你来咖啡店好多次,我都没来得及招呼你。今天整理咖啡店帖子,翻出来您的旧帖子,觉得您是个蛮有趣的人。您怎么找到我这里的呢?
- Re: 彭大泽先生在吗?posted on 12/13/2006
拉倒吧还是,,,,,我特地翻出来看了看,才知道什么叫标准的伪科学,,,“大胆假设,小心求证”,有人假设的时候够大胆,可却不见求证就自称是“真理”,真是对大众小众们智力的侮辱。我就奇怪,这种人才怎么净出现在四川呢?
我要是方舟子也不会理他的,档次太低。还是七格说的对,一直没在这里遇到他,挺想他老人家的。 - posted on 12/14/2006
”这种人才怎么净出现在四川呢?”燃灯,你也逗,当心,咖啡店里多一半儿的跟四川有关系,你得去换个硬点儿的脑壳儿来。咖啡店最近总有人嘀嘀咕咕说这里太软了。
他没说自己的是真理吧,大胆假设总该不错的,况且人家自称只是民科嘛,我自己乱想想都不行吗? 具体的考证该是科学院的工作,谁付给我工资让我去证明了?我总觉得那些有权威的什么科学院就是太限制人乱想了。他们不愿想,那就让别人乱想想,他们去求证嘛。
我小的时候要是我的数学物理老师有这么逗就好了。当年的那几个老师都是死气沉沉的,要不,我也不会这么恨数理化。
阿拉丁燃灯 wrote:
拉倒吧还是,,,,,我特地翻出来看了看,才知道什么叫标准的伪科学,,,“大胆假设,小心求证”,有人假设的时候够大胆,可却不见求证就自称是“真理”,真是对大众小众们智力的侮辱。我就奇怪,这种人才怎么净出现在四川呢? - posted on 12/14/2006
也难怪,原来玛雅这么痛恨数理化,嘿嘿,,,,,
无论是牛顿还是爱因斯坦,哪个科学假说刚出来的时候不是:“有数学公式足以解释以往观测到的成果,同时又有推论等待得到未来观测结果的验证”?这一点儿常识不用专门学理工的,只要看看科普读物就能知道。
一个学说,其实还处在假设阶段,一个数学公式没有、一个推论没有,就已经发表出来了,很多媒体都刊登了,好,那就等着时间验证好了(其实没有推论的假说又如何验证?),也没人去迫害他、非要把他拉进宗教裁判所(人家只是不理他),是他自己非得四处游说、非要人家接受不可,否则人家就对不起他了,,,,,
你见过人家哥白尼开普勒牛顿伽利略这样了?
这真的是100%的中国特色。别说,一半以上是四川的。 - posted on 12/14/2006
小时候在飞碟探索上看到一种假说,大陆民间人士提出来的,说是可能太阳系的行星定期依次撞向太阳,造成了周期性的吞噬-爆发,金星的今天就是地球的明天,火星的今天就是地球的昨天…………个人觉得挺有道理的,和“太阳伴星”假说一样,都可以比较好的解释过去发生的现象。
假说既然提出来了,就等着将来有新的观测结果验证好了,何必非得缠着人家要人家一定要信?(何况你这万有斥一说只是一个idea,一个念头而以,连个可供验证的推论都没有)
说句不好听的,“只有谎言才拼命鼓吹,唯恐别人不信。”
头壳不够硬,所以闪了先,呵呵,,,*_* - Re: 彭大泽先生在吗?posted on 12/14/2006
燃灯的帖子都是一个贴N遍, 是否也叫做道理不够嗓门来凑?
彭大泽先生的理论以前也批过, 但一落笔我就顿时心虚, 我觉得他的用意已经不在于推翻牛顿本人, 而是牛顿馈送我们的惯性. :))
在下也是四川人, 脑壳有包但不算硬, 报名一个先. - posted on 12/14/2006
尊敬的玛雅:您好!
