XPost: sci.electronics.design   
   From: bill.sloman@ieee.org   
      
   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   
   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.   
   >   
   > 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,   
      
   >>> 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   
      
   > It was a 'fame creates fame' thing and Einstein was kind of 'pop star'   
   > of science.   
      
   It took 15 years from the 1905 papers for him to become a pop star   
   sceintist - he did a lot of work to earn the fame he got.   
   >   
   >> "On 7 November 1919, for example, the leading British newspaper, The   
   >> Times, printed a" banner headline that read: "Revolution in Science –   
   >> New Theory of the Universe – Newtonian Ideas Overthrown".   
   >   
   > The term 'leading British newspaper' alone said enough.   
      
   "The Times" was the voice of the UK establishment - at least until   
   Rupert Murdoch bought it in  1981.   
   >   
   > Would you really believe, that 'leading British newspapers' have genuine   
   > interest in theoretical physics at all?   
      
   British newspapers don't do good science reporting, but in this case The   
   Times was merely following informed opinion - Einstein got to be quite a   
   famous person around the world.   
   >   
   >>>>> 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.   
   >>>   
   >>> Sure, but 'peer reviewed crap'.   
   >>   
   >> You seem to one of the small population of nut-cases who try to get   
   >> noticed by publishing "Einstein was wrong" stories. It gets you   
   >> noticed, because he wasn't. You post crap because you want to get   
   >> noticed. Einstein didn't publish crap, and got noticed by people who   
   >> admired what he had done.   
   >   
   > But WHAT had Einstein actually done?   
      
   You clearly don't know, and it would be pointless to try to educate you.   
   Try looking up "Bose-Einstein condensates" some time, or work out why   
   "Bell's Inequalties" got the attention they did.   
      
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test   
      
   > If you force crap into the minds of scientists, than this isn't   
   > beneficial at all.   
      
   So you should shut up.   
      
   --   
   Bill Sloman. Sydney   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)