XPost: sci.electronics.design   
   From: bill.sloman@ieee.org   
      
   On 14/02/2026 6:57 am, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:   
   > Bill Sloman wrote:   
   >> On 13/02/2026 8:03 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:   
   >>> 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.   
   >   
   > Notably, Thomas Heger is a well-known Internet/Usenet crackpot (like Dingle   
   > eventually became, just without the Net) whose own writing is so ripe with   
   > fundamental physical mistakes and misconceptions that he cannot be trusted   
   > to provide an informed review of Einstein's works.   
   >   
   >>> 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.   
   >   
   > Einstein submitted this paper to the "Annalen der Physik", and Max Planck   
   > was not the editor at the time to begin with; Paul Karl Ludwig Drude was.   
      
   https://arxiv.org/abs/1307.2132   
      
   Einstein was a co-editor.   
   >   
   >>> 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.   
   >   
   > Probably fiction.  It is not clear when Planck became aware of that paper.   
      
   Not to you. You need to read more widely.   
      
   --   
   Bill Sloman, Sydney   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)