Greetings -- Andreas Werle 23:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Haselhurst's Reply to these Comments

Wikipedia has three central policies for determining if an article is acceptable;

"Neutral point of view, is one of Wikipedia's three content policies. The other two are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. Because the three policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three."

So let us consider these three policies in relation to the Wave Structure of Matter.

i) Neutral Point of View (NPOV)

It is well known in Quantum Physics that there is a particle wave duality to both light and matter. Here I will deal with light - but the arguments equally apply to matter.

The first point to realise is that the 'photon' particle aspect of light is a theoretical construct. e.g. We do not observe a discrete photon particle of light, we observe a discrete energy exchange whereby an electron changes its wave function in an atom or molecule. Thus the particle concept is a Point of View (not neutral). Likewise we do not see these changes in wave function, rather, we use Schrodinger's Wave equation to determine these discrete / allowed energy states, so the wave aspects are also a Point of View.

In terms of experimental verification for this particle wave duality of light - both the particle (photoelectric effect) and wave (interference patterns in two slit experiment) properties are verifiable. The most important aspect of this though, is that while a particle conception of light does not explain the wave properties (how does a particle produce interference in two slits) - the wave properties of light (WSM) can very easily explain the discrete 'particle' aspects because standing waves can only exist at discrete frequencies, which by E=hf equate to discrete energy states. This is why waves where first introduced into quantum theory. As Einstein writes;

"de Broglie conceived an electron revolving about the atomic nucleus as being connected with a hypothetical wave train, and made intelligible to some extent the discrete character of Bohr's 'permitted' paths by the stationary (standing) character of the corresponding waves." (Albert Einstein, On Quantum Mechanics, 1940)

The resolution of this duality was Born's discovery that the square of the wave equation could be used to find the probability of the particle's location. However, both Einstein and Schrodinger did not support this path, believing that there was an underlying causal connection between matter (reality is not statistical, 'God does not play dice' (Einstein)). As Schrodinger writes;

"What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space. Particles are just schaumkommen (appearances). ... The world is given to me only once, not one existing and one perceived. Subject and object are only one. The barrier between them cannot be said to have broken down as a result of recent experience in the physical sciences, for this barrier does not exist. ... Let me say at the outset, that in this discourse, I am opposing not a few special statements of quantum physics held today (1950s), I am opposing as it were the whole of it, I am opposing its basic views that have been shaped 25 years ago, when Max Born put forward his probability interpretation, which was accepted by almost everybody. ... I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it." (Schrödinger E, The Interpretation of Quantum Physics. Ox Bow Press, Woodbridge, CN, 1995).

To summarise: It is not acceptable for an encyclopedia founded on NPOV to present information on the particle structure of light and matter and the particle wave duality, and yet at the same time delete pages on the Wave Structure of Matter.

This is confirmed by Wikipedia's own NPOV policy;

"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions."

ii) No Original Research (NOR)

The Wave Structure of Matter actually dates back to the ancients, and in particular Indian Philosophy.

Sabbo pajjalito loko, sabbo loko pakampito. The entire universe is nothing but combustion and vibration. ... Observing, observing you will reach the stage when you experience that the entire physical structure is nothing but subatomic particles: throughout the body, nothing but kalapas (subatomic particles). And even these tiniest subatomic particles are not solid. They are mere vibration, just wavelets. (Buddha)

The Wave Structure of Matter, being founded on One thing existing, Space (and its properties as a wave medium) also explains the foundations of philosophy and metaphysics which relate to causation and necessary connection. See the Dynamic Unity of Reality

More recent scientific work on the Wave Structure of Matter has been published by William Clifford, Erwin Schrodinger, Milo Wolff and Carver Mead.

William Clifford

There is a page at Wikipedia on W. K. Clifford http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Clifford

And in it there is the following quote;

"I ... hold that in the physical world nothing else takes place but this variation [of the curvature of space]."

The complete quote was in the WSM article that was deleted, I have added it below;

The idea, conceived over 150 years ago by William Kingdon Clifford who has become the father of the algebra of geometry, was stated by him: "I hold that:

Small portions of space are in fact analogous to little hills on a surface which is on the average flat, namely that the ordinary laws of geometry are not valid in them.

This property of being curved or distorted is continually being passed on from one portion of space to another after the manner of a wave.

This variation of the curvature of space is what really happens in that phenomenon which we call the motion of matter, whether ponderable or ethereal.

In this physical world, nothing else takes place but this variation subject to the law of continuity."

(This statement also became the basis of the curvature of space that was mathematically constructed by Albert Einstein.)

Erwin Schrodinger

Anybody who has studied Quantum Physics knows that Schrodinger (and Einstein) vehemently disagreed with the probability wave interpretation of QT. Schrodinger's work is famous, published in the top journals, and is founded on his belief in a Wave Structure of Matter.

