| 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？ |
|
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。 |
|
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。 |
|
哥白尼、伽利略质疑权威理论的论文能在权威的学术期刊发表吗？肯定不能！
我的论文能让美国《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）审稿数月，无法指出任何问题，这等于默认我的论文是正确的，相对论是错误的。但是他们不肯承认相对论是错误的，只好用滑稽的理由拒稿。 ※※※※※※ 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？ |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |