Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also.

On 2025-06-03 12:30:05 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
 

Am Montag000002, 02.06.2025 um 20:38 schrieb J. J. Lodder:

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
 [ … ]
 

I have actually (carefully!!) 'tested' that particular paper and found,
that it is FULL of errors.
 The number of errors (plus others issues like violation of formal
standards, missing references, bad language..) was so large (400+), that
I personally think, that Einstein was wilfully mocking the audience.

 The audience didn't think so.
Au contraire, it was an instant succes,
among those who mattered.
Prestigeous univerisities starten trying to get Einstein
to accept a professorship.
 

  I have looked at that paper very carefully and wrote about 428 comments
about statements, which were in many cases wrong.

 Ah, some insight into yourself.

Alas, probably not. Thomas Heger has never understood the way commas are used in English and how it differs from how they are used in German. So although he is saying (probably correctly) that most of his 428 comments are wrong, he probably thinks he was saying that many of Einstein's statements were wrong, which is just his fantasy.
Although I have tended to think that he's not quite at the level of LaurenceClarkCrossen or Maciej Wozniak as a crackpot, I am beginning to think that he is.

Just to help you: your comments are all wrong.
 

There were other issues, too, but more related to expression, grammar,
violation of formal requirements and so forth.

 Irrelevant, for science.
 

Whether 'those who mattered' like my comments or not, that is not my
concern.

 The fact that Einstein was accepted by everybody who mattered at the
time as one of their kind makes whatever you want to say irrelevant.
 

Most likely they don't, but that wouldn't make Einstein's text better.

 Science doesn't proceed by textual criticism. It is about content.
Is that really so hard to understand for you?

--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots