Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> Am 27.02.2022 um 14:27 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>>> Am 27.02.2022 um 01:43 schrieb Paparios:
>>>> El sábado, 26 de febrero de 2022 a las 18:10:47 UTC-3, Thomas Heger escribió:
>>>>> Am 26.02.2022 um 11:44 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have some strange ideas.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Planck was a rather stiff Pruessan Protestant, a professor of physics
>>>>>>> and very aware of status and age, while Einstein was (in 1905) a young
>>>>>>> and lazy half-baked physicist, with an excentric outfit, who worked in a
>>>>>>> Swiss patent office.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> More strange ideas. Einstein was a patent clerk,
>>>>>> and he dressed as any civil servant would.
>>>>>> (in a conservative three-part suit, with a tie)
>>>>>> <https://history.aip.org/exhibits/einstein/ae14.htm>
>>>>>> He did physics in his spare time
>>>>>> so he cannot have been lazy or half-baked,
>>>>>> given his known output.
>>>>
>>>>> 'with 'half-baked' I meant, that Einstein left university with a degree
>>>>> as a teatcher of natural science.
>>>>
>>>> Nonsense!!!
>>>> Starting in 1900, in 1905 Einstein had published 23 papers in journals
>>>> before the SR paper. (see
>>>> https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-doc/). This scientific
>>>> output includes his PhD dissertation (number 15 in the list). By any
>>>> measure his scientific output was very high.
>>>
>>>
>>> All of the CV of Einstein looks like fakery. It has all the signs of such:
>>> too good
>>> too fast
>>> too young.
>>>
>>> E.g he spent only a little more than ten years in school, while the
>>> requirements for the exam of 'Gymnasium' (called 'Abitur') were 13 years.
>>>
>>> He started to study at the presitigious University ETH in Zurich at the
>>> age of 17, while usually you couldn't (mainly because Abitur was
>>> available only from 18 or 19 on).
>>>
>>> That study took him only four years, what is actually fast.
>>>
>>>
>>> But when it came to publishing, he made news records:
>>>
>>> he wrote, handed in and got published six main papers in 1905 alone.
>>>
>>> From this 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' alone covered 30
>>> pages of 'Annalen der Physik'.
>>>
>>> That was handed in only five weeks after he handed in the previous paper.
>>>
>>> That was breathtakingly fast, even if he didn't have to work, didn't
>>> sleep, eat or drink and was not 'married with children'.
>>>
>>> (But, in fact, he had to work six days a week for eight hours each.)
>>>
>>> So his life looked like this:
>>>
>>> After walking home from work, he had his wife and two infant waiting,
>>> who wanted to assist him in revolutionising the world of physics.
>>>
>>> So the entire family helped him, sharpened his feather, gave him the ink
>>> jar, lit a candle and silently watched him thinking about the universe
>>> and the relevance of the speed of light for synchronizing remote clocks,
>>> while Einstein's hands wizzed over the stash of paper, which he had to
>>> fill overnight with all of his insigsights.
>>
>> All this to say: “Einstein is said to do things that I could never do.
>> Therefore, it’s not reasonable to think that he could have actually done
>> them. Therefore he did not do them, and any claim that he did is fraudulent
>> and fabricated by others with ulterior motives.”
>>
>
> No.
>
> But if Einstein could not possibly have done what is assumed to be done
> by him, we have evidently fakery involved.

But it’s NOT TRUE that he could not possibly have done it. He was indeed
very capable of doing it.

Just because YOU cannot do it does not mean that others cannot do it. Just
because YOU cannot do it is not grounds to raise objective doubts.

>
> This motive of fakery can be found in various instances with other
> famous historic people.
>
> E.g. Wernher von Braun had a CV, which I would regard as impossible.
>
> Also the CV of George LeMaitre was very suspicious.
>
> Even Newton and Shakespare's life and even their existence was questioned.
>
> All share the 'too good, too fast, too early in life' pattern.
>
>
> So let's call the fakers 'bad guys' for a moment and ask the question,
> who those actually are.
>
> TH
>
>
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> Am 27.02.2022 um 14:18 schrieb Paparios:
>> El domingo, 27 de febrero de 2022 a las 4:59:04 UTC-3, Thomas Heger escribió:
>>> Am 27.02.2022 um 01:43 schrieb Paparios:
>>
>>>> Nonsense!!!
>>>> Starting in 1900, in 1905 Einstein had published 23 papers in journals
>>>> before the SR paper. (see
>>>> https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-doc/). This scientific
>>>> output includes his PhD dissertation (number 15 in the list). By any
>>>> measure his scientific output was very high.
>>
>>> All of the CV of Einstein looks like fakery. It has all the signs of such:
>>> too good
>>> too fast
>>> too young.
>>>
>>
>> What a load of nonsense you write in each of your posts. Einstein was a
>> widely recognized genious (IQ between 160 and 200) which allowed him to
>> publish, when he was 21 years old, two very relevant papers in the Annalen der Physik:
>>
>> 1) Conclusions drawn from the phenomena of capillarity.
>> 2) On the thermodynamic theory of the difference in potentials between
>> metals and fully dissociated solutions of their salts and on an
>> electrical method for investigating molecular forces.
>>
>> His genious allowed him to research in a vast amount of subjects, as the
>> 1905 papers prove. He was 26 years old when he sent the SR paper (June
>> 30, 1905) which was published in September 26, 1905.
>>
>
> He handed in SIX papers, which covered about 92 pages in the journal
> 'Annalen der Physik' in the same year 1905.
>
> That would have been roughly four hundred handwritten pages, for which
> he had to use ink and feather, because ball pens were not invented then.

Don’t be silly. I have a gold-nibbled fountain pen from 1885. Did you not
know these existed?

It may strike you as a shock, but Stephen King, an American fiction author
who has written over 30 No. 1 Best Sellers, writes about 2000 pages of
final drafts a year. Keep in mind all the redrafting he has to do. Keep in
mind that he has a family and other side-gigs that he does.

