XPost: sci.electronics.design   
   From: bill.sloman@ieee.org   
      
   On 13/02/2026 8:03 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:   
   > Am Donnerstag000012, 12.02.2026 um 10:39 schrieb Martin Brown:   
   > ...   
   >>>>> I've been to physics meetings that shocked me with their brutality.   
   >>>>> That mentality is terrible for brainstorming and inventing things.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> They are professionals amongst themselves. They can take it.   
   >>>> Brutality is what keeps the brainstorming in check,   
   >>>   
   >>> For sure.   
   >>   
   >> Physicists have heard all of the deranged objections to Einsteins   
   >> theory of relativity and general relativity so many times before that   
   >> they are not inclined to give any quarter to hand waving wannabes like   
   >> you.   
   >>   
   >   
   > Most of these objections came actually from physicists.   
   >   
   > E.g. there was a physics professor with some reputation named Herbert   
   > Dingle, who wrote 'Science at the crossroads'.   
   >   
   > I personally have analyzed Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics of moving   
   > bodies' of 1905 and found, that it contains roughly four-hundred errors.   
   >   
   > 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.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   > This is interesting, because that particular article is still regarded   
   > as a masterpiece and the pinnacle of human endeavor.   
      
   Not exactly. It pulled together some ideas that were circulating and   
   formed the basis of a whole lot of useful subsequent work.   
      
   There were three other Einstein papers in 1905. They were all pretty   
   impressive   
      
   https://guides.loc.gov/einstein-annus-mirabilis/1905-papers   
      
   > This means, that the 'community' is unable or unwilling to correct the   
   > errors within that paper, even if the errors are obvious and easy to   
   > find, because thousands of critics have already named them (many  of   
   > them physicists!).   
      
   The errors turned out not to be fundamental.   
      
   > That in turn would suggest, that physicists are collectively cheating   
   > and tell the public, what simply ain't true.   
      
   Rubbish.   
      
   --   
   Bill Sloman, Sydney   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)