在伽利略电动力学编辑部主办的会议上发表了反相论文-挑战相对论-西陆网

[楼主] [2楼] 作者:李子丰发表时间: 2007/08/24 17:38

全文如下：
The Essence of Special Relativity and
Its Influence on Science, Philosophy and Society
Li Zifeng, Li Tianjiang, Wang Changjin, Tian Xinmin, Wang Zhaoyun
Yanshan University, Hebei, Qinhuangdao 066004,CHINA
e-mail zfli@ysu.edu.cn

This paper discusses the current status of special relativity in science and philosophy, as well as society, the reasons for special relativity becoming famous, three viewpoints on special relativity in academe, four attitudes of public on special relativity, comments of famous scientists on special relativity, periodicals and scientific meetings as well as networks studying questions on special relativity. This paper sums up arguments that focus on special relativity, analyzes the mistakes of logic in special relativity, investigates the authenticity of validations and applications of special relativity, and concludes that the essence of special relativity is a wrong logical inference embarking from the idealist standpoint. It analyzes special relativity’s harm in science and philosophy as well as society. This paper advocates the materialism style of seeking truth from facts and the publication policy of ‘a hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend’, in order to liberate scientific research from its imprisonment in special relativity. The views of space-time and mass-energy of idealistic special relativity should be abandoned, and the views of space-time and mass-energy of materialism should be restored and developed.

Introduction
As one of the two important pillars of contemporary physics, Special Relativity Theory (SRT) [1-2] came into being an entire century ago. The common people know of SRT and its author, Albert Einstein. It is in the compulsory curriculum at the university and college. However, the rationality of its foundation and the accuracy of its deductions are constantly suspect [3-44]. There exist two viewpoints on SRT, poles apart from first to last. One is ‘the giant’ theory, held by those who think highly of SRT; the other is ‘the disaster’, held by those who think poorly of SRT. Therefore, it is vitally important to investigate its essence, and its influence on science, philosophy, and society. This will make unprecedented sense to the development of science, technology and philosophy.
1. Current Status of SRT, Philosophy, and Society
SRT has been in ‘jewel’ status since 1905. Today, it occupies absolutely the dominant status in science, philosophy, and society. It is taken as one of the contemporary bases of theoretical physics. Any assumption or measurement conflicting with SRT is proclaimed wrong. The undergraduates must study SRT, and there are Einstein statues, figures and photos everywhere in the university and high school campus. It is summoned to learn from Einstein. The United Nation decided on 2005 being the international physical year and world-wide celebration for the 100th anniversary of SRT’s publication.
2. Reasons for SRT Being Famous
For the public: 1) SRT has become university physics compulsory content; 2) they have received all kinds of views of experts in a long time; 3) because of lacking enough understanding and pondering; many people think that it is right, but they don’t know the reason.
The American weekly Time and the British network BBC launched a little vortex of ‘the genius theory’: They support SRT as being in the top ten scientific achievements in 20th century, respect Einstein as the second of the millennium great thinkers, and cry up Einstein’s cerebrum vagarious, etc.
Domestic Chinese media also isn’t willing to drop behind. In a short time, ‘time travel’ and the ‘Big Bang’ become front-page news. Some people attack tooth and nail any dissimilar learned view and suppress any learned criticisms of SRT. And they say criticizing SRT is ‘propagandizing pseudoscience’.
The media elevates SRT, and suppresses critical opinions, so that SRT becomes almost scientific religion, and Einstein is taken for its god.
3. Three Appraisals of SRT in Academia
1) It is right, and it is one of the two greatest basic physical discoveries in 20th century.
2) It is a combination of truth and falsehood.
3) It is absurd.
4. Four Attitudes toward SRT
There are four kinds of attitudes toward SRT: supporters, amenders, objector, and spectator.
1) Supporters allege that SRT is correct, and that opposing SRT means anti-science. Their occupations are mostly teaching or researching in SRT. A few of them don’t know there is something wrong in SRT, but the majority of them understand it is wrong. But they don’t admit it is wrong for the reason of polity, economy as well as fame.
2) Amenders. They think SRT is almost correct, but there occur some ‘paradoxes’ because the foundation of SRT is unclear. Where SRT is used and error is detected, they can amend SRT interminably. They can publish many papers, but it is a fool’s errand to deal with them.
3) Objectors think SRT should be abolished for its essence is absurd. They can get little benefit from espousing this view, just one paper maybe.
4) Spectators think that SRT may be wrong, or not wrong, but it is none of their business. Actually, they don’t engage in work about SRT, but social influence also would involve them at last. It is only the degree that is different.
5. Famous Scientists’ Views on SRT
Many scientists think that SRT is correct; most scientists hear that it is correct; and some think it is wrong. The media have propagandized enough from the point of view of admiration. Some anti-viewpoints have been introduced as follows:
1) The Nobel prize committee refused award Einstein prize for SRT.
2) Famous scientists who were contemporary with Einstein - Lorentz, Poincare, Rutherford, etc. - all disagreed with it.
3) Most experimental physical scientists don’t admit it; for example A. O’Rahilly, H. Ives, F. Soddy, P. Graneau, N. Graneau, S. Marinov, P. Pappas, and so on.
4) Michelson, the main founder of the Michelson-Morley’s experiment, pained all his lifetime because his own experiment produced the monster of SRT.
5) Dr. L. Essen, who was the director of time frequency department of national laboratory in England, said: ”Physicists’ attitude toward special relativity is not to understand it almost; but which is reckoned is right for being recognized, it must be admitted. I was thinking so in the past.”
6) H. Dingle, the former supporter of SRT, did attack it tooth and nail after finding its bumble, and resolutely called out about ”science being in the crossroad”.
7) H. Alfvén, who was an internationally famous scientist and winner of Nobel Prize, denounced SRT “an only bibelot” and “it blurs the borderline between the science and pseudoscience”.
8) T. Barnes, emeritus physics professor in the University of Texas, called out that SRT is “a disaster” and “it is time to change worshiping blindly special relativity!”
9) Lu Hoff, academician, famous theoretical physicist, broke through unnumbered big blocks in his octogenarian and sent out a paper “Challenging to Einstein”. At last, he wrote the last words-”The common editorial department has no courage to publish the paper because they worship blindly Einstein and they are afraid of being considered ignorant of physics”.
10) Zheng Quan, Professor of Research Institute of Dynamics of the Chinese Academy of Science, has objected to SRT since 1961, and has published many monographs against SRT.
11) Song Jian, former state councilor, director of National Science and Technology Commission, vice-president of CPPCC and the president of Chinese Academy of Engineering, boldly opposes Einstein and calls out to young scientists: “The entire 100 years ago, Einstein had an ana [saying]: ‘It is impossible for anything moving faster than light speed’ in his special relativity paper making world science inconceivability. It has been called as “light barrier” nowadays. However, it has not been proved by any direct experiment. Due to space flight technology development recently, it makes scientists analyses and self-reflection: Why the speed of spacecraft can’t exceed velocity of light?” [41]
12) Prof. Jeremy Dunning-Davies from the British Hull University and Prof. Stein E Johansen from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology point out that nowadays physical scientists keep to run-of-the-mill SRT. They do not counter scientific argument with scientific argument, but instead inhibit them using more and more religious means. [43]
6. Meetings, Learned Publications, and Websites for Researching SRT Problems
In North America, international symposia or seminars with titles such as “challenging contemporary physics and cosmology” are held every year by the Natural Philosophy Alliance. An international meeting critical of SRT sponsored by Muscovite academy of sciences has been held continuously more than six times and it is larger and larger. Just as Petr Beckmann, America’s famous late editor in chief of “Energy” and “Galilean Electrodynamics”, summarized: “special relativity still suffers so extensive resistance after unprecedented successful nearly 90 years, form Canada to South Africa, from Europe to Australia, from St. Petersburg to Beijing etc.” The magnificent scale and long lifetime are rare in history.
On July 29~30, 2000, an academic meeting on the Einstein’s SRT question was held in Beijing of China. In 2003, three seminars aiming to negate or exceed Einstein’s SRT was held in China. They are respectively: “the first annual meeting of Beijing special relativity research sodality”, in Beijing, August 15-17; “the second national academic meeting of Einstein’s special relativity questions”, in Beijing, August 23-24; “the international academic meeting of special relativity and contemporaneity physics innovation” in Xi’an (China), October 11-13. Since 2004 in China, there have been several academic meetings opposing SRT .
Publications objecting to or surmounting SRT include: “Galilean Electrodynamics”, “Apeiron”, “Physics Essays”, and “Invention and Innovation”, etc..
There are several dozen websites about objecting to or surmounting SRT. There are more than 20 websites of representatives as the website of Beijing special relativity research sodality among them.
Recently, there are dozens of monographs to negative special relativity published at home.
7. The Argument Focus of SRT
Is SRT is right entirely, locally right and locally wrong, or wrong entirely?
The experts ‘mastering’ SRT think it is great scientific theory, a good foundation for today’s physics; it has been proved by experiment, and no serious error emerges. They think that whoever criticizes SRT is ‘propagandizing pseudoscience’.
Several scholars think there is something correct in SRT, but at the same time there is serious error; for example, deviation from fact, self-contradiction, puzzling mathematics. SRT is twisting experiment and misguiding practice, so its replacement should be actively sought.
Some scholars think SRT is built on the foundation of wrong mathematics and illusion. It is really a ‘tale of a tub’ about getting ‘experiment confirmation’.
8. The Theoretical Foundation of SRT
The error in SRT comes from its assertion of constant light speed. [1,2] The light-speed principle is: 1) light always propagates in empty space with a definite speed that is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body [1]; 2) light speed measured in vacuum is same for any of uniform rectilinear motion of the measurer.
There are two understandings of the principle of constant light speed, stated as follows:
1) In any inertial reference system, the light speed relative to the system is the same for light emitted by a lamp-house fixed to this system.
2) In any inertial reference systems in uniform rectilinear motion with respect to each other, the light speeds measured are the same for light emitted by same lamp-house.
The Lorentz coordinate transformation misunderstands the principle of constant light speed as: for a special light, in all inertial reference systems in uniform rectilinear motion with respect to each other, light speeds are the same relative to these inertial reference systems. This ignores the relative motion between different coordinate systems, which results in a series of falsehoods.
The light speed exists only as the speed of signal transfer in SRT, which has no use for any other special quality of light. Then, if light speed for signal transfer is replaced by speed of sound, and the principle of constant light speed is changed into a principle of constant sound speed, then the result would be that the speed of any object is less than sound speed. This is clearly absurd; a bullet’s speed is faster than sound speed, and a plane’s speed can exceed sound speed also.
Therefore, the theoretical foundation of SRT is wrong.
9. The Practical Foundation of SRT
1) For developing his space-time view, Einstein had only thought experiments, not real ones.
2) By analyzing data from more than 60 experiments ‘proving’ SRT, famous physical scientist W. Kantor came to the conclusion that they are all based on wrong methods and invalid logic. Professor Huang Zhixun of Communication University of China got the same result.