Prof. Milo Wolff (retired)

Wolff has had a distinguished career in Physics. His Biography is at;

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Wolff-Biography.htm

His work on the Wave Structure of Matter has been published in;

'Exploring the Physics of the Unknown Universe' (Technotran Press, CA) A reader-friendly investigation of the natural laws with applications to particles and cosmology. 2nd edition (1994). See at www.amazon.com 'Exploring the Universe and the Origin of it Laws,' Temple University Frontier Perspectives, 6, No 2, pp. 44-56 (1997). This provides the philosophy of why Wave Structure of Matter is correct. 'The Eight-Fold Way of the Universe,' Apeiron 4, no. 4. Oct (1997). 'Relativistic Mass Increase and Doppler Shift without Special Relativity,' Galilean Electrodynamics, 8, No. 4, (1997). 'Origin of the Spin of the Electron' Amer. Phys. Soc. This work provided the last unknown of the electron - its spin. It showed how all matter of the universe is inter-connected by their wave structures. 'Microphysics, Fundamental Laws and Cosmology.' Invited paper at Proc. 1st Int'l Sakharov Conf. Phys., Moscow, May 21-31, 1991, L. Keldysh & V. Fainberg, editors, pp.1131-1150, Nova Sci. Publ.,NY (1992). 'Fundamental Laws, Microphysics and Cosmology,' Physics Essays, 6, pp 181-203. This is the first in-depth description of the Wave Structure of Matter (1993). 'Beyond the Point Particle - A Wave Structure for the Electron,' Galilean Electrodynamics, 6, No. 5, pp. 83-91 (1995). Two selected papers in volume on Polarization in six-volume set were published by International Society for Optical Engineering, Bruce Billings, Editor, 1990. Theory and Application of the Polarization Albedo Rules, Icarus, 44, pp. 780-792 (1980). Polarization of Light from Rough Planetary Surfaces, Applied Optics, 14, pp. 1395-1405 (1975) Experiments to Test Theoretical Models of the Polarization of Light, Geake, Geake and Zellner, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 210, pp. 89-112 (1984). These experiments showed the Wolff model to be correct. Precision Limb Profiles for Navigation and Research, J. Spacecraft, pp. 978-983 (1967).

Prof. Carver Mead (Caltech)

Mead published the book 'Collective Electrodynamics' which shows that at the quantum realm there are no 'particles' only waves. He has a page at wikipedia,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carver_Mead

from which the following quote is taken;

"The quantum world is a world of waves, not particles. So we have to think of electron waves and proton waves and so on. Matter is 'incoherent' when all its waves have a different wavelength, implying a different momentum. On the other hand, if you take a pure quantum system - the electrons in a superconducting magnet, or the atoms in a laser - they are all in phase with one another, and they demonstrate the wave nature of matter on a large scale. Then you can see quite visibly what matter is down at its heart." (Carver Mead Interview, American Spectator, Sep/Oct2001, Vol. 34 Issue 7, p68)

Conclusion

The Wave Structure of Matter, though fringe (not many people know about it) has been published in reputable journals, and is also included in Wikipedia in the Clifford and Mead articles. It is a scientific theory that makes definite predictions that have been verified by observed facts, and incorporated into the design of microelectronics (Mead).

This is perfectly in keeping with Wikipedia's policy;

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. By insisting that only facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher may be published in Wikipedia, the no-original-research and verifiability policies reinforce one another."

And further;

"Wikipedia's founder, Jimbo Wales, has described the origin of the original research policy as follows: "The phrase 'original research' originated primarily as a practical means to deal with physics cranks, of which of course there are a number on the Web. The basic concept is as follows: It can be quite difficult for us to make any valid judgment as to whether a particular thing is true or not. It isn't appropriate for us to try to determine whether someone's novel theory of physics is valid; we aren't really equipped to do that. But what we can do is check whether or not it actually has been published in reputable journals or by reputable publishers. So it's quite convenient to avoid judging the credibility of things by simply sticking to things that have been judged credible by people much better equipped to decide."

iii) Verifiability

It is well accepted in Science that there are two sources of knowledge;

i) Logic deduced from principles.

ii) Evidence from our senses.

So let us consider one aspect of science / physics (relative motion) that applies to both Quantum Theory (de Broglie waves) and Einstein's Relativity (relativistic mass increase). If the Wave Structure of Matter is a valid Science theory then we must be able to show that these two fundamentals are correctly deduced for relative motion. If we apply the Wave Structure of Matter and thus consider two spherical standing waves with relative motion it is easy to demonstrate mathematically what occurs due to Doppler effects on the spherical In and Out Waves. Remarkably, in these simple wave equations we find both terms for the de Broglie wavelength and the relativistic mass increase. This is simple maths that can be verified by anyone (it is a neutral point of view, not an opinion). See;

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Wolff-Wave-Structure-Matter.htm

And the following video interview of Dr Milo Wolff on these deductions is also important. http://www.spaceandmotion.com/video/wolff-physics-WSM-1.wmv

Finally, given Occam's razor (which is universally accepted principle of Science), it is easy to show that the Wave Structure of Matter is the most simple science language / theory for describing reality (founded on one thing that we all commonly experience, space).

Thus I simply cannot see how this knowledge can be deemed unacceptable to an encyclopedia. It satisfies the three rules of NPOV, NOR, Verifiability, and it is the most simple foundation for the sciences.