I understand that you cannot conceive of YOURSELF having this kind of
output. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t many who DO have that kind of
quality output.

>
> That is quite a lot to write, even if you have much more time and not a
> familly and a full-time job.
>
> Besides of that, the topics themselves were not of the easy kind and
> covered several difficult branches of physics.
>
>
> But Einstein was characterized by different people and at different
> times and locations as rather slow and lazy.
>
> So how could you piece that together to a consistent picture, if you
> exclude help from unknown sides.
>
>
> TH
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

El lunes, 28 de febrero de 2022 a las 4:37:09 UTC-3, Thomas Heger escribió:
> Am 27.02.2022 um 22:g10 schrieb J. J. Lodder:

> > Einstein graduated as a 'Diplom Ingenieur',
> > which is the equivalent of a modern master degree.

> No.
>

Wrong again.... Einstein submitted his PhD dissertation to the University of Zurich in 1901, one year after graduating from the ETH (see https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-doc/206 for details).

Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> wrote:

> El lunes, 28 de febrero de 2022 a las 4:18:14 UTC-3, Thomas Heger escribió:
> > Am 27.02.2022 um 23:45 schrieb Paparios:
>
> > >> I believe Planck was an assistant editor and did see the paper.
> > >
> > > Yes he was an Associate Editor of the Annalen der Physik ( from 1895
> > > to 1907) and later was the Editor (1907-1943). In fact, he reviewed
> > > Einstein's paper and approved it for publication in the Annalen.
> > >
>
> > Planck supported Einstein, because Einstein supported Planck (removement
> > of the 'aether' and interpretaion of E= h*ny).
> >
>
> Nonsense. Planck was an Associate Editor of the Annalen der Physik ( from
> 1895 to 1907). Between 1900 and 1904, the Annalen of Physik published FIVE
> (5) papers from Einstein (see details in
> https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-doc/) all of those were
> read (reviewed, or at the very least known) by Planck in his Associate
> Editor role at the journal.
>
> Therefore Planck knew exactly who Einstein was, way before 1905.

That is almost certainly read. In those far off days
people really read their scientific literature.
It may seem quaint nowadays,
but they really used publication of papers
as a way to communicate with each other,

Jan

On 2/28/2022 3:10 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 27.02.2022 um 14:18 schrieb Paparios:
>> El domingo, 27 de febrero de 2022 a las 4:59:04 UTC-3, Thomas Heger
>> escribió:
>>> Am 27.02.2022 um 01:43 schrieb Paparios:
>>
>>>> Nonsense!!!
>>>> Starting in 1900, in 1905 Einstein had published 23 papers in
>>>> journals before the SR paper. (see
>>>> https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-doc/). This
>>>> scientific output includes his PhD dissertation (number 15 in the
>>>> list). By any measure his scientific output was very high.
>>
>>> All of the CV of Einstein looks like fakery. It has all the signs of
>>> such:
>>> too good
>>> too fast
>>> too young.
>>>
>>
>> What a load of nonsense you write in each of your posts. Einstein was
>> a  widely recognized genious (IQ between 160 and 200) which allowed
>> him to publish, when he was 21 years old, two very relevant papers in
>> the Annalen der Physik:
>>
>> 1) Conclusions drawn from the phenomena of capillarity.
>> 2) On the thermodynamic theory of the difference in potentials between
>> metals and fully dissociated solutions of their salts and on an
>> electrical method for investigating molecular forces.
>>
>> His genious allowed him to research in a vast amount of subjects, as
>> the 1905 papers prove. He was 26 years old when he sent the SR paper
>> (June 30, 1905) which was published in September 26, 1905.
>>
>
> He handed in SIX papers, which covered about 92 pages in the journal
> 'Annalen der Physik' in the same year 1905.
>
> That would have been roughly four hundred handwritten pages, for which
> he had to use ink and feather, because ball pens were not invented then.

Pencil? Fountain pen? Typewriter? Felt pen?
>
> That is quite a lot to write, even if you have much more time and not a
> familly and a full-time job.
>
> Besides of that, the topics themselves were not of the easy kind and
> covered several difficult branches of physics.
>
>
> But Einstein was characterized by different people and at different
> times and locations as rather slow and lazy.
>
> So how could you piece that together to a consistent picture, if you
> exclude help from unknown sides.

Looks like those (who?) who called him "slow and lazy" were simply
wrong, or were at least wrong at that time. Looks like he really was a
genius after all, even if that was overblown by the media.

On 2/28/2022 2:37 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 27.02.2022 um 22:10 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Am 26.02.2022 um 11:44 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
>>>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Am 25.02.2022 um 09:12 schrieb Michael Moroney:
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> The 'Who's done it?'- question is now far more interesting than
>>>>>>> Einstein's text itself.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't know, but somewhere the lifelines of Einstein and Planck
>>>>>>> must
>>>>>>> have crossed and that would be a good place to search.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One such place was the ETH, to which both have attended.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Einstein and Planck were friends; moreover Planck immediately
>>>>>> recognized
>>>>>> the significance of Einstein's SR paper.  (cue conspiracy theories)
>>>>>
>>>>> Planck was the exact opposite to Einstein, hence both cannot have been
>>>>> close friends.
>>>>
>>>> You have some strange ideas.
>>>>
>>>>> Planck was a rather stiff Pruessan Protestant, a professor of physics
>>>>> and very aware of status and age, while Einstein was (in 1905) a young
>>>>> and lazy half-baked physicist, with an excentric outfit, who worked
>>>>> in a
>>>>> Swiss patent office.
>>>>
>>>> More strange ideas. Einstein was a patent clerk,
>>>> and he dressed as any civil servant would.
>>>> (in a conservative three-part suit, with a tie)
>>>> <https://history.aip.org/exhibits/einstein/ae14.htm>
>>>> He did physics in his spare time
>>>> so he cannot have been lazy or half-baked,
>>>> given his known output.
>>>
>>>
>>> 'with 'half-baked' I meant, that Einstein left university with a degree
>>> as a teatcher of natural science.
>>
>> Einstein graduated as a 'Diplom Ingenieur',
>> which is the equivalent of a modern master degree.
>
> No.
>
> the title 'Diplom' was used in the different German speaking countires
> (Germany, Swiss, Austria) for different purposes.
>
> You are right for Germany, where Dipl.-Ing. was the equivalent to a
> masters degree from a university.
>
> But Einstein had studied in Zurich at the ETH.

