XPost: sci.physics.relativity   
   From: ttt_heg@web.de   
      
   Am Dienstag000017, 17.02.2026 um 13:41 schrieb Bill Sloman:   
   > On 17/02/2026 8:16 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > In other words you are a pedant, not a scholar.   
      
   No, I'm usually not a pedant.   
      
   But I started this project as a proof, that Einstein's text is full of   
   errors (because it was at the beginning a 'battle' between me and   
   'Dono', who didn't believe me, that Einstein's text was full of errors.)   
      
   So, my aim was to find as many errors as possible.   
      
   This was also the reason, why I didn't discuss the actual metaphysical   
   content, because it wouldn't make much sense to do that, after the first   
   error was found.   
      
   This is so, because theoretical physics has actually very harsh rules   
   and any tiny error makes a thesis obsolete.   
      
   And because I wanted to find as many errors as possible, I had to   
   continue, even after the thesis was already 'dead'.   
      
   That sounds like 'overkill', but that wasn't my intention.   
      
   That was also the reason, why I had cvommented errors, which are more   
   formal or linguistic.   
      
   And because German is my native language, I have some qualification to   
   check for errors in that realm, too.   
      
   >   
   > Finding grammatical errors in text isn't a reliable indicator that the   
   > text is wrong - even the most competent people make typographical errors   
   > from time to time. Read the psychological literature on "errors of   
   > action" - the take away message is that evolution has given us a nervous   
   > system which only just good enough to do it's job.   
      
   Sure, but it's a reliable indicator, that Einstein spoke bad German, too   
   (not only bad English).   
      
   > The test of a scientific paper is whether it conveys interesting and   
   > novel information to the interested reader. You clearly aren't   
   > interested in the content, so your conclusions aren't worth communicating.   
      
   I was clearly interested in relativity, but not in case of this paper.   
      
   My research was not about the ideas Einstein wrote about, but whether or   
   not the paper was correct.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)