3) SRT cannot explain reasonably the light Doppler effect. The Doppler phenomenon is: Red-shift would emerge with a lamp-house leaving the observer. Whereas, Optical Doppler Blue-shift emerging. It would more be clear with higher relative speed.
4) Most supporters of SRT admit that heretofore there is no experiment observing Lorentz length contraction.
5) The public think it is a magnificent proof of SRT that the A-bomb detonated successfully. However, Thomson and Kaufmann have done many experiments and much theory research about the mass-velocity relation and mass-energy relation with others before SRT appeared in 1905. Austrian physicist Hasenohrl proved the direct proportion relation between mass increase with radiant energy, and got the famous formula: in 1904.
10. The Essence of SRT
1) ‘Relativity of simultaneity’ is a false proposition. It is gotten through secretly exchanging concepts, shifting premises, and confusing feeling and reality, reflection and actuality.
2) The mathematical foundation of SRT, namely Lorentz transformation, is a group of self-contradictory mathematical equations that have no scientific value.
3) SRT has not been proved using any experiment. Of the so-called ‘experimental confirmations’, some are spurious and some are coercively mislabeled as such.
SRT is is a kind of religion disguised as science.
11. SRT’s Harm to Science, Philosophy, Society
At all times, the experts of SRT allow that the common people cannot understand it. However, the common people have to believe it as a great truth. This is disrespecting the public wisdom. It has become a barrier to scientific development. From micro-world puzzling to cosmology confusion, disaster results.
At the present time, we have a vogue for colorful ideas coming from SRT; for example: “the 4th dimension of space”, “the time tunnel”, “big bang” and “black hole”, etc. All of them are the representative of a ghosts and gods theory; for example, Stephen Hawking said that he can play the cards with Newton and Einstein at the same table, the beautiful girl can flirt with the historical king through the time tunnel in science fiction movies.
The argument between SRT supporters and objectors is a battle between mentalism and materialism.
12. The Fate of SRT
1) Theoretical physicist Dr. J.P. Wesley said: ”The special relativity era has gone.” Science is facing a revolution that cannot be controlled by any force for all-time. In this scientific revolution, Chinese students have the ability, and the duty, to thrust our country into the world of advanced science and technology by seizing the lead in the fundamental sciences. China must follow a strategy of ‘national rejuvenation through science and education’.
2) There now exist the following conditions for overcoming SRT: a) Through education in materialism, seeking truth from facts and scientific development, a generation of scientists are brought up who realize the mistake and danger of SRT, and dare to challenge SRT. b) The policies of letting a hundred flowers blossom, letting a hundred schools of thought contend with each other, have created a good social environment for challenging SRT. c) Phenomena that the Newtonian space-time view had been proclaimed ‘unable to explain’, and so were only ‘explained’ with SRT and by SRT experts, can, after all, be explained with the Newtonian space-time view, and the explanation has no ‘paradoxes’ in it. d) The development of internet technology provides a wide stage for spreading academic thought.
3) It takes a long time to overthrow SRT only because: a) 100 years of drumbeating has caused a profound influence on the public. b) SRT supporters whose occupation is propagandizing SRT dominate academia. c) Most people do not understand or worry about SRT.
13. Space-Time and Mass-Energy Views of
Materialism
In order to restore and develop the materialistic space-time view and mass energy view, it must abandon the idealistic space-time view and mass energy view of special relativity.
1) Time is one of material existent forms. It is duration and sequence of a matter motion process. It is the objective existence, not relying on people’s consciousness, and is eternal. Time is unidirectional, evenly passes, endlessly.
2) Space is one of material existent forms. It is infinite and boundless. Space is three dimensional and isotropic.
3) Mass is one of material essential attributes. It is the quantity of an object containing matter. Matter with zero mass is not existent. If something is a matter, its mass must be bigger than zero.
4) Energy is the motion-state attribute of matter. The material energy has several kinds of existences forms. Under the certain condition, the material energy may transform mutually between the different forms, but the total energy is invariable.
5) Relation of time and space: time is time and space is space, they are both objective. Time is not a function of space and space is not a function of time. They are both fundamental elements of describing the material world, and can no longer change after being defined.
6) Relation of energy and quality: the quality is quality and the energy is energy. They are both fundamental elements of describing matter, and cannot transform mutually.
7) Mathematical space and physical space are different. In mathematics, a multi-dimensional variable may be described as existing in multi-dimensional space. In physics, we have one-dimensional space (line), two-dimensional space (surface) and three-dimensional spaces (body), but no higher dimensional space (not including time). The multi-dimensional space of mathematics cannot be transplanted directly to physics except if it is smaller than or equal to three dimensions, which correspond in mathematics and physics.
8) Atomic energy. Atomic energy comes from internal energy of atoms. Mass and energy shift together. An object releasing energy reduces its mass and energy. An object receiving energy increases its energy and mass. The process of emitting atomic energy from an object is the same as a gun shooting a bullet, with mass and energy shifts together.
References
[.1.] A. Einstein. On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies. The Principle of Relativity, Methuen and Company Ltd. of London, 1923.
[.2.] Cheng Shouzhu, Jiang Zhiyong. General Physics. People’s Education Publishing House, Beijing, 1978:231-132.
[.3.] Yue Zongwu. Relativity in Philosophy. Studies of Dialectics of Nature, 1956.
[.4.] Huang Zhengxin. Comment on Einstein “Velocity of Light Limit Theory”. Physics, 1975, 4(1-6).
[.5.] Ni Guangjiong. Opinions on Special Relativity. Physics, 1976, (1-6).
[.6.] Lan Qun. Study on Relativity Space-Time Concept Limit. Journal of Lanzhou University (Natural Science Edition), 1976, (3-4).
[.7.] Xu Liangying. On Some of Einstein’s Study Issues. Studies in the History of Natural Sciences, 1982, (1-4).
[.8.] Lu Lvhua. Einstein’s Prejudice. Science Times, 1982, (4).
[.9.] Chen Mingzhao. Challenge Einstein. UFO Exploration, 1982, (6).
[10] Fan Fengxiang. Einstein is Facing Challenge. Scientific Times, 1983, (4).
[11] Qu Jingcheng. Einstein and German Anti-Relativity [12]Movement. Journal of Natural Dialectic, 1983, (4).
[12] Zhang Shijie. Generalized Relativity Being Hackled. Journal of Yunnan University (Natural Science Edition), 1984, (3).
[13] Gao Yaping. Space-Time Picture can not Deduce SR. Journal of Physics Teaching, 1984, (3).
[14] Qin Rongxian. New Discussion on Gravity: Relativity Encounters Challenge. Encyclopedic Knowledge,1984, (4).
[15] Qu Jingcheng, Xu Liangying. The First Observe and Study on the Animadversion on Einstein as well as His Relativity in Chinese Great Cultural Revolution Period. Journal of Natural Dialectic, 1984, (6).
[16] Li Xingmin. Does Mach oppose Relativity? Studies of Dialectics of Nature, 1987, (12).
[17] Dong Guangbi. Why does Mach Refuse Relativity? Studies of Dialectics of Nature, 1988, (1-4).
[18] Fang Xuanchang. How Far could Relativity Still Go? Digest of Science and Technology, 2000, (11).
[19] Xu Shaozhi. The Mathematic Basis of Relativity is Wrong. Invention and Innovation, 2001, (1):32-33.
[20] Xu Shaozhi. To look at Scientific Platform, New Events Happen in China. Invention and Innovation, 2001, (2):34-35.
[21] Chen Zongyi, “My View on SR”, Invention and Innovation, 2002, (1).
[22] Xu Shaozhi, “Misunderstandings on Mass-Energy Relations”, Invention and Innovation, 2002, (2):32.
[23] Xu Shaozhi, Xiang Qun. Generalized Relativity Is So Different From Science. Invention and Innovation (3): 30-31 (2002).
[24] Xu Runsheng. SR Goes Against Factuality Principles. Invention and Innovation, 2002, (10):32.
[25] Zhu Jidong. Discussing the Fundament of the Experiment about the Special Relativity. Journal of Shanghai University of Electric Power, 2003, 19(3):57-60.
[26] Cui Jidong. On China’s Own Innovation Way -Impressions of Reading “Rethought on Relativity”. Invention and Innovation, 2003, (3):34.
[27] Lei Yuanxing. Criticizing Voice on Relativity is Worth Analyzing in Two Ways-The First Impression of “Rethought on Relativity”. Invention and Innovation, 2003, (3):37.
[28] Huang Zhixun. Theoretical Development and Experimental Examinations in Special Relativity. Engineering Science, 2003, 5(5):8-12.
[29] Liu Dayi. A Debate between Relativity and the Concept of Classics’ Space-Time & Matter. Invention and Innovation, 2003, (9):36.
[30] Xiang Qun. Do Away with Superstitious and Read Relativity Cautiously. Invention and Innovation, 2003, (10):36.
[31] Liu Dayi. Making Zero Divisor Is a Math’s Mistake. Invention and Innovation, 2003, (10):37.
[32] Huang Demin. On the Essence of Physical phenomenon –Matter Effect Study Challenges Relativity. Shanxi Science and Technology Publishing House, 2001.
[33] Song Zhenghai, Fan Dajie, Xu Shaozhi, Hao Jianyu. Rethinking on Relativity. Earthquake Publishing House, 2001.
[34] Qi Ji. New Physics. Publishing House of Northeast Forestry University, 2003
[35] Qi Xin. Wiser than Einstein. www.eshunet.com. (Electronic Books ).
[36] http://www.xdlbj.com
[37] http://www.dyntm.com
[38] http://www.physicswd.com
[39] The First Annual Collection of Beijing Relativity Study Sodality, Beijing, 2003.
[40] Discussing Corpus on Relativity and Modern Physics Innovation International Conference, Xi’an, 2003.
[41] Kong Xiaoning. Natural Duty-Listen Respectfully Academician Song Jian Words. China Daily, 2005-01-12.
[42] Fu Yihua. A Brief Introduction on China’s Studying and Challenging Relativity at Present. The Third Annual Conference of Beijing’s Relativity Study Sodality, Beijing, 2005.
[43] Chen Yiwen. Attending the 18th Hadron Mechanics International Symposium Report with Chinese Mathematician Jiang Chunxuan. The Third Annual Conference of Beijing’s Relativity Study Sodality, Beijing, 2005.
[44] Li Zifeng. Special Relativity Being from Misunderstanding of Principle of Constant Speed of Light. Finding, 2005, Supplement: 128-132.
Lead Author’s Biography
Li Zifeng is a professor of Yanshan University, China, SPE member and a member of Petroleum Society of Canada. Before joining Yanshan University, he was first a professor of Daqing Petroleum Institute and then a professor of China University of Geosciences. He has published 70 papers and 4 books on drill string, casing, rod pumping mechanics & well bore stability. He holds a BS degree in drilling engineering and an MS degree in machinery engineering from Daqing Petroleum Institute and a PhD degree in petroleum development engineering from Petroleum University, China.