And you didn't state what 'Diplom Ingenieur' awarded by the ETH or in
Switzerland was equivalent to.
>
> I would say, that his degree

Nobody cares what you would say. What was 'Diplom Ingenieur' awarded in
Switzerland by the ETH equivalent to, according to Swiss rules or the
ETH itself?

On 2/28/2022 2:43 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 27.02.2022 um 23:03 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
>
>>>>>> The 'Who's done it?'- question is now far more interesting than
>>>>>> Einstein's text itself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't know, but somewhere the lifelines of Einstein and Planck must
>>>>>> have crossed and that would be a good place to search.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One such place was the ETH, to which both have attended.
>>>>>
>>>>> Einstein and Planck were friends; moreover Planck immediately
>>>>> recognized
>>>>> the significance of Einstein's SR paper.  (cue conspiracy theories)
>>>>
>>>> Planck was the exact opposite to Einstein, hence both cannot have been
>>>> close friends.
>>>
>>> Yet they were friends.
>>>
>>> Planck, Einstein and several other noted scientists often got together
>>> for dinner engagements when they lived in Berlin.  Planck and Einstein
>>> often would make music together.
>>
>> Or a trio, with Planck's son Erwin joining in.
>> (Erwin Planck was murdered by the Nazis in 1945)
>>
>> Academics at the time were supposed to be cultured. (Gebildet)
>> Playing a musical instrument (if at all possible) was part of that.
>> So making music together was common.
>>
>
>
> This is all known. But that does not explain, how Einstein and Planck
> got in contact before 1905.

Einstein had several papers published in Annalen der Physik before 1905.
Planck was Associate Editor of Annalen der Physik then so he would have
known of him before 1905, and may have approved those papers himself.

Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> wrote:

> El lunes, 28 de febrero de 2022 a las 4:37:09 UTC-3, Thomas Heger escribió:
> > Am 27.02.2022 um 22:g10 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
>
> > > Einstein graduated as a 'Diplom Ingenieur',
> > > which is the equivalent of a modern master degree.
>
> > No.
> >
>
> Wrong again.... Einstein submitted his PhD dissertation to the University
> of Zurich in 1901, one year after graduating from the ETH (see
> https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-doc/206 for details).

Yes.
The ETH Zurich (being a 'Technische Hochschule') could not grant a PhD.
Only the University of Zurich (next door) could do that.
And of course they did.
Both still exist, and they still have a close cooperation,

Jan

On Monday, 28 February 2022 at 14:59:33 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
> > Am 27.02.2022 um 14:18 schrieb Paparios:
> ...
> >> His genious allowed him to research in a vast amount of subjects, as
> >> the 1905 papers prove. He was 26 years old when he sent the SR paper
> >> (June 30, 1905) which was published in September 26, 1905.
> >>
> >
> > He handed in SIX papers, which covered about 92 pages in the journal
> > 'Annalen der Physik' in the same year 1905.
> >
> > That would have been roughly four hundred handwritten pages, for which
> > he had to use ink and feather, because ball pens were not invented then.
> No, he rather engraved the articles on the walls of a cave.

Oh, stinker Python is opening his muzzle again.
Tell me, poor stinker, what is your definition of
a "theory" in the terms of Peano arithmetic?
See: if a theorem is going to be a part of a theory,
it has to be formulable in the language of the
theory. Do you get it? Or are you too stupid even for
thaty, poor stinker?

Am 28.02.2022 um 12:06 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>
>> Am 27.02.2022 um 14:18 schrieb Paparios:
>>> El domingo, 27 de febrero de 2022 a las 4:59:04 UTC-3, Thomas Heger:
>>>> Am 27.02.2022 um 01:43 schrieb Paparios:
>>>
>>>>> Nonsense!!! Starting in 1900, in 1905 Einstein had published 23 papers
>>>>> in journals before the SR paper. (see
>>>>> https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-doc/). This scientific
>>>>> output includes his PhD dissertation (number 15 in the list). By any
>>>>> measure his scientific output was very high.
>>>
>>>> All of the CV of Einstein looks like fakery. It has all the signs of such:
>>>> too good
>>>> too fast
>>>> too young.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What a load of nonsense you write in each of your posts. Einstein was a
>>> widely recognized genious (IQ between 160 and 200) which allowed him to
>>> publish, when he was 21 years old, two very relevant papers in the
>>> Annalen der Physik:
>>>
>>> 1) Conclusions drawn from the phenomena of capillarity. 2) On the
>>> thermodynamic theory of the difference in potentials between metals and
>>> fully dissociated solutions of their salts and on an electrical method
>>> for investigating molecular forces.
>>>
>>> His genious allowed him to research in a vast amount of subjects, as the
>>> 1905 papers prove. He was 26 years old when he sent the SR paper (June
>>> 30, 1905) which was published in September 26, 1905.
>>>
>>
>> He handed in SIX papers, which covered about 92 pages in the journal
>> 'Annalen der Physik' in the same year 1905.
>>
>> That would have been roughly four hundred handwritten pages, for which
>> he had to use ink and feather, because ball pens were not invented then.
>
> ROTFL, sorry. You really have the strangest ideas,
> and not just on relativity.
> Do you really believe that there were no other means of writing
> between the goose feather and the ball pen?
>

Typewriters were already invented, but too expensive for common mortals.

And they looked like this

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mignon_(Schreibmaschine)

Pencils were an option and fountain pens.

But in any case Einstein had to write by hand with what was available in
1905.

That certainly excluded computers or anything similar.

To get a paper published, you need to 'condense' something you have
worked on into perfect form and shape.

So: you start with a black board and draw scetches, equations and some
notes.

This would be written down, rethought, rewritten, redrawn and so forth,
until finally you get the idea, how your article shall look like.

The final article needs a number of corrections, too, hence you have to
write it several times.

For an article of 30 pages I would assume, you need to write at least 20
times as much, before the article is finished.

This would multiply the demands of handwriting for Einstein to an
unbearable amount. This also multiplied the demands for candles, because
he had to work mainly at night (because he had a full-time day-light job).

Sure, possibly he had gas light, at least in one room. Even electric
light was thinkable, thou not very common.

TH

Am 28.02.2022 um 12:06 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>
>> Am 27.02.2022 um 22:10 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
>>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Am 26.02.2022 um 11:44 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
>>>>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 25.02.2022 um 09:12 schrieb Michael Moroney:
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> The 'Who's done it?'- question is now far more interesting than
>>>>>>>> Einstein's text itself.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't know, but somewhere the lifelines of Einstein and Planck must
>>>>>>>> have crossed and that would be a good place to search.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One such place was the ETH, to which both have attended.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Einstein and Planck were friends; moreover Planck immediately recognized
>>>>>>> the significance of Einstein's SR paper. (cue conspiracy theories)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Planck was the exact opposite to Einstein, hence both cannot have been
>>>>>> close friends.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have some strange ideas.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Planck was a rather stiff Pruessan Protestant, a professor of physics
>>>>>> and very aware of status and age, while Einstein was (in 1905) a young
>>>>>> and lazy half-baked physicist, with an excentric outfit, who worked in a
>>>>>> Swiss patent office.
>>>>>
>>>>> More strange ideas. Einstein was a patent clerk,
>>>>> and he dressed as any civil servant would.
>>>>> (in a conservative three-part suit, with a tie)
>>>>> <https://history.aip.org/exhibits/einstein/ae14.htm>
>>>>> He did physics in his spare time
>>>>> so he cannot have been lazy or half-baked,
>>>>> given his known output.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 'with 'half-baked' I meant, that Einstein left university with a degree
>>>> as a teatcher of natural science.
>>>
>>> Einstein graduated as a 'Diplom Ingenieur',
>>> which is the equivalent of a modern master degree.
>>
>> No.
>>
>> the title 'Diplom' was used in the different German speaking countires
>> (Germany, Swiss, Austria) for different purposes.
>>
>> You are right for Germany, where Dipl.-Ing. was the equivalent to a
>> masters degree from a university.
>>
>> But Einstein had studied in Zurich at the ETH.
>>
>> I would say, that his degree is more like what is in Germany called
>> 'Studienrat', what is a teacher in schools for higher education.
>>
>> ETH produces usually engineers, because it is a tecnical university. But
>> Einstein attended a small ETH department, where teacher were produced.
>
> It doesn't matter what you call it.
> Einstein had a 'Diplom' from the ETH,
> and it allowed him to work as a professional engineer in Bern,
> and to be accepted as a PhD candidate.
>
>>> It gave him the right to teach in high schools,
>>> to hold jobs for which an engineering degree was required,
>>> (such as the Berne patent office)
>>> and it qualified him as candidate for obtaining a PhD.
>>>
>>>>>> He was also Jewish and had zero connections to Prussia, besides of
>>>>>> living in a different country.
>>>>>
>>>>> Einstein was born in Ulm, Baden-Wuertemberg,
>>>>> which had been part of the Kingdom of Prussia
>>>>> before the German unification in 1870.
>>>>
>>>> Is this so?
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>>> I thought, that this was a separate kingdom before Germany was founded
>>>> in 1871.
>>>>
>>>> anyhow: Ulm was not a part of Prussia anymore, because that kingdom did
>>>> not exist anymore, when Einstein was born.
>>>
>>> Neither was Berlin.
>>
>>
>> Wrong
>>
>> Berlin was in the early 19 hundreds still a Prussian city, because
>> Prussia was also a province in the German Empire. But the kingdom
>> Wurtemberg didn't exist anymore. Wurtemberg did exist, but as a province
>> in Germany, not of Prussia.
>
> This is all a matter of definitions.
> The German Empire was a confederation
> of many kingdoms, duchies, etc. of which
> the Kindom of Prussia was by far the most important.
>
>>>>> He emigrated in 1895 with his family, at first to Italy,
>>>>> then to Switzerland for continuing his high school education.
>>>>
>>>> Actually he left Ulm as an infant, when his family moved to Munich.
>>>> From there the Einsteins moved to Padua in Italy.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> He obtained the Swiss nationality in 1901,
>>>>> but he retained his German nationality until 1940.
>>>>> (when acquiring American citizenship)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But Planck lived in Berlin, while Einstein was still Swiss citizen.
>>>> So how could they even talk to each other?
>>>
>>> Are you that completely unaware
>>> of what things were like in Europe in 1900?
>>> FYI, there was a dense railway network in place,
>>> fares were affordable, and people travelled a lot.
>>
>> Well, train travel was possible, but not particularly cheap.
>
> Even a nearly penniless student could travel from Warchaw to Paris.
> (1000 miles, three days, fourth class, she had to bring her own chair
> because forth class didn't have seats)
> Know who?
> Professors and civil servants were relatively well to do.
>
>> Crossing borders was also an issue in those days.
>>
>> So Einstein could have travelled to Berlin, have a chat or two with
>> Planck and travelled back to Bern.
>>
>> That is in fact possible, despite Einstein was not rich, had two little
>> children and a LOT of work.
>
> Why don't you just find out what happened,
> instead of making silly assumptions about it.

the simple reason:
it happened already 117 years ago.

The other reason: if all the biography is fraud and fake, there is
nothing to base research on but simple reasoning.

Therefore, I re-invent Einstein's life from what I think is plausible
and compare that to the common narrative.

Most important are very small details, which stem from differences in
the local practices of different regions at that time.

Questions would be:

is the situation at a certain instution correctly depicted?

Does the language fit to time and region?

Are mentioned events mentioned historically correct?

Were procedures performed according to standard protocols?

If anything does not match these requirements, we have reason to think
about fraud.

> In fact Planck and Einstein first met in 1909, in Salzburg,
> where Einstein had been invited (by Planck probably)
> to give a keynote lecture at the general conference
> of German physicists.
> (Einstein was already famous among collegues)
> Between 1905 and 1909 they corresponded.

That is all very nice. But important was the time prior to 1905.

All they had in common at that tima was the fact, that both have
attended ETH in Zurich.

So, if fake was involved, it would be logic to search for fakers in Zurich.

Why not Bern or Berlin?

answer: because apparently both have not known each other before 1905.

>> Planck was also not quite the kind of person, you would like to visite,
>> when you are twenty something and have just married. He was twenty years
>> older, stiff, conservative and a protestant.
>
> Your silly stories again,
>

besides those were facts.

Planck was simply not the kind of guy, you would like to invite to your
party, if you are 25, a leftist Jew and live in Bern.

TH
>

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:

> Am 28.02.2022 um 12:06 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
> > Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> >
> >> Am 27.02.2022 um 14:18 schrieb Paparios:
> >>> El domingo, 27 de febrero de 2022 a las 4:59:04 UTC-3, Thomas Heger:
> >>>> Am 27.02.2022 um 01:43 schrieb Paparios:
> >>>
> >>>>> Nonsense!!! Starting in 1900, in 1905 Einstein had published 23 papers
> >>>>> in journals before the SR paper. (see
> >>>>> https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-doc/). This scientific
> >>>>> output includes his PhD dissertation (number 15 in the list). By any
> >>>>> measure his scientific output was very high.
> >>>
> >>>> All of the CV of Einstein looks like fakery.It has all the signs of such:
> >>>> too good
> >>>> too fast
> >>>> too young.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> What a load of nonsense you write in each of your posts. Einstein was a
> >>> widely recognized genious (IQ between 160 and 200) which allowed him to
> >>> publish, when he was 21 years old, two very relevant papers in the
> >>> Annalen der Physik:
> >>>
> >>> 1) Conclusions drawn from the phenomena of capillarity. 2) On the
> >>> thermodynamic theory of the difference in potentials between metals and
> >>> fully dissociated solutions of their salts and on an electrical method
> >>> for investigating molecular forces.
> >>>
> >>> His genious allowed him to research in a vast amount of subjects, as the
> >>> 1905 papers prove. He was 26 years old when he sent the SR paper (June
> >>> 30, 1905) which was published in September 26, 1905.
> >>>
> >>
> >> He handed in SIX papers, which covered about 92 pages in the journal
> >> 'Annalen der Physik' in the same year 1905.
> >>
> >> That would have been roughly four hundred handwritten pages, for which
> >> he had to use ink and feather, because ball pens were not invented then.
> >
> > ROTFL, sorry. You really have the strangest ideas,
> > and not just on relativity.
> > Do you really believe that there were no other means of writing
> > between the goose feather and the ball pen?
> >
>
> Typewriters were already invented, but too expensive for common mortals.
>
> And they looked like this
>
> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mignon_(Schreibmaschine)

Yes, and too impractical except for special documents.

> Pencils were an option and fountain pens.

Fountain pens were already hugely popular in late 19th century.
Most people who wrote a lot professionally used a nib pen though,
and had a writing desk with an inkwell built in.
Here is Einstein at his.
<https://www.bern.com/assets/images/5/einsteinhaus_03-5d63a895.jpg>
(a reconstruction)
And yes, writing was often done standing in those days.

> But in any case Einstein had to write by hand with what was available in
> 1905.
>
> That certainly excluded computers or anything similar.
>
> To get a paper published, you need to 'condense' something you have
> worked on into perfect form and shape.

By what we know about it Einstein finally had the right idea
sometime in spring 1905, and he wrote it all up more or less in one go.
Quite possible, once you have the right idea
it is all quite straightforward.

> So: you start with a black board and draw scetches, equations and some
> notes.
>
> This would be written down, rethought, rewritten, redrawn and so forth,
> until finally you get the idea, how your article shall look like.

Perhaps, for more pedestrian minds.

> The final article needs a number of corrections, too, hence you have to
> write it several times.

Standard practice at the time was to correct galley proofs.
The journal would typeset the manuscript, print off a few copies,
send you one, and you indicated what needed to be changed.
(easy, with movable type)

> For an article of 30 pages I would assume, you need to write at least 20
> times as much, before the article is finished.
>
> This would multiply the demands of handwriting for Einstein to an
> unbearable amount. This also multiplied the demands for candles, because
> he had to work mainly at night (because he had a full-time day-light job).

Candles, really. You are inventing your own fantasy past.
Those who had no gaslight (yet) would use oil lamps.

Jan

> Sure, possibly he had gas light, at least in one room. Even electric
> light was thinkable, thou not very common.
>
>
> TH

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:

> Am 28.02.2022 um 12:06 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
> > Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> >
> >> Am 27.02.2022 um 22:10 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
> >>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
[-]
> >>>> But Planck lived in Berlin, while Einstein was still Swiss citizen.
> >>>> So how could they even talk to each other?
> >>>
> >>> Are you that completely unaware
> >>> of what things were like in Europe in 1900?
> >>> FYI, there was a dense railway network in place,
> >>> fares were affordable, and people travelled a lot.
> >>
> >> Well, train travel was possible, but not particularly cheap.
> >
> > Even a nearly penniless student could travel from Warchaw to Paris.
> > (1000 miles, three days, fourth class, she had to bring her own chair
> > because forth class didn't have seats)
> > Know who?
> > Professors and civil servants were relatively well to do.
> >
> >> Crossing borders was also an issue in those days.
> >>
> >> So Einstein could have travelled to Berlin, have a chat or two with
> >> Planck and travelled back to Bern.
> >>
> >> That is in fact possible, despite Einstein was not rich, had two little
> >> children and a LOT of work.
> >
> > Why don't you just find out what happened,
> > instead of making silly assumptions about it.
>
>
> the simple reason:
> it happened already 117 years ago.
>
> The other reason: if all the biography is fraud and fake, there is
> nothing to base research on but simple reasoning.
>
> Therefore, I re-invent Einstein's life from what I think is plausible
> and compare that to the common narrative.
>
> Most important are very small details, which stem from differences in
> the local practices of different regions at that time.
>
> Questions would be:
>
> is the situation at a certain instution correctly depicted?
>
> Does the language fit to time and region?
>
> Are mentioned events mentioned historically correct?
>
> Were procedures performed according to standard protocols?
>
> If anything does not match these requirements, we have reason to think
> about fraud.

That's all in your fantasy world.

> > In fact Planck and Einstein first met in 1909, in Salzburg,
> > where Einstein had been invited (by Planck probably)
> > to give a keynote lecture at the general conference
> > of German physicists.
> > (Einstein was already famous among collegues)
> > Between 1905 and 1909 they corresponded.
>
>
> That is all very nice. But important was the time prior to 1905.
>
> All they had in common at that tima was the fact, that both have
> attended ETH in Zurich.

Do produce a reference for Planck having studied at the ETH.

> So, if fake was involved, it would be logic to search for fakers in Zurich.
>
> Why not Bern or Berlin?
>
> answer: because apparently both have not known each other before 1905.

We already covered that.
Planck and Einstein met for the first time in 1909,
at a general physics conference,
where Planck had invited Einstein as a keynote speaker.

> >> Planck was also not quite the kind of person, you would like to visite,
> >> when you are twenty something and have just married. He was twenty years
> >> older, stiff, conservative and a protestant.
> >
> > Your silly stories again,
> >
>
> besides those were facts.
>
> Planck was simply not the kind of guy, you would like to invite to your
> party, if you are 25, a leftist Jew and live in Bern.

Your fantasy world again,

Jan

Den 01.03.2022 08:28, skrev Thomas Heger:
>
>
> I re-invent Einstein's life from what I think is plausible
> and compare that to the common narrative.
>
'nuff said!

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:

>
> Therefore, I re-invent Einstein's life from what I think is plausible
> and compare that to the common narrative.
>
>

Right. In other words, you write fiction.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

El martes, 1 de marzo de 2022 a las 4:29:03 UTC-3, Thomas Heger escribió:
> Am 28.02.2022 um 12:06 schrieb J. J. Lodder:

> > In fact Planck and Einstein first met in 1909, in Salzburg,
> > where Einstein had been invited (by Planck probably)
> > to give a keynote lecture at the general conference
> > of German physicists.
> > (Einstein was already famous among collegues)
> > Between 1905 and 1909 they corresponded.

> That is all very nice. But important was the time prior to 1905.

Planck was an Associate Editor of the Annalen der Physik ( from 1895 to 1907). Between 1900 and 1904, the Annalen of Physik published FIVE (5) papers from Einstein (see details in https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-doc/) all of those were read (reviewed, or at the very least known) by Planck in his Associate Editor role at the journal.

Therefore Planck knew exactly who Einstein was, way before 1905.

On 3/1/2022 6:10 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>
>> Am 28.02.2022 um 12:06 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
>>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Am 27.02.2022 um 14:18 schrieb Paparios:
>>>>> El domingo, 27 de febrero de 2022 a las 4:59:04 UTC-3, Thomas Heger:
>>>>>> Am 27.02.2022 um 01:43 schrieb Paparios:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nonsense!!! Starting in 1900, in 1905 Einstein had published 23 papers
>>>>>>> in journals before the SR paper. (see
>>>>>>> https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-doc/). This scientific
>>>>>>> output includes his PhD dissertation (number 15 in the list). By any
>>>>>>> measure his scientific output was very high.
>>>>>
>>>>>> All of the CV of Einstein looks like fakery.It has all the signs of such:
>>>>>> too good
>>>>>> too fast
>>>>>> too young.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What a load of nonsense you write in each of your posts. Einstein was a
>>>>> widely recognized genious (IQ between 160 and 200) which allowed him to
>>>>> publish, when he was 21 years old, two very relevant papers in the
>>>>> Annalen der Physik:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) Conclusions drawn from the phenomena of capillarity. 2) On the
>>>>> thermodynamic theory of the difference in potentials between metals and
>>>>> fully dissociated solutions of their salts and on an electrical method
>>>>> for investigating molecular forces.
>>>>>
>>>>> His genious allowed him to research in a vast amount of subjects, as the
>>>>> 1905 papers prove. He was 26 years old when he sent the SR paper (June
>>>>> 30, 1905) which was published in September 26, 1905.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> He handed in SIX papers, which covered about 92 pages in the journal
>>>> 'Annalen der Physik' in the same year 1905.
>>>>
>>>> That would have been roughly four hundred handwritten pages, for which
>>>> he had to use ink and feather, because ball pens were not invented then.
>>>
>>> ROTFL, sorry. You really have the strangest ideas,
>>> and not just on relativity.
>>> Do you really believe that there were no other means of writing
>>> between the goose feather and the ball pen?
>>>
>>
>> Typewriters were already invented, but too expensive for common mortals.
>>
>> And they looked like this
>>
>> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mignon_(Schreibmaschine)
>
> Yes, and too impractical except for special documents.
>
>> Pencils were an option and fountain pens.
>
> Fountain pens were already hugely popular in late 19th century.
> Most people who wrote a lot professionally used a nib pen though,
> and had a writing desk with an inkwell built in.
> Here is Einstein at his.
> <https://www.bern.com/assets/images/5/einsteinhaus_03-5d63a895.jpg>
> (a reconstruction)
> And yes, writing was often done standing in those days.
>
>> But in any case Einstein had to write by hand with what was available in
>> 1905.
>>
>> That certainly excluded computers or anything similar.
>>
>> To get a paper published, you need to 'condense' something you have
>> worked on into perfect form and shape.
>
> By what we know about it Einstein finally had the right idea
> sometime in spring 1905, and he wrote it all up more or less in one go.
> Quite possible, once you have the right idea
> it is all quite straightforward.
>
>> So: you start with a black board and draw scetches, equations and some
>> notes.
>>
>> This would be written down, rethought, rewritten, redrawn and so forth,
>> until finally you get the idea, how your article shall look like.
>
> Perhaps, for more pedestrian minds.
>
>> The final article needs a number of corrections, too, hence you have to
>> write it several times.
>
> Standard practice at the time was to correct galley proofs.
> The journal would typeset the manuscript, print off a few copies,
> send you one, and you indicated what needed to be changed.
> (easy, with movable type)
>
>> For an article of 30 pages I would assume, you need to write at least 20
>> times as much, before the article is finished.
>>
>> This would multiply the demands of handwriting for Einstein to an
>> unbearable amount. This also multiplied the demands for candles, because
>> he had to work mainly at night (because he had a full-time day-light job).
>
> Candles, really. You are inventing your own fantasy past.
> Those who had no gaslight (yet) would use oil lamps.

