| 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： “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”这是对方舟子之流自己的真实写照！你既然是数学系的博士生，你就应该真名实姓地写篇专题文章从学术上来批判蒋春暄的“论文”，可是为什么你们数学界的大小专业人士没有任何人站出来，却要靠“不学无术”的方舟子之流在这象疯狗一样到处咬人？它凭什么可以对任何专业方面的“民科”人士都能乱咬一通？它简直就是混入中国科技界靠一帮打手拥有话语权的流氓地痞！ ※※※※※※ 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。 |
|
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。） |
|
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？ |
|
对【12楼】说： 所以说你没有把全部事实说清楚。你说的是美国《物理评论A》主编Gordon W.F. Drake（加拿大温莎大学物理系主任）、《物理评论A》编委委员Mikhail V. Fedorov（俄罗斯科学院普通物理研究所研究员）、美国物理学会总编Gene D. Sprouse（美国纽约大学教授）这些人审你的稿！Mikhail V. Fedorov是以审稿人的身份说那句话吗？能appeal到美国物理学会总编，你的论文一定经过了两轮的匿名审稿，他们的意见才是最主要的，主编主要判断审稿过程是否合理、有无歧视等行为，appeal到总编的文章能发表的几乎没有，我曾经有两篇文章appeal到总编，最后都枪毙了，PRA不发表，你可以选择其它杂志，个人认为，在网络上喊冤的方式不可取。 |
|
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 |