XPost: sci.electronics.design   
   From: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl   
      
   Bill Sloman  wrote:   
      
   > 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,   
      
   And there really was no need.   
   Einstein was already an eminent scientist by 1919.   
      
   > >>> 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.   
      
   Einstein had a great deal of luck with it.   
   BTW, there is even a book about it, titled "Einstein's Luck".   
   (NOT recommended, it uncritically repeats a lot of anti-Einstein crap)   
      
   Apart from that, scientists (like the Curies in France for example)   
   generally had a much higher public standing that today.   
      
   > >> "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.   
      
   The New York Times had something similar on it.   
   Einstein's American tour in 1921 became a triumph,   
   but Einstein himself thoroughly disliked all the publicity.   
   ('being exhibited like a prize bull' in his own words)   
      
   > > 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.   
      
   The Times reported on a meeting of the Royal Society, the day after.   
   (a combined session of Royal Society and Royal Astronomical Society)   
   It was a quality newspaper, in those times.   
      
   Abraham Pais describes it jokingly as a canonsation procedure.   
   And the time was ripe for it, after the world-shaking effects of WW I,   
      
   Jan   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)