"Juan R." wrote in message
oups.com...
On Sep 27, 4:15 pm, Randy Poe wrote:
[...]

How did a paper with such obvious errors end
up being blessed by the editors and referees and
published in a research journal?

Editors and referees? I can see you want to maintain this myth during
another 100 years.

i} The journal had not referees board. Published papers were not peer-
review.

Are you sure? Can you demonstrate that as fact?

ii} Einstein papers were directly accepted by editor Planck, who has
been acused from promoting his own research agenda. The process was
extremely fast since the manuscript was sent in the 30th of June and
published three months later.

That's not "extremely fast". And I think that we have no evidence that what
was published is identical to what was submitted 3 months before (often it
isn't).

iii} When Einstein submitted his first paper to a *peer-reviewed*
journal by 1936.

Which one? - Oh I see, ref.3 - Physical Review.

He got a strong rejection because his paper was
wrong. But the interesting part was the angry letter Einstein sent to
the editor of the journal:

{BLOCKQUOTE

Dear Sir,

We (Mr. Rosen and I) had sent you our manuscript for publication and
had not authorized you to show it to specialists before it is printed.
I see no reason to address the-in any case erroneous-comments of your
anonymous expert. On the basis of this incident I prefer to publish
the paper elsewhere.

}

That surely gives support to your claim that his earlier papers were not
peer reviewed. )

Obviously the referee comments were right, Einstein had no idea. The
anonymous referee was also more familiar with gravitational waves that
own Einstein. The whole joke is well-known and reported in physics
today [3].

Thanks that was an interesting read!

Harald

"Juan R." wrote in message ups.com...

[snip what was probably a repeat of the previous rant]

Excellent catch, Randy.
Juan spent a LOT of time here ;-)

Wow! Fine criticism.

Dirk Vdm



================================================== ========
Note for readers]
Because some past episodes of flamming in sci.physics.relativity, both
comments in my blog and my newsgroup e-mail are disabled.

Note for Bilge, Bill Hobba, Dono (once Karandash2), Eric Gisse, and
Tim Shuba]

Kindly add me to the list. Thanks.

Dirk Vdm

"Randy Poe" wrote in message
ups.com...
I'm really thinking about Androcles as I write this,
but I invite all of the anti-Einsteinians to contribute.
(You know you will anyway. You're here because
you couldn't resist the title.)

Androcles in particular believes that Einstein's 1905
SR paper is full of nonsensical statements and
elementary errors that any child should catch. Yet
we have the indisputable fact that the version of the
paper we know was accepted and published in
Annalen der Physik, one of the premier physics
journals of the day.

So I invite you to imagine what the editorial process
was. How did a paper with such obvious errors end
up being blessed by the editors and referees and
published in a research journal?

I freely admit that my hope is to see a whole bunch
of wacky statements in one place. Hopefully both
sides will get plenty of amusement from the exchange.

- Randy


Well, it may have been a good physics journal at the turn of the 20th
century, but look at it now... in the 1970's they began putting ads in the
back for ventriloquism lessons, and secret decoder rings. Open it up now,
and you will be greeted with pornographic pictures, ads from gay physicists
looking for a 'big bang', shlockey stories about how legalizing drugs will
answer all the world's problems, and articles on string theory....

Well, you *did* admit you wanted to read some "wacky statements in one
place" didn't you? Well, OK then.

"greysky" wrote in message
...
:
: "Randy Poe" wrote in message
: ups.com...
: I'm really thinking about Androcles as I write this,
: but I invite all of the anti-Einsteinians to contribute.
: (You know you will anyway. You're here because
: you couldn't resist the title.)
:
: Androcles in particular believes that Einstein's 1905
: SR paper is full of nonsensical statements and
: elementary errors that any child should catch. Yet
: we have the indisputable fact that the version of the
: paper we know was accepted and published in
: Annalen der Physik, one of the premier physics
: journals of the day.
:
: So I invite you to imagine what the editorial process
: was. How did a paper with such obvious errors end
: up being blessed by the editors and referees and
: published in a research journal?
:
: I freely admit that my hope is to see a whole bunch
: of wacky statements in one place. Hopefully both
: sides will get plenty of amusement from the exchange.
:
: - Randy
:
:
: Well, it may have been a good physics journal at the turn of the 20th
: century, but look at it now... in the 1970's they began putting ads in the
: back for ventriloquism lessons, and secret decoder rings. Open it up now,
: and you will be greeted with pornographic pictures, ads from gay
physicists
: looking for a 'big bang', shlockey stories about how legalizing drugs will
: answer all the world's problems, and articles on string theory....
:
: Well, you *did* admit you wanted to read some "wacky statements in one
: place" didn't you? Well, OK then.