Analysis of Reasons for Deletion

Clearly then, these science rules should apply not only to science articles at Wikipedia, but also to any arguments relating to the deletion of pages. However, if you analyse the comments supporting deletion (added below) all we have is a few people's opinions. So it seems that we should explore these opinions further to see if they are valid within the rules of Science (I have added my comments in brackets below).

Delete --Pjacobi 08:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(No valid reason given. It should also be noted that Pjacobi was not referring to deleting all articles, they also wrote; "The main article Wave Structure Matter should be condensed to the standard treatment of fringe theories and satellite articles deleted. (Pjacobi)" )

Delete, fails WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. --Coredesat 10:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Makes claim of NOR and NPOV but provides no evidence to support this, and is contradicted by above comments)

Delete. Kookery. -- GWO

(Silly comment without foundation)

Delete all four Incoherent articles about fringe theory of Milo Wolff which misleadingly presents it as respectable. I confirm that Haselhurst (talk · contribs) has apparently collaborated with Wolff, so WP:NPOV-WP:VAIN-WP:NOR vios also. In addition, I believe (Haselhurst disputes this) that Haselhurst may have violated copyright of images he apparently obtained from a website which allows personal use but requests fees for web page use. Despite many talk page messages urging Hazelhurst to improve/explain over many months, this has not happened.---CH 00:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Claims article is 'incoherent' without reasons given (the WSM is actually very simple sensible and logical). Then tries to deduce that because I added work published by Dr Milo Wolff (whom I know) that it therefore contradicts NPOV, NOR and conflict of interest / vanity, though none of these are valid conclusions. Finally, adds argument about image copyright infringement as support when the two are unrelated (though copyright is important - I have addressed this in my earlier talk pages, based upon wikipedia article on fair use of thumbnail images). I suspect this is an emotional response to not liking the WSM and clutching at straws trying to pseudo argue for its removal, thus exhibiting a non-neutral point of view which is rather hypocritical.)

Delete I do not understand this. Contributions to the history of atomic theory should should rest on standard text books authors like Max Jammer. Greetings -- Andreas Werle 23:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(The Wave Structure of Matter is substantially more than a history of atomic theory. And given that it is well accepted in Physics that the current foundations (particle wave duality, field theory) lead to contradiction and paradox (and do not entirely match empirical facts) it is not acceptable to say that further knowledge should not be published and we should stick with current foundations even though they do not completely work.)

Given the above I just find it very hard to believe that these pages where deleted in the first place, and I can only assume that this is simply because people who work on the wave structure of matter where unaware that the pages were up for deletion and could not respond.

In ending, I have a page on our website on censorship in physics publications (written by Nobel laureate Brian Josephson) that I think explains the real reason for the deletion of these pages, that they contradict the existing 'particle' paradigm.

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/physics-censorship-nobel-prize-laureate.htm

(I wrote to Prof. Josephson and have his permission to reproduce this page)

As Max Planck wrote;

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. (Max Planck)

I am currently writing to a number of people who work on the Wave Structure of Matter. Hopefully over the next few weeks we can re-write the main WSM article and at the same time ask Wikipedia to re-consider this work for inclusion into the encyclopedia.

Wikipedia state that the reason to re-include content rests on the principle "would Wikipedia be a better encyclopedia with the article restored". Well if you have the most simple foundation for science that deduces fundamentals of Quantum Theory and Relativity (and Mach's Principle of Cosmology) it is obvious that this is important knowledge that should be in an encyclopedia.

I have re-created the three deleted wikipedia articles on my website. They need to be written into one very good article.

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/wikipedia/wave-structure-matter.htm

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/wikipedia/introduction-wave-structure-matter.htm

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/wikipedia/history-wsm.htm

Sincerely, Geoff Haselhurst

Haselhurst 03:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Add your comments below. Thanks.

I would like to add my voice for reinclusion for the Wave Structure of Matter (WSM). I have read the original and now deleted articles, I found them to be well referenced, honest and of great value to the range of concepts explained on Wikepedia. The concepts expressed in WSM are well grounded in the history of physics. WSM is an evolution of the original work of Schrodinger, physically WSM expresses a view that diverges from the probabilistic interpretation of the eigenfunctions of the Schrodinger operator. It is therefore mathematically well founded and of equal value to other incomplete models found in physics such as String Theory. Considering Wikipedia is happy to contain a page on the model known as "Flat Earth" I cannot see any justification to deny its reinclusion. Sincerely Nigel Savage Nigelsa 05:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must also lend my support for re-inclusion. The above post for re-inclusion made a good point, WSM seems well grounded in physics. After reading about it, I can see connections between it, Stochastic Electrodynamics, and work conducted by other independent researchers. So I think that its validity as a scientific theory is not in doubt.

The posts for deletion had little if anything given in support of their view. I do not argee with everything about this theory, but then I disagree with a lot of theories on one point or another. That is not a reason to dismiss them out of hand. If we deleted every theory someone disagreed with at some point, or could not comprehend, there would be little left on this site.