刚好溜进来觑觑, 以前的回答难道你没有看到嗦:
“尊敬的玛雅: 你好。
都是我的亲笔,对不起了--如果我的发言与玛雅的宗旨相违的话。我并没有到处肇事,因为我懂事。对任何人来说,坚持真理都是很愉快的事,尤其这真理是自己提出来的。对媒体的态度我是“不上门也不关门”,对他人我总是与人为善。当我看见报上登了李铁军先生“杀头也要自己教女儿”的事后,写了信去规劝他让女儿读书。因为看见报纸上的照片他家中的墙上画满星座图,所以也随信附上了我的传单。重庆的记者在采访他时,他向记者说了我的情况,李早小姐在电话联系之后来成都作了采访。然后有重庆时报的一版报道并上了网。我自己在网上见到玛雅的报道后边有朱老剑客一句话,“帮帮他”,所以发生了和玛雅的来往。这些在网上皆有案可查,在我是抱着感激的心想向朱老剑客交流,但因不擅网谈,只能通过玛雅。我无意以悲苦状引人垂悯,最多只是想显摆一下文笔还可以入藏,当然,还有“民科”帽儿下的思维。皮蛋问题纠缠下去有点可笑,基于理性和宽容的大前提我就此打住:“请允许我告退,尊敬的夫人,我属于黑夜和死亡”(歌德《哥廷根的刽子手》),记不清楚原诗,想来玛雅人有读过的。即使皮蛋吼头被封起的是一丝屁,它仍然没有跑出“被封闭的气体”这个范围。
恭颂 时祺!
pengdaze 05/08/23 ”
我的Email是: pengdaze@163.com 而且前不久炒了些陈饭到贵坛朱老剑客的文章后面。 谨复,并颂网祺! 彭大泽:) 2006/12/14 - Re: 彭大泽先生在吗?posted on 12/14/2006
斥力这个概念不是新东西,尼采就提出过,和爱因斯坦讨论过相对论的英国科学家彭么也提到过。另外,HAWKING的时间简史也提到过。我估计在很早以前就有这个概念,虽然没早到哥达比拉斯时代。问题是,要有一个完善的斥力的数学模型,还得经过一些起码的试验检验和实际观察;这些东西没有人做到。不知道彭大泽先生怎么想的。
- Re: 彭大泽先生在吗?posted on 12/14/2006
要有一个完善的斥力的数学模型,
正解,此外,还要有“可供检验的推论”。
如果没有这两条,那就只是一个“想法”“念头”而已,连假说都算不上。
如果将来有人建立了完整的“斥力数学模型”,那这个学说也是人家创建的,而不是这个“想法”的首创者----他只是给人家启发了一下思路而已。
这里,N等于2, 嘻嘻,, *_* - Re: 彭大泽先生在吗?posted on 12/14/2006
要有一个完善的斥力的数学模型,
正解,此外,还要有“可供检验的推论”。
如果没有这两条,那就只是一个“想法”“念头”而已,连假说都算不上。
如果将来有人建立了完整的“斥力数学模型”,那这个学说也是人家创建的,而不是这个“想法”的首创者----他只是给人家启发了一下思路而已。
这里,N等于2, 嘻嘻,, *_* - Re: 彭大泽先生在吗?posted on 12/14/2006
“我要是方舟子也不会理他的,档次太低”
你要是把方舟子这样一根筋的人当根葱,你也要变成一根筋了。燃灯,读书也不能一根筋。 - Re: 彭大泽先生在吗?posted on 12/14/2006
玛雅 wrote:
燃灯,读书也不能一根筋。
开来还是不读书最好?脑子里干脆就没有筋 - Re: 彭大泽先生在吗?posted on 12/14/2006
我从来不称赞玛雅,因为称赞玛雅的人太多了。今天忍不住要赞一句,思路开放,心胸开敞,是大气象。
- Re: 彭大泽先生在吗?posted on 12/14/2006
俺知道这里方舟子的仇人多,,,可俺一直就是把方舟子当作一根葱的啊!
