| 读帖时，帖子不存在 |
| 读帖时，帖子不存在 |
| 读帖时，帖子不存在 |
| 我对‘方小子’不感兴趣，一因为他年令轻，且没有理学实质性论述，文棍一个，理学与文学不同，不是凭单才气的，还要凭年令，没有50岁，有些物理他是想不到的；二因为不知他是专哪性（同样年令，有人近文，有人近理，有人近画……，为什么小儿可成为音乐家，而不能成为画家，这是因为前者仅需灵感，而后者还需要空间结构感——同理，理学比文学难得多。）；三因为他自己没来这里，无法与他当面对质。 |
|
对【8楼】说： 这位朋友，你说的肯定不是事实的全部！你显然不了解国际学术界的审稿规则，我为美国《物理评论》审了十几年稿，也在上面发表了几篇论文，审稿是匿名的，作为作者是不可能知道他的稿件是谁审的。《物理评论》要枪毙一篇稿件太容易了，编辑可以以你的论文无法引起广泛兴趣为由拒稿，对于质疑相对论的论文，他们肯定比较谨慎，但是要找一个冠冕的拒稿理由应该不难，不会弱智到无法指出任何问题的地步。（要证明你说的都是事实，可以把所有的审稿材料贴上来。） |
|
对【11楼】说： 你不相信？我正在整理，我准备把所有通信发出来。 我的论文两次appeal到美国物理学会总编Gene D. Sprouse那里，第一次是PRA主编让我上诉的，因为他给不出拒稿理由，但是又不敢拍板接收，把球踢给总编。 第二次是我指出Mikhail V. Fedorov搞错了对象，他抨击我的论文不适合在任何期刊杂志发表，而那篇文章已经在美国出版，审稿人说good。而我要投的论文，他没有作任何评价。于是PRA主编发起第二次appeal。 能够appeal到总编那里的文章，一年也不会有几篇，我只发现中科院张志东研究员有一次这样的经历，一般到主编那里就为止了。 ※※※※※※ 欢迎光临黄新卫挑战相对论的博客http://blog.163.com/hubeihxw@yeah/blog |
|
这是总编指定的审稿人Mikhail V. Fedorov的审稿意见，非常滑稽，他抨击的是我过去发表的文章，而对我要发表的文章只字不提。
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Report of the Editorial Board Member -- LY11626A/Huang ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I support the rejection of the paper from PRA and I am sure that such a paper is inappropriate for publication in any journal on physics. Actually, the text of this paper represents a series of speculations having no scientific background. The 5D substitution of the Special Theory of Relativity (STR) is not a theory at all. The absolute time is something mythical rather than well defined and justified, as well as all suggested relations for the velocity with respect to this absolute time. The criticism of STR in the paper is based mainly on what the author calls "paradoxes" of STR and on mentioning some problems of the modern astrophysics which are interpreted as contradicting to STR. The latter is not evident or proved to be true, and cannot be proved by a simple citation of sayings of some scientists. As for the "paradoxes", they are mostly not related to STR and they are not paradoxes at all. In particular, the author is worried mostly about masses acquired by particles during their acceleration and occurring owing to the Einstein's relation E=mc^2. According to the author's formulation, if a particle is accelerated and if the increase of its energy is interpreted as the increase of a mass, then in the rest-frame of this particle other objects will be seen as accelerated and increasing their energies and masses. As these other objects were not affected by any forces, increase of their energy seen from the particle's rest-frame is considered as an STR paradox. But in fact, this effect is not a specific feature of STR. It occurs even in the case of a starting train at a railroad. For a person sitting on a bench in the train and watching in a window for what's going on at the platform, all objects will seem being accelerated and, hence, increasing their energies whereas in the platform-frame all these objects remain at rest. Is this a paradox? Of course it is not, but even if some people can think this is a paradox, the effect is not related to STR. Two comments more. 1) STR is valid only for inertial frames, i.e., frames moving with respect to each other with constant velocities. Rigorously, processes of acceleration are beyond STR. 2) In STR the relation E=mc^2 is simply a definition of the relativistic mass m. The latter does not bear in itself any additional information compared to the energy E. Relativity of the concept of kinetic energy is illustrated quite well in the above described "railroad paradox", and it's hardly surprising at all. A simple substitution of the word "energy" by the word "mass" hardly adds any elements of a surprise to the fact of relativity of these physical quantities. Discussion of other "paradoxes" could be continued in a similar way. But it's hardly reasonable because all this leads to the conclusion formulated in the very beginning of the report: the paper is not appropriate for publication in any scientific journal on physics. Mikhail V. Fedorov Editorial Board Member Physical Review A ※※※※※※ 欢迎光临黄新卫挑战相对论的博客http://blog.163.com/hubeihxw@yeah/blog |
