| 读帖时，帖子不存在 |
| 读帖时，帖子不存在 |
|
你们应该在学术上否定蒋春暄的理论。
从来就没有一篇指出蒋春暄的数学论文错在哪里的文章发表。你凭什么说蒋春暄错了？华罗庚也是民科出身。蒋春暄还是航天部的高工，至少比方舟子是官科吧？ 方舟子身为民科却骂民科，不懂数学却指责蒋春暄数学得奖。他的脑子出毛病了。附和他的人脑子也有毛病。 人家喜欢数学，研究研究碍你们什么事？他难道没有他的自由？他得奖又关你们什么事？ 你们反对别人搞科研的理论，就是阻碍科学发展的伪科学理论！ |
|
从所谓“蒋春暄现象”并没有暴露出来中国数学界有什么致命弱点，倒是暴露出了许多中国人文学者的致命弱点：不学无术，信口开河，却又自命不凡。
2003.7.3. ================================================================================================== 这句话倒是有道理的。你不能说身居高位的中国数学界权威在数学上没有水平。但是他们党同伐异，不许自己小圈子外的人搞数学研究，正是他们在人文道德上的缺陷。 蒋春暄的问题很简单，只要通过学术上的批驳，指出蒋春暄的论文错在哪里，而蒋春暄又无法进行答辩就行了。可是现在一些人不是对蒋春暄的论文仔细进行研究，却以此推而广之，公开反对爱科学，学科学，研究科学的群众性的科学革命运动，妄图剥夺广大群众研究科学的权利，妄图垄断科学界的话语权，这是我们一切正义的人们所不能同意的。 |
| 读帖时，帖子不存在 |
|
对【5楼】说： 我认为既然蒋春暄能够帮桑蒂利解决强子力学中的一个数学难题而受到桑蒂利如此追捧，就已经有力地证明了蒋春暄的数学水平很不一般。如果他的数学水平真的象你所说的这么臭，数学界可以对一个没有多少影响力的“臭水平”“民科”事件不屑一顾，可是他的事件在媒体界已经引起了这么大的风波，为什么至今没有任何一个数学界人士站出来说话？他们为什么竟然都成了缩头乌龟了？ 我是实在看不惯一帮“不学无术，信口开河，却又自命不凡”的“人文学者”在国内象疯狗一样到处咬人，还有那个什么叫“水博”的对张颖清恶毒攻击，“全息生物学”理论的生命力已经在现代干细胞动物克隆技术得到充分展示，那一帮疯狗竟然还要对一个死去的张颖清狂吠，它们究竟想要干什么？？？ ※※※※※※ 相对论误导科学走邪路，是非曲折待历史见证；引力场以太旧貌焕新颜，定海神柱将扭转乾坤。.................... 想当初时空迷思闯科海，荣辱以乐可生命当歌；看如今闲庭信步攀高峰，重构宇宙再平展时空。 |
|
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 |
|
这是当我指出Mikhail V. Fedorov搞错了对象，PRA主编Gordon W.F. Drake也觉得说不过去，于是发起第二次appeal后，总编Gene D. Sprouse的回信。看看多么可笑，他竟然说审稿人是公平和负责任的，因此他必须维持审稿人的裁判。
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, I have reviewed the file concerning this manuscript which was submitted to Physical Review A. The scientific review of your paper is the responsibility of the editor of Physical Review A, and resulted in the decision to reject your paper. The Editor in Chief must assure that the procedures of our journals have been followed responsibly and fairly in arriving at that decision. On considering all aspects of this file I have concluded that our procedures have in fact been appropriately followed and that your paper received a fair review. Accordingly, I must uphold the decision of the Editors. Yours sincerely, Gene D. Sprouse Editor in Chief ※※※※※※ 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 |
|
我的论文没有经历过匿名审稿，始终没有经历过Under Review，而是两次Under Appeal。等我把所有通信发出来你就明白了。 ※※※※※※ 欢迎光临黄新卫挑战相对论的博客http://blog.163.com/hubeihxw@yeah/blog |
|
这是我请他仔细阅读我的论文后，他再次给我的拒稿信。
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, I understand your feelings of disappointment on reading my previous letter of rejection. However, it is important to remember that the special theory of relativity is now over 100 years old, and it has been intensively studied by many authors since then. It has also been subjected to a large number of high-precision experimental tests, and no defect has been found in the predictions of special relativity. Under these circumstances, exceptional evidence is required to overturn a well established theory. It is not sufficient just to show that the same results can be obtained from a different philosophical point of view, because then the paper is about philosophy and not physics. In order to be acceptable for publication, a paper in this area must show that existing theory is not adequate in some way that is experimentally measurable, and then propose a method to remedy the defect. Your paper does not meet these criteria, and so it is not acceptable for publication. It is like saying that Copernicus was also wrong in saying that the earth goes around the sun, but without giving adequate reasons for your claim. I hope that this explanation helps you to understand the reasons for rejection. Yours sincerely, Gordon W.F. Drake Editor Physical Review A Email: pra@ridge.aps.org Fax: 631-591-4141 http://pra.aps.org/ Physics - spotlighting exceptional research: http://physics.aps.org/ ※※※※※※ 欢迎光临黄新卫挑战相对论的博客http://blog.163.com/hubeihxw@yeah/blog |
|
Mikhail V. Fedorov抨击我的代替相对论的理论，而对我的要发表的 Can the principle of constancy of light velocity be proved by Michelson-Morley experiment? 没有任何人指出任何问题。
因为这篇论文是无懈可击的，将终结相对论。 ※※※※※※ 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 |