Given the lack of sound reasons for it's deletion and its solid grounding in science, I can find no reason for it not to be reinstated on the site.

Sincerely Little Feather [User Name] Charles A. Laster laster3@bellsouth.net

The scientific theories have to be refuted with proofs. In the exposed arguments to delete WSM page none evidence is given to refute the WSM Theory.

This theory in the case of be confirmed as correct could solve the following paradox:

The application of Restricted Relativity to photons as particles conduces to the proper time of photons is null, this is, in the photon reference frame the photon emission and absorption are simultaneous events. In conclusion, the photon life time is null and this seems the same that to say “photons don’t exist”. Or ¿what is existence?

If photons don’t exist and if it is confirmed in a future, will does Wikipedia delete the photon’s page? Or maybe better to tell its history.

The WSM theory can be wrong, but it seems go in a possible good way.

Also I support for re-inclusion of a neutral WSM page.

1 November 2006

R. Illanes

I think it quite interesting actually why this particular wiki page is consistently being deleted. And I have yet to see a coherent, objective, logical and reasonable argument for why this particular page is consistently being "targeted" for deletes. Is there something in particular which is extremely offensive to the editors at wikipedia about the wave structure of matter? If so the editors at wiki may want to look at the far more "raunchier" scientific subject pages allowed.

I sense a slight intellectual cowardice on wiki's part for not allowing at the very least other intelligent people the chance to voice their logical analysis on wether WSM is even a consistent, viable theory or not.

And to the people who have went to the trouble of trying to censor this theory off of wiki I leave a quote for you:

"The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error." ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859

I support the re-inclusion of a neutral WSM page.

November 1, 2006

N. Forbes

Unlike the detractors that got the Wave Structure of Matter pages deleted from Wikipedia, I sought out Dr. Wolff's many publications. WSM is a mathematically sound theory derived from the works of established physicists, like Einstein, Schrödinger and de Broglie. Calling the work of Dr. Wolff a "fringe theory" that is not "respectable" is without merit.

I agree that the Wave Structure of Matter should be reinstated on Wikipedia. The arguments leading to WSM's deletion from Wiki do not provide any evidence that would warrant deletion, and Mr. Haselhurst has shown that he has valid rebuttals for all of the comments used as evidence that called for deletion of the pages. I can understand that a delay in response led to the pages' deletion, but that is why I think that they should be reinstated, now that both sides can discuss changes and the validity of inclusion on Wiki.

Mike Weber 14:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's about time Wiki got a grip of comments like 'Kookery' and 'Delete' (which express prejudiced opinion with no supporting arguments) and deleted them! As for WSM, having r5ead extensively the background articles, it is a theory that stnds up equally as well as 'big bang' ideas, quantum physics and others: let the readers decide. I can only wonder why people are trying to censor it... As for statements like "theory should should rest on standard text books authors like Max Jammer" I mean why stop at Max Jammer? Maybe we should get right back to Aristotle or Paracelsus for our 'standard text books' and then nothing will ever change. davewilliams3@hotmail.com (I do have a Wiki log in somewhere & I'll come back with it)

-Wikipedia wants to be a “neutral and unbiased compilation of previously written, verifiable facts.” Well, so it can’t reject a theoretical set which refers to physical facts.

-What is remarkable with WSM is that it is a new model likely to provide explanation, if not for everything, at least for many facts still unexplainable in the framework of current Science. It does that with only one assumption: the matter is made of waves. The first important result is reconciling Quantum theory and Relativity; that’s not a slim affair which merits a minimum of consideration. It seems to me that Wikipedia should play an important role promoting a debate on this. Opening a large discussion is better and more intelligent than purely and simply interdicting to express an opinion. Furthermore, WSM bring about explanation for other physical phenomena in an exemplar three-step way that should be used for every demonstration in physics: (1) associating the description of a phenomenon with its explanation, (2) in order to set up a formula with a clear physical signification for each of its terms, (3) which will be checked by experiment. See:

http://www.ontostat.com/anglais/kinetic_inertia_gb.htm

Looking beyond, WSM seems able to provide clues for the origin of life and, as a result, to become an universal theory. Wikipedia can’t neglect that.

Denys Lépinard – 5 November 2006.

Hi Everyone,

Thanks for the comments, they are great.

I thought of two further things that are important in this debate.

1. The discussion for deletion was only for the 'History of WSM' page. The admin person (Kimchi.sg) took it upon themselves to delete all WSM pages. Surely this is not acceptable at Wikipedia, particularly given the poor level of debate (no use of reason / accepted rules of science). Anyway, I wrote to Kimchi.sg asking for clarification. Guess what! They deleted my comment and put up a notice saying they are away from Wikipedia till mid 2007. Very unsauve as i see things.

2. Wikipedia has a central policy of NPOV (neutral point of view).

In physics the concept of a 'particle' is NOT a neutral point of view - it is a theoretical interpretation of discrete energy exchanges in discrete locations in space.

Likewise the particle / wave duality (Copenhagen Interpretation / Complementarity) is also NOT a neutral point of view. It is a point of view that reality has both particle and wave characteristics, that reality itself is beyond our comprehension and this is the best we can do.

Thus to ban a wave structure of light and matter, while including Non neutral point of views of 'particle' and 'particle / wave' duality of light and matter, is contrary to Wikipedia's policy.

To present a genuine neutral point of view all three concepts must be presented (the reader can then decide upon their merits). Particularly when a wave structure of matter clearly explains the discrete 'particle' properties of light and matter (which is why wave equations were first introduced to quantum physics by de Broglie and Schrodinger).

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Quantum-Theory-Mechanics.htm

Hope this helps clarify things a bit more when it comes to getting wave structure of matter pages back into Wikipedia. Cheers, Geoff Haselhurst 06:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff you have my support in getting WSM reinstated in wikipedia. What has been done is nothing less than attempts by some ill-informed people to stop people knowing the true history and present understanding of matter as waves.

I would like to see de Broglie mentioned above. He played a key role in bringing the wave nature of matter to the fore and received a Nobel prize for doing exactly that. Ray Tomes 00:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I searched for the reasons for deletion of the Milo Wolff article. Found this;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Milo_Wolff

The decision was to clean it up and keep it. Yet later it was deleted?? It does seem that there are people here with an agenda to delete knowledge of the WSM contrary to the principles / rules of Wikipedia.

Haselhurst 23:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am in favor of keeping The Wave Structure of Matter info in Wikipedia. It seems to me that it enhances the quality of the information on the topic of modern physics. It also serves as a bridge to those philosophical topics ranging from Plato, and Aristotle, to Hume, Kant, and Whitehead. WSM sits astride these ideas and offers an alternative to the particle-wave duality that plagues modern physics. Quite frankly WSM is much more accessible and intelligible than string-theory. It is not a novel idea, and in fact appears throughout the works of those physicist mentioned above, as well as Paul Dirac, Richard Feynman, Douglas Hofstadter, and others. -- Law Linick, BSEE Electrical Engineering, University of Pennsylvania, Program Manager for Deep Impact Inertial Measurement Unit.

Metaphysically speaking, matter can be discrete, or continuous. Since the early Greeks, and most probably earlier than that, scientists and natural philosophers took two possible stands on what is the fundamental structure of our universe. At the most fundamental level the question was: discrete or continuous. It is so basic, so natural, to consider the possibility of a continuous universe. The leap from a continuous medium to one that can sustain waves is minor. So fundamental is the thought of a wave structure of matter that it sounds unbelievable to me that Wikipedia do not accept a page with information and arguments on its favor. Without a doubt I am in favor on keeping the page on the Wave Structure of Matter. Facundo Bromberg, Ph.D. Candidate, Iowa State University.

The Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) theory is completely in-line with modern scientific concepts and thinking. It can be considered as a more fundamental and simple string theory that matches all observed data and from which both relativity and quantum mechanics can be derived in only three dimensions, instead of the questionable eleven of current string models. The theory originated with Schrodinger himself, when in 1937 he declared that particles were just appearances in the fabric of space. Schrodinger completely disagreed with the probabilistic interpretation of his equation, even though that interpretation produces the same results mathematically as treating the wave equation as a real wave involved in the superposition structure of particles. The papers of Milo Wolff (Galilean Electrodynamics and Apeiron) and others have supported this concept and kept Schroedinger's vision alive. There are WSM articles that show how the compression of a space fabric due to a spherical wave pattern creates the rest-energy of the electron, proton, Universal mass, and how the speed of the spherical waves can be derived as c, the speed of light which explains mass-energy relations.

The WSM concept eliminates normalization problems from quantum field theory where classical and current thinking still holds onto the concept of a singularity, which is mathematically feasible but physically impossible. WSM explains the Heisenberg uncertainty principle in terms of standing-waves, where the position-momentum uncertainty can be described by the difference between discrete, integer wave numbers in a standing wave.

Based on the fact that WSM supports all existing physical evidence and makes predictions in cosmology and particle physics, it should be supported in Wikipedia as a valid theory alongside the speculative, generalities of the current multidimensional string theories which are also supported. The explanation of microscale EM phenomena by Carver Mead (Caltech) using wave-structure concepts of the electron provides further evidence. Michael Harney, BSEE Utah State University, Principal Investigator of Neutron Flux Dosimetry experiment for Get Away Special program, holder of 3 patents in electromagnetics designs.

I support inclusion of the 'Wave structure of matter' in Wikipedia. The wave structure of matter has been well known since its origination by Louis de Broglie. While not an integral part of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory, it is certainly very relevant to the Dirac equation and the Klein-Gordon equation; and very important to the continued development of relativistic quantum field theory. It is also to be addressed by string theory as that theory develops more fully. If there is a severe criticism of Milo Wolfr's work it is that the important proofs of the origins of the existing naturallaws and the new origins of quantum spin and gravity appear in literature elsewhere; not yet in Wikipedia. These are the basis of a Unified theory of the Universe. He doesn't give his wave model much correspondence to curent theories; but these can be added by other readers, and does not negate the importance of his constructs to the whole of physics. Some of this work by Wolf can be seen in his chapter from the book: "Gravitation and Cosmology: From the Hubble Radius to the Planck Scale." Richard Amoroso, Editor, The Noetic Journal.

