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

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:

Am Mittwoch000004, 04.06.2025 um 14:50 schrieb J. J. Lodder:

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
 

Am Dienstag000003, 03.06.2025 um 19:44 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
>

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.

>
>
I don't think, that most of my comments were wrong, but that some of
them could be wrong.
>
Sure: commas in English are used differently from their use in German
and I have to admit some errors in this realm.
>
But you certainly don't want to argue with my comma setting errors.

 
Why not? You have got nothing better on Einstein, so...
 

This would be simply unfair, because I'm writing in a second language.

 
You are capable of misunderstanding Einstein in his own language, so...
 

And I would see you writing in German (with correct spelling and
grammar, of course).
>

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.

>
All 'dissidents' are called 'nuts' or crackpots'.
>
This is common behavior here and elsewhere.

 
Of course not. We certainly recognise true 'dissidents' as such,
like Andrei Sakharov for example.
You cannot arrogate the title 'dissident' to yourself.
 

 
Sakharov was part of the atomic program of the Soviet Union and had some
issues with the nomenclatura.

So you got that part of history wrong too.
Sakharov's family was part of the nomenclaura, good Soviet citizens.
Andrei wouldn't have gotten KGB clearance
to work on nuclear weapon's otherwise.
Sakharov didn't fall out with the nomenclatura
(how would such a thing be possible anyway?)
he got into conflicts with the Soviet leadership.
(until Gorby stepped in)

But how about Podklednov?

Which one? There are at least two of them,
both crackpots.

Or how about Martin Tajmar?

No idea.

You must be seen as such by others,
who think you have something worthwhile to say.
To achieve that you need to say things that aren't nutty or crackpot.

 
I'm just a little hobbyist, but have written something (long ago
already), which was meant to solve an allegedly unsolvable problem.
 
This was meant as a conncetion between GR and QM:
 
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa

0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing

 
I have spent a VERY long time on this topic. But as non-physicist I had
only limited means and certainly made many errors.
 
But the idea itself is actually worth to discuss.
 
But that had never happened. Instead I received less than ten comments
in 16 years.
 
So: why is that?

I have a good guess, you could try for one too?

Jan