XPost: sci.electronics.design   
   From: bill.sloman@ieee.org   
      
   On 17/02/2026 8:16 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:   
   > Am Sonntag000015, 15.02.2026 um 13:44 schrieb Bill Sloman:   
   >> 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   
   >   
   > you promote an idea, which regard as terrible. It is called:   
   > 'quantity over quality'.   
   >   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > Planck could hardly be worse.   
   >   
   >>> 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,   
   >   
   > 'Spin doctors' were called by other names before. But the concept itself   
   > is older than the pyramids.   
   >>   
   >>>>> 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   
   >   
   > I used a certain method, which I have actually invented:   
   >   
   > I take the famous text of Einstein and treat it as if it would be the   
   > homework of a student and I were the professor, who had to write   
   > corrections.   
   >   
   > My aim isn't a discussion about the metaphysical content, but a   
   > correction of errors.   
   >   
   > Therefore I take any single word or equation and analyze, what they   
   > actually say.   
   >   
   > Than I check, if that statement makes sense and whether or not it would   
   > fit into that homework of a student.   
   >   
   > That's why I don't say 'Einstein was wrong' or alike, because the actual   
   > content is excluded from my comments.   
   >   
   > Technically I 'atomize' all statements and check, whether or not they   
   > are correct.   
   >   
   > I also checked for formal requirements or proper use of the German   
   > language, for instance.   
   >   
   > My counting of errors resulted in 390 comments, which mainly were about   
   > errors. Not all errors were unique, hence there was some   
   > double-counting. But, on the other hand, some annotations covered more   
   > than one error.   
   >   
   > All in all it was a fantastically large number of errors and by no means   
   > acceptable, let alone good.   
      
   In other words you are a pedant, not a scholar.   
      
   Finding grammatical errors in text isn't a reliable indicator that the   
   text is wrong - even the most competent people make typographical errors   
   from time to time. Read the psychological literature on "errors of   
   action" - the take away message is that evolution has given us a nervous   
   system which only just good enough to do it's job.   
      
   The test of a scientific paper is whether it conveys interesting and   
   novel information to the interested reader. You clearly aren't   
   interested in the content, so your conclusions aren't worth communicating.   
      
   --   
   Bill Sloman, Sydney   
      
   --   
   Bill Sloman, Sydney   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)