Oil lamps were pretty common before electric lighting established itself.
>
> Jan
>
>> Sure, possibly he had gas light, at least in one room. Even electric
>> light was thinkable, thou not very common.

Urban areas frequently had gas lighting before electric lighting, with
the gas called town gas, coal gas or water gas, depending on the
production methods.

On 3/1/2022 6:45 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>
>
> Den 01.03.2022 08:28, skrev Thomas Heger:
>>
>>
>> I re-invent Einstein's life from what I think is plausible and compare
>> that to the common narrative.
>>
> 'nuff said!
>

Exactly. We've been arguing against a fantasy world of Einstein hatred,
not about Einstein's actual life.

El martes, 1 de marzo de 2022 a las 12:44:16 UTC-3, Michael Moroney escribió:
> On 3/1/2022 6:10 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:

> > Candles, really. You are inventing your own fantasy past.
> > Those who had no gaslight (yet) would use oil lamps.
> Oil lamps were pretty common before electric lighting established itself.
> >
> > Jan
> >
> >> Sure, possibly he had gas light, at least in one room. Even electric
> >> light was thinkable, thou not very common.
> Urban areas frequently had gas lighting before electric lighting, with
> the gas called town gas, coal gas or water gas, depending on the
> production methods.

In Chile we started to have electric public lights by 1890. In Europe, residential electric lights were common by 1900.

Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:

> On 3/1/2022 6:10 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
[heger's alternative history]
> >> For an article of 30 pages I would assume, you need to write at least 20
> >> times as much, before the article is finished.
> >>
> >> This would multiply the demands of handwriting for Einstein to an
> >> unbearable amount. This also multiplied the demands for candles, because
> >> he had to work mainly at night (because he had a full-time day-light job).
> >
> > Candles, really. You are inventing your own fantasy past.
> > Those who had no gaslight (yet) would use oil lamps.
>
> Oil lamps were pretty common before electric lighting established itself.

"Call me Ishmael!"

> >> Sure, possibly he had gas light, at least in one room. Even electric
> >> light was thinkable, thou not very common.
>
> Urban areas frequently had gas lighting before electric lighting, with
> the gas called town gas, coal gas or water gas, depending on the
> production methods.

It started with theatres. They heated Calcium oxide in gas flames
to obtain white light. It was nearly universal by mid 19th.

We still have 'in the limelight',

Jan

PS If you look at the living room in front of the Einsteinhaus
<https://media.myswitzerland.com/image/fetch/w_1320,h_720,c_lfill,g_auto,f_auto,q_80,fl_keep_iptc.keep_attribution/https://www.myswitzerland.com/-/media/st/gadmin/images/attractions/museum/einstein_haus_140008.jpg?mw={w}&mh={h}>
you see a central decoration in the ceiling.
It may well have covered the feed for a gas lamp.
Things like that were quite common in the period.

Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> wrote:

> El martes, 1 de marzo de 2022 a las 12:44:16 UTC-3, Michael Moroney escribió:
> > On 3/1/2022 6:10 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:
>
> > > Candles, really. You are inventing your own fantasy past.
> > > Those who had no gaslight (yet) would use oil lamps.
> > Oil lamps were pretty common before electric lighting established itself.
> > >
> > > Jan
> > >
> > >> Sure, possibly he had gas light, at least in one room. Even electric
> > >> light was thinkable, thou not very common.
> > Urban areas frequently had gas lighting before electric lighting, with
> > the gas called town gas, coal gas or water gas, depending on the
> > production methods.
>
> In Chile we started to have electric public lights by 1890. In Europe,
> residential electric lights were common by 1900.

Yes. The idea of Einstein scribbling his papers by candlelight,
with a goose quill, is nothing but T.Heger's alternative history.

It proves beyond reasonable TH's doubt
that Einstein couldn't have done it,
because his fingers would have gotten too sore.,

Jan

Am 01.03.2022 um 21:51 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
> Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> wrote:
>
>> El martes, 1 de marzo de 2022 a las 12:44:16 UTC-3, Michael Moroney escribió:
>>> On 3/1/2022 6:10 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>> Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:
>>
>>>> Candles, really. You are inventing your own fantasy past.
>>>> Those who had no gaslight (yet) would use oil lamps.
>>> Oil lamps were pretty common before electric lighting established itself.
>>>>
>>>> Jan
>>>>
>>>>> Sure, possibly he had gas light, at least in one room. Even electric
>>>>> light was thinkable, thou not very common.
>>> Urban areas frequently had gas lighting before electric lighting, with
>>> the gas called town gas, coal gas or water gas, depending on the
>>> production methods.
>>
>> In Chile we started to have electric public lights by 1890. In Europe,
>> residential electric lights were common by 1900.
>
> Yes. The idea of Einstein scribbling his papers by candlelight,
> with a goose quill, is nothing but T.Heger's alternative history.
>
> It proves beyond reasonable TH's doubt
> that Einstein couldn't have done it,
> because his fingers would have gotten too sore.,
>

Ok, I have accegerated a bit...