俺说的不是文学青年的方舟子,而是反伪战士的方舟子,,,,只是这一年来方的学阀学霸气息日浓,才令人反感罢了,,,
你要是把方舟子这样一根筋的人当根葱,你也要变成一根筋了。 - Re: 彭大泽先生在吗?posted on 12/14/2006
我自作多情, 怎么读出玛雅话里的双重含义? 一根筋也有褒扬方舟子的成分在里面吧? 要知道他是一人起家, 挑战的是一整个体制.
当然他现在是否有高人相助, 不得而知, 新语丝倒是保持了比较纯正的面目.
- Re: 彭大泽先生在吗?posted on 12/14/2006
俺这回知道Dinglin2的境界了,嘻嘻,,,, *_* - Re: 彭大泽先生在吗?posted on 12/14/2006
阿拉丁燃灯 wrote:
俺这回知道Dinling2的境界了,嘻嘻,,,, *_*
让你开心了一次是不是?
开心就好。看到你开心我也开心。 - Re: 彭大泽先生在吗?posted on 12/14/2006
王国维说读书三境界:一是独上高楼,望尽天涯路;二是衣带渐宽终不悔,为伊消得人憔悴,第三呢? 俺忘了,哪位给补上:) - Re: 彭大泽先生在吗?posted on 12/14/2006
"众里寻他千百度,蓦然回首,那人却在,灯火阑珊处"
废名兄, 此话出自<水浒>第五十六回, 你看漏了吧?
feiming wrote:
王国维说读书三境界:一是独上高楼,望尽天涯路;二是衣带渐宽终不悔,为伊消得人憔悴,第三呢? 俺忘了,哪位给补上:) - Re: 彭大泽先生在吗?posted on 12/14/2006
WOA wrote:
废名兄, 此话出自<水浒>第五十六回, 你看漏了吧?
连回数都记得,不得了! - Re: 彭大泽先生在吗?posted on 12/14/2006
真要搞笑起来, 姜还是老的辣, DL2利害.
印象中自立也不苟言笑, 但是偶露峥嵘就不得了, 所以现在我辈尚在"望尽天涯路"的初级阶段, 在这里的课还够得补!
DingLin2 wrote:
WOA wrote:连回数都记得,不得了!
废名兄, 此话出自<水浒>第五十六回, 你看漏了吧?
- Re: 彭大泽先生在吗?posted on 12/14/2006
阿拉丁燃灯 wrote:
俺知道这里方舟子的仇人多,,,可俺一直就是把方舟子当作一根葱的啊!
我跟老方没仇哈,燃灯不要挑拨我们多年的感情:)老方那种人是真正的名不虚传的名副其实(很多学问很大的“的”字),一点儿“伪”的都没有,名字、脸庞还有网上言行都是方的,很少见到那么方的脸,好像从正方形的模子里作出来的一样。 - Re: 彭大泽先生在吗?posted on 12/14/2006
其实俺只是搜索梦冉的时候偶然发现原来10年前好像有一桩梁子,还有个风月客帮主什么的写“诊舟子”“方舟子的故事汇编”把方一顿损,,,只是这个人似乎人品比较低下,,,,,
没读过方的文艺作品,对前辈文人间的争执是非也不感兴趣,对方舟子的了解仅限于反伪,但已足够让人称赞。俺说过的,益友里边有老子孔子和半个方舟子,只是人家牌大俺插不上嘴罢了,,,,如果方不出手,水电之争我也会出手的,好在他先出手,就轮不到我了。
- posted on 12/15/2006
斥力这个概念不是新东西,尼采就提出过,和爱因斯坦讨论过相对论的英国科学家彭么也提到过。另外,HAWKING的时间简史也提到过。我估计在很早以前就有这个概念,虽然没早到哥达比拉斯时代。问题是,要有一个完善的斥力的数学模型,还得经过一些起码的试验检验和实际观察;这些东西没有人做到。不知道彭大泽先生怎么想的。
彭大泽回答:
万有斥力概念是我在七九年七月廿八日晚上十一时许提出来的。迄今为止未在世界上查见有相同观点。我认为自然界中根本没有引力这种力的存在,所谓的引力这种表观现象其实是物体受到排斥的结果。古代曾有过冲力论,后来康德和爱因斯坦曾经用过“宇宙斥力”这个词来试图描述自然界中单纯用引力不能解释的现象,原文由于孤陋寡闻未见到,估计是用的是“cosmic repulsion”。而“universal repulsion”即我的斥力是万有斥力,不仅在宇宙大尺度上用以描述天体运动,在近距离上也完全能解释诸如苹果落地、潮汐、水向低处流等自然运动,而且科学、正确、自洽。实际上,每位记者来采访时我都一一作了证明的!他们均认为有道理!但是在报道中未提及,大概是因为对民科有某些条款规定,不作肯定的正面报道。再者,牛顿的数学公式是正确的、天才的、辉煌的!但是,他对物体受力的作用而运动的解释是根本错误了。他把两物体在宇宙中受到排斥而相向运动当成是这两个物体彼此相互吸引而运动,对力的实质作了极其错误的描述。本人的贡献在于第一个对人类喊出来:“没有引力!斥力万有!苹果是星星些推向地球的!”牛顿在观念上错凶了,由引力论推演、派生而来的东东当然也错了:包括相对论。我的“星光被斥力弯曲”纠正了对光偏移现象的误判,收到阿波罗十二号指令长康拉德的亲笔信,认为:“能够扩展人类的宇宙知识”。最令我得意的是将“黛安娜之诞生”奉献给了各位,完满地一举解决了困惑人类多年的太阳系的起源问题。地球自转公转、月球起源、行星运动、角动量分布不均等等大难题亦迎刃而解!或者我再发来各位看看?
感谢网络,让我有机会留此存照。我用真名,因为我为自己的真实思想负责。
感谢玛雅,也许会引起科学的关注。感谢各位,是这段历史的见证。
彭大泽 2006/12/15 - Re: 彭大泽先生在吗?posted on 12/15/2006
是,爱因斯坦摔了个跟头和地球翻过来砸了爱因斯坦一下,二者对爱因斯坦来说是一样的。 - Re: 彭大泽先生在吗?posted on 12/15/2006
大泽先生好,你讲的这些都让我晕。反正趁方脸先生不在,我们随便乱猜想哈。另外剑客是科学院物理所的,阿姗是研究天体物理的博士,咖啡店里好几个科大北大物理系毕业的,我们咖啡店不缺人才的。我们没有资金来建什么模型(我今天早上让一个超级天才建一个我性能力并与其是否性和谐的模型来着),那么就让我们都瞎想想吧,直到气死牛顿把他从地狱里拉起来活埋为止。 - posted on 12/15/2006
燃灯你看你,把老方这么出众的人跟什么梁子结上了哈,根本没有的哈。梦冉姐我不知道了,但我跟老方都是当年的难友来着,怎么的都是同窗之同窗的,好着呢,就是烦他方着。
阿拉丁燃灯 wrote:
其实俺只是搜索梦冉的时候偶然发现原来10年前好像有一桩梁子,还有个风月客帮主什么的写“诊舟子”“方舟子的故事汇编”把方一顿损,,,只是这个人似乎人品比较低下,,,,,
没读过方的文艺作品,对前辈文人间的争执是非也不感兴趣,对方舟子的了解仅限于反伪,但已足够让人称赞。俺说过的,益友里边有老子孔子和半个方舟子,只是人家牌大俺插不上嘴罢了,,,,如果方不出手,水电之争我也会出手的,好在他先出手,就轮不到我了。
- posted on 12/15/2006
这是我从CND网站上搬过来的。你可以去查查,是不是至少在1932年就有人提斥力了。尼采在“价值重估的尝试”里,提到过斥力,记得在他之前有人提过,是不是黑格尔还是康德,我记不太清楚了。 Nathan 12/14/2006 晚九点十分,美国东部时间。
-----------------
1. 在1932年 A.S.爱丁顿 著 《膨胀的宇宙》中有一段话:“我们至今所能达到的最远的距离为1.5亿光年,但在这个距离内我们已经发现天体在分散着,好像是受了一种扩散力似的。我们暂时在这里这样结论,宇宙斥力已获得胜利,而支配着扩散。” 冯天岳认为这个力的戴体是质量,力的大小正比于质量的乘积。这是受万有引力定律和库仑定律的启发;以及,只有物质才能产生力的这种概念。然后用r的其它的数学形式,如指数,对数等等进行初步计算,很快就能发现与现有的天文观测不符,只有用r的一次方进行计算,才能接近观测数据。用斥力圆满的解释了类星体的高红移,并建立起后星系宇宙模型。每当遇到计算与观测不符时,我总是坚信计算有误,果然能找到错误所在,看来信念是多么重要。
2. HAWKINS “时间简史”
第一章
甚至那些意识到牛顿的引力理论导致宇宙不可能静止的人,也没有想到提出宇宙可能是在膨胀。相反的,他们试图修正理论,使引力在非常大距离时成为斥力。这会对 行星运动的预言有重大的影响,然而却允许无限颗恒星的分布保持平衡──邻近恒星之 间的吸引力被远隔恒星之间的斥力所平衡。然而,现在我们知道,这样的平衡是不稳定 的:如果某一区域内的恒星稍微互相靠近一些,引力就增强,并超过斥力的作用,这样 这些恒星就会继续落到一起。反之,如果某一区域内的恒星稍微互相远离一些,斥力就 起主导作用,并驱使它们离得更开。
第二章
1915年之前,空间和时间被认为是事件在其中发生的固定舞台,而它们不受在其中发生的事件的影响。即便在狭义相对论中,这也是对的。物体运动,力相互吸引并排斥, 但时间和空间则完全不受影响地延伸著。空间和时间很自然地被认为无限地向前延伸。
3. 印度的玩艺儿 - CRAZY CLAIMS BY INDIANS
THEY CLAIMED THEY OBSERVED REPULSION FORCE!
http://www.strepulsion.com/21.htm
Repulsion Force
Strepulsion And Retraction Forces:
The Discovery Of Two Universal Forces To Navigate The Solar System
By Navin and Pankaj, Astrophysicists
International Astrophysical Research Centre (IARC) Hubli, India Navin and Pankaj, Astrophsicists, from Hubli, India have discovered the Universal Repulsion Force. This is the greatest force in the universe still unknown to the science world. The discovery proves that Newton-Einstein's universal gravitational theories are wrong. Stellar bodies (the sun and stars) exert repulsion force, not gravitation. Gravitation is the weakest force and is exerted by the non-stellar (planetary state) bodies only. Stellar repulsion is the dominating force of the universe. It is possible to utilise solar repulsion force for interplanetary space navigation under the new space technology established by the authors and titled 'Sorlod-Space-System (SSS)'.
SSS can lead present space programs ahead by a century.
4. 不知名人士的文摘 - SOME ARTICLES BY UNKONWN AUTHORS
A。The Universal Laws of Gravity and Repulsion Particles
COPYRIGHT BY http://www.grantchronicles.com/astro09.htm, 2000 AND 2004。
There are far more on Repulsion Force.
