XPost: sci.physics.relativity   
   From: ttt_heg@web.de   
      
   Am Sonntag000015, 15.02.2026 um 13:44 schrieb Bill Sloman:   
   > On 15/02/2026 8:07 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > Max Planck was a whole lot less active than Einstein as a publishing   
      
   you promote an idea, which regard as terrible. It is called:   
   'quantity over quality'.   
      
   > scientist. Max Planck got sucked into administration fairly early in his   
   > a career. Rating him as "a better scientist than Einstein" suugests that   
   > your rating system needs fixing.   
      
   Planck could hardly be worse.   
      
   >> The 'setting' looked actually like it was made by some experts in PR   
   >> and advertising, which had the aim to promote Einstein.   
   >   
   > They weren't around at the time,   
      
   'Spin doctors' were called by other names before. But the concept itself   
   is older than the pyramids.   
   >   
   >>>> 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.   
   >   
   > Not a widely shared view - in fact it is pretty much diagnostic of the   
   > "Einstein was wrong" psychosis which afflicts people who want to attract   
   > attention, and don't care if it is the wrong kind of attention   
      
   I used a certain method, which I have actually invented:   
      
   I take the famous text of Einstein and treat it as if it would be the   
   homework of a student and I were the professor, who had to write   
   corrections.   
      
   My aim isn't a discussion about the metaphysical content, but a   
   correction of errors.   
      
   Therefore I take any single word or equation and analyze, what they   
   actually say.   
      
   Than I check, if that statement makes sense and whether or not it would   
   fit into that homework of a student.   
      
   That's why I don't say 'Einstein was wrong' or alike, because the actual   
   content is excluded from my comments.   
      
   Technically I 'atomize' all statements and check, whether or not they   
   are correct.   
      
   I also checked for formal requirements or proper use of the German   
   language, for instance.   
      
   My counting of errors resulted in 390 comments, which mainly were about   
   errors. Not all errors were unique, hence there was some   
   double-counting. But, on the other hand, some annotations covered more   
   than one error.   
      
   All in all it was a fantastically large number of errors and by no means   
   acceptable, let alone good.   
      
      
   ...   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)