But there is a much more serious problem with Einstein's productivity in
1905:

the six articles in 'Annalen der Physik' were not everything he wrote
that year.

(btw: For one of these articles he won a Nobel price. In another he
invented a new kind of physics called 'Quantum mechanics').

He also wrote 21 reviews in 1905 for the same journal, of which three
build his Ph.D. thesis, what he also handed in the very same year.

Most (if not all) physicists would have been glad and proud to achieve
in a lifetime, what Einstein had allegdly done in a single year (besides
of working fulltime and managing a young family with two toddlers).

This would stretch even the ability for physical writing the texts in
question beyond the plausible realm, let alone to read all the required
material, rethink that and find and formulate new revolutionary ideas.

Some of the (apparently) used sources were not even available in German,
like those of Henry Poincaré.

Therefore, a much more plausible explanation would be, that some unknown
sources provided helpfull hands and heads, which created and delivered,
what was presented as Einstein's work.

Even if that sounds far fetched, it is seemingly common practise in
certain realms, where it is regarded necessary to support the
credibility of a certain guy and to free him from work, to allow that
person doing other important tasks.

TH

Am 01.03.2022 um 16:38 schrieb Paparios:
> El martes, 1 de marzo de 2022 a las 4:29:03 UTC-3, Thomas Heger escribió:
>> Am 28.02.2022 um 12:06 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
>
>>> In fact Planck and Einstein first met in 1909, in Salzburg,
>>> where Einstein had been invited (by Planck probably)
>>> to give a keynote lecture at the general conference
>>> of German physicists.
>>> (Einstein was already famous among collegues)
>>> Between 1905 and 1909 they corresponded.
>
>> That is all very nice. But important was the time prior to 1905.
>
> Planck was an Associate Editor of the Annalen der Physik ( from 1895 to 1907). Between 1900 and 1904, the Annalen of Physik published FIVE (5) papers from Einstein (see details in https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-doc/) all of those were read (reviewed, or at the very least known) by Planck in his Associate Editor role at the journal.
>
> Therefore Planck knew exactly who Einstein was, way before 1905.
>
And the same Planck published six papers in the year 1905, too.

But still they could not easily become friends, because they lived in
different countries.

But they actually became friends, later in Berlin, because Einstein was
quite often in Planck's home, together with Liese Meitner and Otto Hahn.

They made music together, which Planck loved and Einstein could play
very well.

But the question was, why Planck published such a huge number of
Einstein's articles, which were imho full of errors????

I have counted hundreds of errors, which Planck have certainly seen, too.

So, how did that happen? Which forces were involved and what did they
aim to achieve?

TH

Am 01.03.2022 um 14:12 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>
>>
>> Therefore, I re-invent Einstein's life from what I think is plausible
>> and compare that to the common narrative.
>>
>>
>
> Right. In other words, you write fiction.
>

If you think about fraud, because something does not seem to be right,
you need plausible assumptions about how people usually behave and
compare this to an observed pattern.

If the differences fall into a certain band-width, which could be
attributed to high intelligence and hard work, everything is fine.

But beyond that level, questions arise, like:

could a person do that with the tools available at that era?

had the person incentive to do, what he had allegedly done?

was that story physically possible?

does this story require fairies?

....

TH

On 3/2/2022 2:14 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 01.03.2022 um 16:38 schrieb Paparios:
>> El martes, 1 de marzo de 2022 a las 4:29:03 UTC-3, Thomas Heger escribió:
>>> Am 28.02.2022 um 12:06 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
>>
>>>> In fact Planck and Einstein first met in 1909, in Salzburg,
>>>> where Einstein had been invited (by Planck probably)
>>>> to give a keynote lecture at the general conference
>>>> of German physicists.
>>>> (Einstein was already famous among collegues)
>>>> Between 1905 and 1909 they corresponded.
>>
>>> That is all very nice. But important was the time prior to 1905.
>>
>> Planck was an Associate Editor of the Annalen der Physik ( from 1895
>> to 1907). Between 1900 and 1904, the Annalen of Physik published FIVE
>> (5) papers from Einstein (see details in
>> https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-doc/) all of those
>> were read (reviewed, or at the very least known) by Planck in his
>> Associate Editor role at the journal.
>>
>> Therefore Planck knew exactly who Einstein was, way before 1905.
>>
> And the same Planck published six papers in the year 1905, too.
>
> But still they could not easily become friends, because they lived in
> different countries.
>
> But they actually became friends, later in Berlin, because Einstein was
> quite often in Planck's home, together with Liese Meitner and Otto Hahn.
>
> They made music together, which Planck loved and Einstein could play
> very well.

Glad that you are finally seeing some reality. Perhaps your OCD is
getting better?
>
> But the question was, why Planck published such a huge number of
> Einstein's articles, which were imho full of errors????

Spoke too soon. The OCD comes roaring back.

The 'word' you used which you need to pay attention to is 'imho'. Nobody
cares about the 400+ non-mistakes which you found. Planck didn't find
any errors because there weren't any errors for him to find. (maybe
there were some actual problems, which Planck would have pointed out and
Einstein corrected before publication, but they are now GONE) And
certainly Planck wouldn't have cared that some 117 years later, some
crank with OCD would obsess over finding errors in that paper.
>
> I have counted hundreds of errors, which Planck have certainly seen, too.

Planck had no way to see 117 years into the future to see you make
hundreds of errors and see you blame your errors on Einstein.
>
> So, how did that happen? Which forces were involved and what did they
> aim to achieve?

The "forces" were the plain old smarts which Einstein had and the
science field, esp. Planck, recognized.