LOL!
Einstein was a "Randy" *******, too.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...Se arch&meta=

On Sep 28, 8:37 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
"greysky" wrote in message

...
:
: "Randy Poe" wrote in message
oups.com...
: I'm really thinking about Androcles as I write this,
: but I invite all of the anti-Einsteinians to contribute.
: (You know you will anyway. You're here because
: you couldn't resist the title.)
:
: Androcles in particular believes that Einstein's 1905
: SR paper is full of nonsensical statements and
: elementary errors that any child should catch. Yet
: we have the indisputable fact that the version of the
: paper we know was accepted and published in
: Annalen der Physik, one of the premier physics
: journals of the day.
:
: So I invite you to imagine what the editorial process
: was. How did a paper with such obvious errors end
: up being blessed by the editors and referees and
: published in a research journal?
:
: I freely admit that my hope is to see a whole bunch
: of wacky statements in one place. Hopefully both
: sides will get plenty of amusement from the exchange.
:
: - Randy
:
:
: Well, it may have been a good physics journal at the turn of the 20th
: century, but look at it now... in the 1970's they began putting ads in the
: back for ventriloquism lessons, and secret decoder rings. Open it up now,
: and you will be greeted with pornographic pictures, ads from gay
physicists
: looking for a 'big bang', shlockey stories about how legalizing drugs will
: answer all the world's problems, and articles on string theory....
:
: Well, you *did* admit you wanted to read some "wacky statements in one
: place" didn't you? Well, OK then.

LOL!
Einstein was a "Randy" *******, too.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...erer&btnG=Goog...
---
Einstein's paper even did not carry even Single Reference in the end.
Thus whatever Einstein sent was published.
However at time Planck etc gave references of the previous work.
It is unbeleiveable in today's context.
Einstein's original papers
June 1905 Special Theory of Relativity
Sep 1905 Derivation of E=mc2.
can be downloaded in ORIGINAL from

www.ajayonline.us

On Sep 28, 5:18 pm, "harry"
wrote:
"Juan R." wrote in message

oups.com... On Sep 27, 4:15 pm, Randy Poe wrote:

[...]

How did a paper with such obvious errors end
up being blessed by the editors and referees and
published in a research journal?

Editors and referees? I can see you want to maintain this myth during
another 100 years.

i} The journal had not referees board. Published papers were not peer-
review.

Are you sure? Can you demonstrate that as fact?

ii} Einstein papers were directly accepted by editor Planck, who has
been acused from promoting his own research agenda. The process was
extremely fast since the manuscript was sent in the 30th of June and
published three months later.

That's not "extremely fast". And I think that we have no evidence that what
was published is identical to what was submitted 3 months before (often it
isn't).

iii} When Einstein submitted his first paper to a *peer-reviewed*
journal by 1936.

Which one? - Oh I see, ref.3 - Physical Review.

He got a strong rejection because his paper was
wrong. But the interesting part was the angry letter Einstein sent to
the editor of the journal:

{BLOCKQUOTE

Dear Sir,

We (Mr. Rosen and I) had sent you our manuscript for publication and
had not authorized you to show it to specialists before it is printed.
I see no reason to address the-in any case erroneous-comments of your
anonymous expert. On the basis of this incident I prefer to publish
the paper elsewhere.

}

That surely gives support to your claim that his earlier papers were not
peer reviewed. )

Obviously the referee comments were right, Einstein had no idea. The
anonymous referee was also more familiar with gravitational waves that
own Einstein. The whole joke is well-known and reported in physics
today [3].

Thanks that was an interesting read!

Harald

------------
Dear Herald
Can you discuss this rarest secret in separe heading,
that EINSTEIN PUBLISHED IN JOURNAL without ANY REVIEW.
This apper is now know as Special Theory of Realtivity.
or
Einstein's reaction when he sent the paper in 1936 for first time in
peer review journal.

I want to put this information in

www.ajayonline.us

and various other sites.