|
对5楼：
整个数学体系悖论泛滥，你用灌进你脑里的“知识”来评蒋，也行？ |
|
请看我的投稿经历http://authors.aps.org/cgi-bin/wvman?acc=LY11626&auth=Huang，我的论文没有经过外审，而是主编审了2个月左右。为什么他不经过外审了？我分析他自己就是这方面专家，他能推测到即使外审，审稿人也无法驳倒我的文章。再说，如果审稿人说我的文章good，他也不敢轻易拍板接受的，因为我的论文将终结相对论。
所以，他经过2个月思考，让我上诉。 ※※※※※※ 欢迎光临黄新卫挑战相对论的博客http://blog.163.com/hubeihxw@yeah/blog |
|
对【12楼】说： 前面的匿名审稿意见没有看到，后面的程序没有什么好挑剔的，总编和PRA主编的信都是模板化的，不是针对你个人，对所有的作者都一样！不过Mikhail V. Fedorov 的话有点说狠了，他的观点非常明确，狭义相对论就是正确的，他肯定要找各种理由拒绝你的论文（你也不能说他没有给出理由），这也很正常，说白了，就是话语权的问题。不过你的论文能够折腾到这一步已经不容易了，绝大部分的论文早早被编辑掐死了。 |
|
这是PRA主编在收到PRD转过来的稿件当天，给我的拒稿信。显然，他没有仔细看我的论文。
Re: LY11626A Can the principle of constancy of light velocity be proved by Michelson-Morley experiment? by Xinwei Huang Dr. Xinwei Huang Equipment Department Dongfeng Motor Corporation Frame Plant Shiyan 442000 Hubei, CHINA Dear Dr. Huang, The above manuscript which you submitted to Physical Review D has been examined by the editors. It is their opinion that, in view of its subject matter, your paper would be more suitable for consideration in Physical Review A. However, we regret to inform you that the manuscript is not considered suitable for publication in the Physical Review. As a general remark, the special theory of relativity (STR) has survived for a century, despite many challenges based on alleged discrepancies in its application, or on apparent inconsistencies in its accepted interpretation. This historical background makes the highest demands on the clarity and rigor of submitted papers that find faults in STR or seek alternative structures for its basic transformations, if they are to be considered as serious contenders for publication in a scientific journal. In particular, they need to provide unambiguous evidence of failings in the theory and provide clear-cut identifications of past or future measurements that display, or have convincing chances of displaying, shortcomings in STR. Proposals for structural changes in the basic transformations need to show a definite physical impact resulting from novel predictions of observable effects. Authors must justify publication by including a clear discussion of the motivation for the new speculation, with reasons for introducing new concepts. In addition, plausible arguments should be set forth that these predictions and interpretations are experimentally distinguishable from existing knowledge. Adequate references must be made to previous work on the subject, including pertinent parts of the extensive body of experimental evidence which supports the STR. Among such, we should like to call your special attention to the recent article by Pospelov and Romalis, "Lorentz Invariance on Trial," in PHYSICS TODAY, July 2004, p. 40. Your paper does not satisfy the criteria described above. Therefore, with regret, we cannot consider it for publication in our journal. Yours sincerely, Gordon W.F. Drake Editor Physical Review A Email: pra@ridge.aps.org Fax: 631-591-4141 http://pra.aps.org/ and Rashmi Ray Senior Assistant Editor Physical Review D Email: prd@ridge.aps.org Fax: 631-591-4141 http://prd.aps.org/ Physics - spotlighting exceptional research: http://physics.aps.org/ PRL Celebrates 50 Years: http://prl.aps.org/50years/ ※※※※※※ 欢迎光临黄新卫挑战相对论的博客http://blog.163.com/hubeihxw@yeah/blog |
|
刚回的一个帖子被审核了。等等看能不能出来。
是的，现在就是没有话语权。 我后来不客气的批评他们。 ※※※※※※ 欢迎光临黄新卫挑战相对论的博客http://blog.163.com/hubeihxw@yeah/blog |