XPost: sci.electronics.design   
   From: bill.sloman@ieee.org   
      
   On 19/02/2026 2:39 am, Thomas Heger wrote:   
   > Am Dienstag000017, 17.02.2026 um 13:41 schrieb Bill Sloman:   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > No, I'm usually not a pedant.   
   >   
   > But I started this project as a proof, that Einstein's text is full of   
   > errors (because it was at the beginning a 'battle' between me and   
   > 'Dono', who didn't believe me, that Einstein's text was full of errors.)   
   >   
   > So, my aim was to find as many errors as possible.   
   >   
   > This was also the reason, why I didn't discuss the actual metaphysical   
   > content, because it wouldn't make much sense to do that, after the first   
   > error was found.   
      
   It didn't make any sense to you, because you don't know much about how   
   language works.   
      
   > This is so, because theoretical physics has actually very harsh rules   
   > and any tiny error makes a thesis obsolete.   
      
   That's the first time I've heard that claim.   
      
   > And because I wanted to find as many errors as possible, I had to   
   > continue, even after the thesis was already 'dead'.   
      
    From your frankly bizarre point of view.   
      
   > That sounds like 'overkill', but that wasn't my intention.   
      
   Or so you tell us.   
      
   > That was also the reason, why I had commented errors, which are more   
   > formal or linguistic.   
   >   
   > And because German is my native language, I have some qualification to   
   > check for errors in that realm, too.   
      
   Modern High German seems to have been invented at Fredrick the Great's   
   court - Frederick preferred French, but he had an empire to build.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)