INCLUDE THE WSM. I have become aware of the existance of contemporary web articles on the Wave Structure of matter (WSM) only this week, so perhaps I can offer a neutral point of view in regard to its inclusion as an article in Wikipedia. I have a Masters Degree in Aero Engineering and Engineering Sciences from Purdue and have recently been studying the Dirac formalism of QT; a step into the deep water of formal theoretical physics.

I have been very refreshed to find the web page of Milo Wolff, and see that there are credentialed researchers who would just as soon dump the word "particle", because it causes students to hang on to an old idea that has failed to mature in the last eighty years. For me, the whole matter is which of two expressions will be more helpful in teaching new physicists........"a point of concentration" or "a particle". The latter is easier to say, but misleading in the context of our childhood understanding of a grain of sand or speck of dirt.

Editors of Wikipedia, please understand that withdrawing WSM from your pages is just the same as withdrawing any other part of modern physics. Of course there will always be places where non scientists glom-on to a meritorious idea and reach too far into metaphysics, but here is a place where the editors might consider not throwing out the whole of WSM. Certainly Wolff's papers are within the mainstream of ideas that scientist discuss every day.

Larry Lydick

It comes as no surprise to me that the Wave Theory of Matter has been removed from Wikipedia, since ignorance has become a popular scientific method in contemporary science.

Administrators of an arbitrary “encyclopaedia” are not, by any stretch of the imagination, in a legitimate position to decide what will and what will not be classed as scientific endeavour. The Wave Theory of Matter is a legitimate scientific investigation, as anybody who has ever heard of de Broglie, Schrodinger, Einstein, Heisenberg, Dirac, Compton, Bohr, … can testify. And don’t forget the so-called wave-particle duality manifest in the photon, the Compton wavelength of particles, electron diffraction, the photoelectric effect, gravitational redshift, etc. etc.

I strongly support reinstatement of WSM on Wikipedia, but I think it exceedingly unlikely that it will happen, especially since its administrators have demonstrated that they are not scholars. If this does not happen, an alternative I suggest is that a .com website be established exclusively for the Wave Theory of Matter, and that this site be the focus and meeting point for the international scientific community having a legitimate interest in the theory and science generally. Only by boldly asking questions, fearlessly, despite opposition, and searching for answers where most have not looked for want of courage and independence of thought, can one hope to discover for one’s self. From nothing else can creativity grow and blossom, and without which the garden of science can only aspire to an overpopulation of weeds.

Stephen J. Crothers. Assoc. Editor, Progress in Physics, Assoc. Editor, Bulletin of Pure and Applied Sciences E (Mathematics).

I feel compelled to announce my support for the inclusion of the Wave Structure of Matter in Wikipedia. The WSM is not “fringe science” or “kookery”. It is not the pet theory of a few uneducated individuals. The WSM completely agrees with the observable evidence to date and the confirmed laws of science. The WSM makes no attempt to change what mainstream science has already confirmed, it merely attempts to create a priori explanations for enigmas that to this day nobody has been able to solve. This is valuable information that should not be left out of any project that prides itself as a source of knowledge. In fact, most of the WSM theory is based upon the work of our most famous scientific forefathers. A truly neutral point of view would allow the inclusion of more than one side in an argument. By summarily deleting the content, this in and of itself removes the neutral point of view of Wikipedia. The WSM pages should be restored until such time as someone can refute them, a challenge “fringe science” avoids and the WSM encourages.

Eric G. Wilson, M.S.

--Eric 05:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am shocked to hear that wikipedia has deleted pages of WSM theory. WSM is a strongly proven theory and infact far more thought provoking than superstring theory. I seriously don't understand the reason behind deleting WSM from Wikipedia. If someone feels WSM has some defects they are welcomed to publish about it ...that i guess is proper way of dealing things rather than just deleting it. Infact I am working on WSM theory from last two years and I have full faith in the theory. I have a strong belief that in next 5-10 years WSM will be a strong contender for the unified theory of matter and i am sure there will be lots more researchers working on WSM.

Mohd Abubakr, B.Tech. India

Milo Wolff is an international educator and a veteran of the American Space and Atmospheric Science programs. He is a serious researcher and his work is representative of something that is sadly lacking in present-day physics: alternative physical models. To stimulate future progress, we need more of a marketplace of alternative ideas for people to try out. Wikipedia has more of a capacity to fulfill this function than do the conventional print media, so I really hope you will take the responsibility seriously. Dr. Cynthia K. Whitney, Editor, Galilean Electrodynamics, Editor, Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance. USA

Deletion of the WSM pages makes no sense whatsoever. It does indeed show more of a political bias than anything to do with common sense, and will only reveal an underlying ignorance, making a mockery of wikipedia's claims that it is a 'free' encyclopedia. WSM is the future of our physical understanding, and rightly deserves its place here, and in fact everywhere! Pandering to the inane chatter of a few paranoid individuals does not make this web-site 'free'. The staff here would do well to take great heed from the words of the distinguished persons above, and to which I can add little except my support. K n-R. (Just someone who wants to learn about Truth)

My vote is for re-inclusion of the The Dynamic Unity of Reality and the Wave Structure of Matter (as presented by Geoff Haselhurst) on his website; http://www.spaceandmotion.com

If anyone reads Haselhurst's work (I have)and still wishes to delete the WSM theory from "a free encyclopedia" then that is one thing, but if the deletion of the WSM theory is political, or based exclusively on the feeble deletion votes quoted above then Wikepedia is an incomplete set of encyclopedias.

The Wave Structure Matter (WSM) is an emerging theory in the category of metaphysics and people will search Wikepedia for information on the subject. For this reason alone the WSM should be reinstated.

Thank you, Simply Bruno

"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people." - Giordano Bruno

"Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters." -Einstein

Hi Everyone, Thanks for all the comments. They are great.

I am away over Christmas / New Year.

So in January 07 I will try and rewrite 3 main articles into one and then apply for re-inclusion. Have a nice Christmas.

Haselhurst 22:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is requested that users who find pages deleted for reasons of quality control, as in the case of 'Wave Structure of Matter', do not subsequently publish the edited information in a second page, in this case the page User: Haselhurst. Instead, it would be appreciated if users would apply for page reinclusion as intended by Mr. Haselhurst. Measures have been taken to ensure Wikipedia's standards are met in the case of distribution of Mr. Haselhurst's information.

Many thanks for your contributions

Well I do not think the wave structure of matter page was deleted for quality control reasons, in fact there was never a vote for its deletion - it was just removed. But I am planning on re-writing it (with the help of others) - am just busy with a million other things at the moment. But hopefully over the next month it will be done and then i will formally apply for re-inclusion of the page.

I was not planning on adding it to my user page (so i found the above message a bit odd!?).

Cheers,

Haselhurst 23:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi All,

I have not forgotten about these pages. I am just in the middle of a major re-write of our website to simplify / clean it up (it gets up to 100,000 page views a day now so I am stressed to finish site). As I do this I am also trying to collect the best knowledge and write it up into a good quality encyclopedia article. So I would rather take my time and ensure it is well done. I am not sure when I will be finished (things always seem to take me about 5 times longer than I imagine). But it will be good once finished - then I will apply for re-inclusion. Others are welcome to help (there are quite a few people now working on the Wave Structure of Matter - they are just busy as well - the curse of the modern world!)

I have just finished writing an article that I think is important to all this, as it shows how to deduce the most simple science theory of reality, the wave structure of matter in space, then deduce from this theory to show that it works (so there are no opinions which is important to a philosopher, as it should be to all scientists).

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Most-Simple-Scientific-Theory-Reality.htm

All the best,

Haselhurst 23:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi All, I hope to have this completed by mid June this year (sorry for delay - life has been busy). Geoff Haselhurst Haselhurst (talk) 04:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an amateur physicist, and have been baffled for the past few days by how it's possible for photons to have zero mass and yet still have properties of momentum. Even though is is still apparently possible for it to have momentum when using the relativistic mass equation, this assumes zero mass. How can anything in a universe where the basic building blocks of matter are PARTICLES, have no mass? If mass=0, then a photon must be either just some kind of pure energy being propagated in some form (A WAVE?!?) or otherwise nothing. This thought process led to my intuitive assumption (PLEASE message me if you can explain this to me better) that everything in the known universe is essentially comprised of waves, and that on the large (observable) scale, gravity and mass (and all other properties like density, temperature, etc.) are purely phenomenon caused by waves with varying relative properties, creating the illusion of matter - which in my opinion explains why gravitons haven't yet been fully understood, and why quantum physics has its own problems with the inclusion gravity. I'm in full support in getting WSM reinstated in wikipedia; take something like string theory in comparison - it makes sense but is still technically pseudoscience. Why should WSM be considered anything LESS when there's clearly just as much potential in it being the next major breakthrough in theoretical physics? The fact that this article still doesn't exist is plain ridiculous.

Dimitri Pappas fragtion 16:31, 23 September 2008 (SAST)

Hi Dimitri, Very astute reasoning, well done. And yes, it is ridiculous not to have the WSM on wikipedia. Unfortunately humans are creatures of habit, both in thoughts and actions, and for several hundred years we have been in the habit of thinking matter was made of tiny little particles, so it is very hard for people to change their views. It is obvious that the electron is a spherical standing wave in space, that light is due to resonant coupling (which is discrete). The wave center forms the particle effect of matter, the spherical in and out waves provide continual two way communication with all other matter in the universe (what we call forces / fields). This is the most simple science theory for describing reality, and it deduces the natural laws correctly. What more do people want. So we need help from honest sensible scientists to get WSM back into wikipedia. I will try and push it along in 2009 (life has been very busy!). Thanks for your comment. Cheers, Haselhurst (talk) 03:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haselhurst, Are you trying to sell Dr. Wolff's book or something? Go present your ideas to an actual theoretical physicist and see if they think your ideas are worth anything. I'm an undergraduate physics major and, in looking through http://www.spaceandmotion.com, I didn't find anything isn't in an extremely incomplete physics education and some internet searching. I certainly didn't find any useful mathematical formulations of physics! Presenting some basic and entirely incomplete qualitative descriptions of what sounds elegant to you is not how to create a viable theory. You claim that with 20/20 hindsight, this model has been obvious for a very long time, yet you refer to experiments that only became possible with 20th century technology. If you want to advance your theory of physics, I suppose you have every right to do that, though I don't believe it has merit, but you cannot make claims about the verifiability and expert support for your theory that are clearly false to anyone who is very slightly versed in modern physics. Please stop polluting the internet with misinformation and especially complaining when you get caught. Also, save yourself the time; adding all the comments in support of your theory with different names written below each isn't any less transparent to Wikipedia authorities.

File:Wsm-wave-diagrams.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Wsm-wave-diagrams.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:G-Haselhurst.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:G-Haselhurst.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Litmus test of a TOE's success

Eratosthenes, Ptolemy, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Schrodinger, Dirac and.... Haselhurst? Haramein? any other aspirant but deleted wikipedia/arxiv cheerleader?

Immortality is conferred upon selfless, unshakably perseverant genius not by the blind vagaries of human opinion, no matter how democratic or tyrannic, but by those implacable patterns of Nature - winking silently from both the infinite and infinitesimal - safely beyond our control and corruption but NOT, as history has time and time again demonstrated, UNDERSTANDING. (Beware dark energy, dark matter, and - what next - dark time? dark light?)

The golden key is offering not merely fresh new ideas, but a testable, predictive hypothesis and then patiently awaiting - from within the grave if necessary (cf. Bruno*) - either Nature's cold agreement and consequent induction into the Hall of Eternity, or its contradiction and consequent flush down the tortuous and even colder pipes of epicycling confusion.

Thus all the fevered focus on the (evolving?) nature of what lies within and beyond the cosmic microwave background gazed upon by WMAP, Planck, Atacama, etc and the myriad scientists - each rapt with awe - contributing to opening these bejeweled windows on our ineffable source and destiny...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno

74.178.138.35 (talk) 23:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC) Kevin Bootes 09atgmail, BS Math Sci 1987 Johns Hopkins, fellow student in this open classroom left by our disinterested, unreachable, but occasionally attentive - if not subtly interactive - Superior(s?) to fight it out among ourselves along this eternal golden braid of possible paths to the threshold of Omniscience.[reply]

File:Albert-einstein-biography-pictures.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Albert-einstein-biography-pictures.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 16:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Capra-1.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Capra-1.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 02:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Milo Wolff biography external sources

Hi Geoff. I started to write article about Milo Wolff at Polish wikipedia. It's based on your biography of Milo (for now). Have you any references not being Wolff himself? ;-) It will be great help, because there is lack of creditable sources on Internet and I'm not very good in advenced and persistend searching. Best regards Pirogronian (talk) 11:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wolff-milo-2.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Wolff-milo-2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 22:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Bohm-david-one-many.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Bohm-david-one-many.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. B (talk) 19:21, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Bradley-1.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Bradley-1.jpg, which you've attributed to spaceandmotion.com (which has a CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 statement). I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{permission pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. matt br 19:24, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Schrodinger-quantum-4.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Schrodinger-quantum-4.jpg, which you've attributed to spaceandmotion.com (which has a CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 statement). I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{permission pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. matt br 19:26, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Lorentz-1.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Lorentz-1.jpg, which you've attributed to spaceandmotion.com (which has a CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 statement). I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{permission pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. matt br 19:27, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Nietzsche-1.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Nietzsche-1.jpg, which you've attributed to spaceandmotion.com (which has a CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 statement). I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{permission pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. matt br 19:27, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Maxwell-1.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Maxwell-1.jpg, which you've attributed to spaceandmotion.com (which has a CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 statement). I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{permission pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. matt br 19:28, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Faraday-1.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Faraday-1.jpg, which you've attributed to spaceandmotion.com (which has a CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 statement). I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{permission pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. matt br 19:29, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Brentano-1.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Brentano-1.jpg, which you've attributed to spaceandmotion.com (which has a CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 statement). I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{permission pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. matt br 19:29, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Kant-immanuel-metaphysics-2.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Kant-immanuel-metaphysics-2.jpg, which you've attributed to spaceandmotion.com (which has a CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 statement). I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{permission pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. matt br 19:29, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Leibniz-gottfried-wilhelm-philosophy.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Leibniz-gottfried-wilhelm-philosophy.jpg, which you've attributed to spaceandmotion.com (which has a CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 statement). I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{permission pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. matt br 19:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Aristotle-2.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Aristotle-2.jpg, which you've attributed to spaceandmotion.com (which has a CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 statement). I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{permission pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. matt br 19:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Heraclitus-ancient-greek-philosopher.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Heraclitus-ancient-greek-philosopher.jpg, which you've attributed to spaceandmotion.com (which has a CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 statement). I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{permission pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. matt br 19:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]