From: bill.sloman@ieee.org   
      
   On 15/02/2026 12:21 am, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:   
   > Bill Sloman wrote:   
   >> On 14/02/2026 9:17 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:   
   >>> Am Freitag000013, 13.02.2026 um 18:41 schrieb Bill Sloman:   
   >>>> 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'.   
   >   
   > Once again: Dingle became a nutcase over his objection to special relativity   
   :-D   
   >   
   >>>>> I personally have analyzed Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics of   
   >>>>> moving bodies' of 1905 and found, that it contains roughly four-   
   >>>>> hundred errors.   
   >   
   > Once again: You are "discussing" with a well-known crackpot who is probably   
   > a nutcase, too :-D   
   >   
   >>>>> 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.   
   >   
   > Once again: He was not even the editor of the journal that Einstein   
   > submitted the paper to :-D   
      
   He was one of the co-editors, and history I read said that he took   
   responsibility for all four of Einsteins 1905 papers.   
      
   https://arxiv.org/abs/1307.2132   
      
   >>> 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, [...]   
   >   
   > Cite evidence, or retract your outlandish claims.   
      
   I have done, and I've posted the link again above.   
      
   It's your claims that are outlandish.   
      
   --   
   Bill Sloman, Sydney   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)