XPost: sci.physics.relativity   
   From: ttt_heg@web.de   
      
   Am Samstag000014, 14.02.2026 um 13:11 schrieb Bill Sloman:   
   ...   
   >>>>   
   >>>> That particular article violated all known rules for scientific   
   >>>> papers and contains about 100 serious(!) errors in all possible   
   >>>> circumstances.   
   >>>   
   >>> Max Planck didn't bother to send it out for peer-review.   
   >>   
   >> Sure. But I have not fully understood this fact, because Planck was   
   >> definitely able to see the errors in that paper.   
   >   
   > He saw things in it that he disliked, but if you want to claim there   
   > were errors in it, you need to spell them out or a least cite a   
   > reference that does that explicitly.   
   >   
   >> This would lead to assume some sort of 'social engineering', which   
   >> forced Planck accept, what he disliked.   
   >   
   > I don't think he disliked the paper at all, but it took him a long time   
   > to take quantisation seriously - he saw it more as a mathematical trick   
   > that had let him get around the "ultraviolet catastrophe".   
   >   
   >> We can actually see this in many photo's of Einstein, when he   
   >> participated any conference or meeting:   
   >>   
   >> Einstein sat in most cases right in the center and in the first line.   
   >>   
   >> e.g. this one:   
   >> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6e/   
   >> Solvay_conference_1927.jpg/1280px-Solvay_conference_1927.jpg   
   >>   
   >> This position is, subconsciously, perceived as 'importance'.   
   >>   
   >> But Einstein wasn't a good physicist at all.   
   >   
   > Not a widely shared opinion.   
      
   Sure, but actually reading papers carefully isn't a widely shared habit,   
   neither.   
      
   >> So, what forces allowed Einstein to smuggle himself in the best place   
   >> on many pictures?   
   >   
   > The admiration  of his colleagues.   
      
   Well, if you look at the picture from the Solvay conference you see   
   Einstein in the center and the far better and also widely recognized Max   
   Planck squeezed to the side.   
      
   The 'setting' looked actually like it was made by some experts in PR and   
   advertising, which had the aim to promote Einstein.   
      
      
   >> It must be kind of hidden power, which Einstein had, that had nothing   
   >> at all to do with physics.   
   >   
   > There was nothing "hidden" about Einstein's power. He wrote four ground-   
   > breaking papers in 1905, and went on to discover general relativity a   
   > few years later. After the total eclipse observations in 1919 conformed   
   > to his theory the newspapers took it up   
   Sure, the papers were famous. But for what reasons were they famous?   
      
   It couldn't have been the content or the quality of writing, because   
   both were terrible.   
      
   It was a 'fame creates fame' thing and Einstein was kind of 'pop star'   
   of science.   
      
   > "On 7 November 1919, for example, the leading British newspaper, The   
   > Times, printed a" banner headline that read: "Revolution in Science –   
   > New Theory of the Universe – Newtonian Ideas Overthrown".   
      
   The term 'leading British newspaper' alone said enough.   
      
   Would you really believe, that 'leading British newspapers' have genuine   
   interest in theoretical physics at all?   
      
   >>>> IOW: this particular article is total crap.   
   >>>   
   >>> Except that it isn't. It didn't get cleaned up by careful peer-review   
   >>> because it was already quite impressive enough to get Max Planck's   
   >>> attention as it stood.   
   >>   
   >> Sure, but 'peer reviewed crap'.   
   >   
   > You seem to one of the small population of nut-cases who try to get   
   > noticed by publishing "Einstein was wrong" stories. It gets you noticed,   
   > because he wasn't. You post crap because you want to get noticed.   
   > Einstein didn't publish crap, and got noticed by people who admired what   
   > he had done.   
      
   But WHAT had Einstein actually done?   
      
   If you force crap into the minds of scientists, than this isn't   
   beneficial at all.   
      
      
   TH   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)