| 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。 |
|
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 |
| 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。 |
|
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？ |
|
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 |
|
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。 |