On Sep 28, 8:47 am, watchs wrote:
....
Einstein's paper even did not carry even Single Reference in the end.

Hi Watch
Don't know what you're implying, but
anyway his 1905 SR paper is reasonably
well referenced throughout.
Example, Maxwell's equation in introduction.
A footnote in Chp.3 to Lorentz Transformation.
etc.
Nothing wrong with "in text" refs, just as
good or better than an "end list".

Today's "peer reviewed" publications are
profit driven, and want to see a bunch of
refs to their pet journal, for advertising,
it's a business that sells rags, that's the
system.
Regards
Ken

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Sep 28, 8:47 am, watchs wrote:
...
Einstein's paper even did not carry even Single Reference in the end.

Hi Watch
Don't know what you're implying, but
anyway his 1905 SR paper is reasonably
well referenced throughout.
Example, Maxwell's equation in introduction.
A footnote in Chp.3 to Lorentz Transformation.
etc.
Nothing wrong with "in text" refs, just as
good or better than an "end list".

Today's "peer reviewed" publications are
profit driven, and want to see a bunch of
refs to their pet journal, for advertising,
it's a business that sells rags, that's the
system.
Regards
Ken

Ken - I tried e-mailing you but it bounced back to me. It seems like the
e-mail address I had for you is no longer valid. If I send and e-mail to
will you be able to recieve and read it?

Pete

On Sep 27, 9:15 am, Randy Poe wrote:
I'm really thinking about Androcles as I write this,
but I invite all of the anti-Einsteinians to contribute.
(You know you will anyway. You're here because
you couldn't resist the title.)

Androcles in particular believes that Einstein's 1905
SR paper is full of nonsensical statements and
elementary errors that any child should catch. Yet
we have the indisputable fact that the version of the
paper we know was accepted and published in
Annalen der Physik, one of the premier physics
journals of the day.

So I invite you to imagine what the editorial process
was. How did a paper with such obvious errors end
up being blessed by the editors and referees and
published in a research journal?


Just to be clear, I think Einstein's 1905 paper is
a masterpiece, and is one of the few original works
I can think of that is still very readable to a modern
audience (as opposed to, say, Maxwell's papers).

On the other hand, merely getting published in 1905
isn't evidence of being correct. If you've ever
gone through the exercise of reading old
scientific papers, you'll realize standards
were a *lot* lower back then.

In particular, peer review did not become common until
the middle of the 20th century, and 1905 Annalen der Physik
was definitely not reviewed by anyone but the editors.

In fact, Einstein's first recorded interaction with
a reviewer was in 1936, when he was so insulted that
that the Physical Review had the audacity to show his
paper to an "outside specialist" without his
express permission that he *withdrew it in disgust*:
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-58/iss-9/p43.html
It's clear from his indignation that he believed
anything he wrote should be published without
question. For the record, in the paper, Einstein
concluded that gravitational waves could not
exist (!!), so it would have been a permanent
embarrassment if it had been published.

As far as experimental papers go, you don't have to
go back very far before error analysis gets shoddy
and then non-existent.

Of course, you're correct that the editors of
A d. Phys. would never have missed the sort of
silly errors the kooks on this NG regularly bring
up, but they could certainly have missed some
logical flaws, had they been there.

-jc



I freely admit that my hope is to see a whole bunch
of wacky statements in one place. Hopefully both
sides will get plenty of amusement from the exchange.

- Randy

On Sep 28, 9:58 am, "Pmb" wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in ooglegroups.com...



On Sep 28, 8:47 am, watchs wrote:
...
Einstein's paper even did not carry even Single Reference in the end.

Hi Watch
Don't know what you're implying, but
anyway his 1905 SR paper is reasonably
well referenced throughout.
Example, Maxwell's equation in introduction.
A footnote in Chp.3 to Lorentz Transformation.
etc.
Nothing wrong with "in text" refs, just as
good or better than an "end list".

Today's "peer reviewed" publications are
profit driven, and want to see a bunch of
refs to their pet journal, for advertising,
it's a business that sells rags, that's the
system.
Regards
Ken

Ken - I tried e-mailing you but it bounced back to me. It seems like the
e-mail address I had for you is no longer valid. If I send and e-mail to
will you be able to recieve and read it?

Pete

Hi Pete, try this one,
dynamics(at)uniserve(dot)com

Stopped using my old address when my
penis became 36" long.
Ken