[5楼] 作者:平阳睡狮发表时间: 2007/08/24 20:12

[加为好友][发送消息][个人空间]

回复修改来源删除

我在认真研读了李子丰教授等学者的系列论文之一《狭义相对论的本质及对科学哲学和社会的影响》后的最大感觉是：读此一篇文，胜比十年书，确实可以从中获得很多有价值的信息。优势勿言，直击软肋，请重点关注和思考以下内容（针对原文各小标题）：

前言据我所知，即便是狭义相对论，在我国的大学理科和工科教学中，大都属于选修课，除非必须涉及到理论物理学的相关专业，因此，可以判定大多数大学理科和工科的学生未必真能受到过关于狭义相对论的课堂教育。狭义相对论的时空质能观对辩证唯物主义哲学的影响是相当大的，因为在关于辩证唯物主义的教材中，狭义相对论的时空质能观做为支持论据经常要被引用到，而辩证唯物主义又是指导我们形成世界观的主流思想。究竟是谁最先、为什么要把狭义相对论的时空质能观视为辩证唯物主义的思想成果？我无能力去考察。

1 在爱因斯坦发表关于狭义相对论的第一篇论文《论动体的电动力学》百年之际，国际物理学界举行了多种形式的纪念活动，这表明，狭义相对论迄今仍然是得到物理学界大多数人士高度重视和充分肯定的，就象1999年，爱因斯坦被当今世界的一流物理学家们高票评选为物理学史上的第一贡献者一样。我们绝对不能轻易认为那些被公认的当今世界的一流物理学家们比我们这些非物理学专业的研究者的智商水平和判断能力还差。

