| 读帖时，帖子不存在 |
| 读帖时，帖子不存在 |
|
x2009：
你不过是个混混而已！ 你不过是个方舟子类混混！ 你引用的方舟子混混言论说明什么了？ 蒋春暄的论文我未看到，不作评论。你x2009看到蒋春暄的论文了吗？你以数理逻辑指出其数学错误是什么了吗？你不作任何实质性批驳，就是方舟子类混混！ 方舟子横说“另一位科学狂人李映华著的《物理学的几个重大理论问题》”，他指出李映华《物理学的几个重大理论问题》中什么地方错误了吗？为什么错误了吗？方舟子有任何数学表达进行否定吗？ |
|
楼上的几位，我是数学系的博士生。
我看过蒋的论文，真是狗屁不通。 数学家之所以不来反驳他，是因为这种民科实在太多了。 他证明黎曼猜测的文章里的推论就是所有COS(X)>=0 我想你是大学生，学过高等数学的就知道问题了吧。 你们骂方舟子的，拜托先去看看论文吧。 |
|
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。 |
| 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【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 |
|
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 |
|
http://authors.aps.org/cgi-bin/wvman?acc=LY11626&auth=Huang这是我的投稿过程，其中有两次Sent on appeal，我相信有这种经历的论文寥寥无几。 ※※※※※※ 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？ |
|
这是PRA主编Gordon W.F. Drake的拒稿信，可以看出，没有给出任何理由。他建议我上诉。
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, Your paper has been rejected. Further consideration can only be given if you decide to exercise the option, available under this journal's Editorial Policies (copy enclosed), of appealing the decision to reject the manuscript. Adjudication of such an appeal is based on the version of the manuscript that was rejected; no revisions can be introduced at this stage. Yours sincerely, Gordon W.F. Drake Editor Physical Review A Email: pra@ridge.aps.org Fax: 631-591-4141 http://pra.aps.org/ ※※※※※※ 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： 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。 |
|
没有任何审稿意见，这就是事实。
如果有，Mikhail V. Fedorov就不会抨击我的过去发表的文章作为拒稿理由了。 ※※※※※※ 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 |
|
这是我回答了他的问题，并请他仔细思考我的问题后，他的回信。显然，此时他的态度有所改变。
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, In your last letter, you asked me to consider your alternative explanation for the negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment by invoking the concept of ether drag. The problem is that one cannot consider just this one experiment in isolation from the many other outstanding successes of the special theory of relativity. In proposing an alternative explanation for the Michelson-Morley experiment, it is incumbent upon you as the author to show that the alternative theory does not lead to contradictions elsewhere. One of the most important examples is the energy levels of atomic hydrogen. These are in precise agreement with experiment when the special theory of relativity is included via the Dirac equation (together with higher-order quantum electrodynamic corrections), but not when they are omitted. If one abolishes the special theory of relativity in favor of a picture involving ether drag, then you must find some other way of restoring agreement between theory and experiment for the energy levels of atomic hydrogen. Unless you can do so, your proposal is incomplete and cannot be accepted for publication because it leads to a contradiction with the high-precision spectroscopic data for atomic hydrogen. You must similarly take into account the many other tests, such as the relativistic dynamics of particles in high energy accelerators, and the conversion of mass into energy. Particle accelerators would not work if the relativistic dynamics did not work correctly. It is not sufficient just to quote famous people who speculated about alternative theories. None of their speculations included ether drag as a serious alternative. I might suggest that you submit your paper to a journal that specializes in publishing speculative ideas. 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 |
|
对【26楼】说： 情况非常清楚，Physical Review 的编辑一开始就没有打算发表你的论文，直接拒稿，他认为没有必要送审，估计反相的论文太多了。一般作者收到这种信就算了，直接撤稿，没想到遇到你这么难缠的，如果是国内杂志根本就不理你，最后只好采用appeal的方式让你死心，现在我理解Mikhail V. Fedorov为什么说话那么难听，他对你的纠缠有点烦了，觉得你浪费了他们的宝贵时间。 |
| Can the principle of constancy of light velocity be proved by Michelson-Morley experiment? 对这种题目的论文，他们应该非常眼熟，第一个提出来的肯定不是你，狭义相对论诞生的那一时刻就有人提出。我也认为MM实验不足以证明光速不变原理，相信有这种想法的人还有很多很多，只是现在没有话语权。 |
|
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 |