2 爱因斯坦以及他的相对论之所以能够扬名世界、家喻户晓，最初是因为爱丁顿证实发生日食时星光存在光线偏折的现象得到了物理学界权威人士的高度评价和大众媒体的疯狂炒作。长期以来，质疑和反对相对论的物理学界人士和物理学爱好者虽然不少，但是迄今并没有制造出能够真正彻底摧毁相对论的有力武器来，也只能被称为百战未胜、至死不屈的勇敢战士而已。

3、4、5、6 因为狭义相对论较广义相对论容易被学习，所有人们对狭义相对论也敢于发表各自的观点。我们从初中阶段开始学习的就是以牛顿力学为代表的传统物理学，我们的物理学思想也必然更容易受到传统物理学思想的左右。在此引用一下四川大学物理与技术学院的博士生导师吕教授的话：“相对论是建立在大量实验基础上的，理论上谁都可说它对或错，但它对错的关键是，能否找到一个自然现象或一个实验和它矛盾，如果能找到，可以顺着这个方向研究下去，如果找不到，仅从理论上去论证它对或错意义不大。”

7、8 有些人认为相对论的错误在其理论基础上，但是我们似乎一直难以从狭义相对论的物理学基础——相对性原理、光速不变原理和数学基础——洛仑兹变换上找到破绽。相对性原理很容易得到公认，无需赘述。我们知道，牛顿定律在伽利略变化条件下满足相对性原理，麦克斯韦方程组在洛仑兹变化条件下满足相对性原理。关于声学的波动方程是否也需要满足相对性原理？这个问题似乎一直没有受到人们的关注。光速不变原理并非爱因斯坦的主观臆断，因为麦克斯韦方程组要满足相对性原理，必须使用洛仑兹变换，真空中的光速在这种变换条件下保持不变又是必然的结论，所以如果认为光速可变，就只能到客观事实中去寻找确切证据。将洛仑兹变换中的光速改为声速，维相派和反相派都不愿意接受，怕得出极其荒谬的结论。因为人类早已制造超声速飞机，子弹飞离枪口的速度也高于通常条件下的声速。飞机和子弹的飞行速度真的已经超过声速了吗？我举一个通俗的例子来否定它：在过独木桥时，你能超过你前面的人吗？即使他走的比你稍慢一些。声音是携带能量的，飞机和子弹能吸收跑在它前面的声音的能量吗？如果能吸收跑在它前面的声音的能量，就肯定能超过跑在它前面的声音。

技术靠科学来指导，科学靠技术来完善。即使相对论错了，这也无妨科学技术的健康发展。我们完全可以另起炉灶，创立新的物理学理论来取代相对论。同样一个客观现象，你说我的解释是错误的，难道你的解释就肯定正确吗？这尚需要第三人来做出评判，因为你我并没有最终的裁决权。

9、10 凡是能支持狭义相对论的科学实验和思想实验都不能使反相者感到满意，但是也没有更好的理论能够自洽地解释这些科学实验或者合理地驳斥这些思想实验。

11、12 传统物理学在逻辑上是否存在痼疾？我认为是肯定存在的。它的痼疾隐藏在哪里？我觉得就隐藏在声速可变的传统观念上。究竟哪个科学实验确凿证明声速可变了？虽然我没有大量查阅资料，但是我敢于肯定，从来就没有，都是逻辑臆断的。如果真做这样的科学实验，我完全相信会和迈莫实验一样，也得出“零”结论。因为传统物理学本身尚不完善，而且也没有任何科学实验的结论被确凿无疑地证明与相对论的结论相悖，所以对于反相者而言，推翻相对论还需要制定新的战略和策略。只有找出自身不足并加以改正，才能真正降服和最终消灭对手。

13 牛顿时空质能观早在辩证唯物主义哲学中成为了被批判的对象，恢复牛顿时空质能观就等于辩证唯物主义哲学进行自我否定。对于时空质能及其相互关系，给出这样简单的定义和结论，即使在基本原则上，也未必令人信服。

作者:
密码:
	游客来访
请输入验证:		刷新验证码
更换马甲注册用户提交

精彩推荐>>