pengdaze wrote:
斥力这个概念不是新东西,尼采就提出过,和爱因斯坦讨论过相对论的英国科学家彭么也提到过。另外,HAWKING的时间简史也提到过。我估计在很早以前就有这个概念,虽然没早到哥达比拉斯时代。问题是,要有一个完善的斥力的数学模型,还得经过一些起码的试验检验和实际观察;这些东西没有人做到。不知道彭大泽先生怎么想的。
彭大泽回答:
万有斥力概念是我在七九年七月廿八日晚上十一时许提出来的。迄今为止未在世界上查见有相同观点。我认为自然界中根本没有引力这种力的存在,所谓的引力这种表观现象其实是物体受到排斥的结果。古代曾有过冲力论,后来康德和爱因斯坦曾经用过“宇宙斥力”这个词来试图描述自然界中单纯用引力不能解释的现象,原文由于孤陋寡闻未见到,估计是用的是“cosmic repulsion”。而“universal repulsion”即我的斥力是万有斥力,不仅在宇宙大尺度上用以描述天体运动,在近距离上也完全能解释诸如苹果落地、潮汐、水向低处流等自然运动,而且科学、正确、自洽。实际上,每位记者来采访时我都一一作了证明的!他们均认为有道理!但是在报道中未提及,大概是因为对民科有某些条款规定,不作肯定的正面报道。再者,牛顿的数学公式是正确的、天才的、辉煌的!但是,他对物体受力的作用而运动的解释是根本错误了。他把两物体在宇宙中受到排斥而相向运动当成是这两个物体彼此相互吸引而运动,对力的实质作了极其错误的描述。本人的贡献在于第一个对人类喊出来:“没有引力!斥力万有!苹果是星星些推向地球的!”牛顿在观念上错凶了,由引力论推演、派生而来的东东当然也错了:包括相对论。我的“星光被斥力弯曲”纠正了对光偏移现象的误判,收到阿波罗十二号指令长康拉德的亲笔信,认为:“能够扩展人类的宇宙知识”。最令我得意的是将“黛安娜之诞生”奉献给了各位,完满地一举解决了困惑人类多年的太阳系的起源问题。地球自转公转、月球起源、行星运动、角动量分布不均等等大难题亦迎刃而解!或者我再发来各位看看?
感谢网络,让我有机会留此存照。我用真名,因为我为自己的真实思想负责。
感谢玛雅,也许会引起科学的关注。感谢各位,是这段历史的见证。
彭大泽 2006/12/15 - posted on 12/15/2006
我不是想打击彭大泽先生的思考积极性。我只是想提醒你,应该先把来龙去脉搞清楚。当然,你可以独立思考不管别人是不是已经想过了。但是,了解别人的想法会对你自己的思考有正面的帮助。你可以自信地说牛顿爱因斯坦都错了,但是,你必需得有套理论模型,然后用天体观测的数据来验证这模型是不是对,是不是比牛顿的模型预测天体运行更精确。如果没作这些,那当然没有专业人员信服。记者都是些皮毛之徒,他们不能当科学的证人。
好,我找到了尼采提到“斥力”的地方:是在“重估一切价值的尝试”的第七节。
现在引用如下(619据说是尼采妹妹加的):Nathan 11/14/2006.
〈619〉
我们的物理学家用以创造了上帝和世界的那个无往不胜的“力”的概念,仍须加以
充实。因为,必须把一种内在的意义赋予这个概念,我称之为“权力意志”,即贪
得无厌地要求显示权力,或者,作为创造性的本能来运用、行使权力,等等。物理
学家根据自己的原则无法摆脱“远距效应”,同样,也难以摆脱排斥力(或吸引力)
的局限。这些东西毫无用处,因为人们应当把一切运动、一切“现象”、一切“法
则”统统理解为内在现象的象征。为了达到这个终极目的,应当使用人的类比。动
物具有的一切欲望,也可以说成是“权力意志”派生出来的;有机生命的一切功能
也来自同一源泉。 - posted on 12/15/2006
NOTE BY NATHAN: 万有斥力是康德从二律背反的理性思维提岀的课题。但是力学领域的权威们到目前为止否认斥力。
黑格尔:“引力概念本身包含着自为存在和扬弃自为存的连续性两个环节。…那就是它们被理解为分离的力,相当于吸引力与排斥力,在更为精细的规定中,它们被理解为向心力与离心力,而这些分离的力象引力一样,…”《自然哲学》第85页。
黑格尔:“虚空,所谓原子的另一补充原则,实即是斥力自身,不过被表像为各原子间存在着的虚无罢了。…象近代科学这样于斥力之外假设一个引力与之并列,如是则两者的对立诚然完全确立起来了,而且对于这种所谓自然力量的发现,还是科学界颇足自豪之事。但两种力量相互关系,亦即使两者成为具体而真实的力量的相互关系,尚须自其隐晦的紊乱中拯救出来,此种紊乱即在康德的《自然科学的形而上学原理》里,也未能加以廓清。”《小逻辑》第215页。
黑格尔:“这不能不归功于康德,康德完成了物质的理论,因为他认为物质是斥力和引力的统一。他的理论的正确之处,在于他承认引力为包含在自为存在概念中的第一个环节,因而确认引力为物质的构成因素,与斥力有同等重要性。但他这种所谓力学的物质构造,仍不免有一缺陷,那就是,他只是直接假定了斥力与引力为当前存在的,而未进一步加以逻辑的推演。有了这种推演,我们才可以理解这两种力如何并为什么会统一,而不再独断地肯定人它们的统一了。康德虽曾明白地再三叮咛说,我们决不可认物质为独立存在,好象只是后来偶然地具有刚才所提及的两种力量,而是须将物质认作纯全为两种力的统一所构成。”《小逻辑》第216页。
黑格尔:“在相互作用里,因果关系虽说尚未达到它的真实规定,但那种由因到果和由果到因向外伸展直线式的无穷进程,已得到真正的扬弃,而绕回转变为圆圈式的过程,因而返回到自身来了。” 《小逻辑》,第319页。
- Re: 彭大泽先生在吗?posted on 12/15/2006
彭大泽(垂头丧气):我说的是万有斥力, 不是斥力。 斥力、宇宙斥力和我的万有斥力观念是三个不同的概念!!! 酱紫说永远扯不到正题上。
彭大泽 :( 2006/12/15 - posted on 12/15/2006
真的好想把牛顿起死回生!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
一个天才犯的天大的错误让人类固步自封这么多年,牛顿真是太伟大了。气煞老夫罗!!! 旧信附奉,愿有食髓知味的天文学家认真一读。 彭大泽
飞飞: 您好!吸引与排斥是两个绝对矛盾、绝对对立、绝对不同的运动形式!推与拉能同时同位存在于同一物体吗?显然不能。万有斥力也不可以包含万有引力,同理。问题在于人类从牛顿开始便把两个物体受到排斥而产生的运动错误地当成是这两个物体彼此之间在主动吸引对方,这是多么荒唐的见解!牛顿之伟大在于他天才正确地将两个物体之间作用力的大小计算方法贡献给了人类,在计算数据上是对的,正确的,伟大的。但是,请原谅,多么荒唐的伟大!牛顿的信徒们否认了太阳、否认了银河、否认了河外星系,一句话,他们否认了宇宙。只有在把更高一级天体的运动及作用否认掉,两个苹果才可能在虚幻空旷中相互靠拢:哪怕相距十万八千米。即使这样,还是说不出这两个太空中的苹果为什么要向对方靠拢,是什么原因使其靠拢对方的。而且,如果半道上出现另一个大一点的第三者时,这两个彼此吸引着的苹果马上会转向投靠新欢。多么可笑的谬论,多么伟大的荒唐!!!目前人类基于牛顿引力论的对自然界中的天体运动的解释结论都是完全错误的!比如潮汐,比如红移,比如书落地,比如光偏移......明明是推的结果,硬说是拉的原因,人类错得太凶了!只要轻轻一回头,马上前进一大步,而且是向正确方向前进。除了重新解释自然现象之外,我的太阳系起源说更是最高级的奉献:人类社会迄今为止还没有一个得到公认的太阳系起源学说。可惜“百啭无人能解”,所以强调再三:一定要完全彻底否认“吸引”这个万有引力的最基本的观念!!!绝对不能搞平衡、讲包容、谈共存!中庸之路是没有的,万有斥力才是支配天体运动的唯一基本作用力。斥力至上,斥力唯一,斥力创世!甚至可以振臂高呼:
“万有斥力,万物之理!”
打油一首,附奉。并颂 时祺!
彭大泽 拜发 2005/11/27
五九述怀 (上周满五十九岁,开始吃六十的饭了)
依违野狗先知间 (野狗,自况。见以前旧信)
荷戟独战廿六年 (七九年七月廿八日至今已经二十又六年了)
总有云消日出时
万有斥力开新天
- Re: 彭大泽先生在吗?posted on 12/15/2006
你没见到我第三贴说是万有斥力吗?康德早就提出万有斥力的概念了,虽然是从哲学的角度提出来的。我再说一遍:你得搞一套数学理论模型,然后用观测数据来验证。我不是打击你的积极性,我确实是给你提个好的建议。
pengdaze wrote:
彭大泽(垂头丧气):我说的是万有斥力, 不是斥力。 斥力、宇宙斥力和我的万有斥力观念是三个不同的概念!!! 酱紫说永远扯不到正题上。
彭大泽 :( 2006/12/15 - Re: 彭大泽先生在吗?posted on 12/15/2006
可不可以请彭 大 泽先生 解释一下什么是相对论, 科学不仅仅是描述~~ - Re: 彭大泽先生在吗?posted on 12/16/2006
尊敬Nathan先生:
经提醒,读了那篇印度天体物理学家的文摘。他说他发现的是星际斥力(原文strepulsion),他认为对地球等小天体万有引力还是适用的,当然与我的绝对排斥的观点不同。用搜索查得到七九年前与我的观点相同的吗?根本否认引力的观点我当时没查到(当时也没有电脑,只有四大文摘,从PA中找了好多天文打客头的地址寄信去啊!那黑儿才两角一封),现在也没有见到。
谢谢,并颂网祺!
彭大泽 2006/12/16 - posted on 12/16/2006
Dear Mr.Nathan:
Greetings from PengDaze's desk and I've sent my papers to the Indian scientist Navin for their comments on my theory of universal repulsion. Please read the copy of my email and thank you for your information.
Yours sincerely,
Peng Daze
December 16,2006
Dear Dr.Navin:
Greetings from Peng Daze's desk , Chengdu, China.
Please read my papers and letters about my effort "the theory of universal repulsion" and send me your comment on it.
Best wishes to you, Padma, Pankaj, and your research centre and hope to hear from you soon.
Sincerely yours,
Peng Daze
P.S.
Please contact me at my Email: pengdaze@163.com
November 10, 2004
Dear Sir or Madam:
My name is Peng Daze, 57, an amateur astronomer in China. The message appears on your eyes is my Theory of Universal Repulsion.
The history of man’s knowledge opens a new page. Thunders roll. It’s the thunderclap of the New Century and the New Millennium. Man scans widely on the galaxies billions of light-years away after the Moon conquered and roams in the space. Man takes the reins of the most delicate tiny mysteries of microcosmos by means of anatomize gene and clone life. Many persons of ideals and integrities payout their hardships, sweat and toil even their lives for man’s progress.
In year of 1543, Copernicus set up his heliocentric system to challenge the traditional geocentric system. In year of 1600, Bruno, the championship of heliocentric system, was burned in Campo de’ Fiori Square of Roma under the accusation of heresy. In year of 1633, Galileo was adjudged criminality for he insisted on that the earth is moving. The theory of heliocentric system becomes a milestone on man’s knowledge nowadays and everybody knows that a revolution of the earth round the sun makes a year.
In year of 1687, Newton’s magnificent Law of Gravitation established the bedrock of modern astronomy. The theory of universal gravitation is esteemed the trump by man to understand nature and explore the universe.
But man has not educed the correct solution of the causation of his own planet’s moving. There is not an accepted correct theory for the origin of solar system. It is imputed that the concept of universal attractive force is an astronomical error although this error is magnificent and grandeur. The cacodoxy of universal attractive force leads an astronomical directional error for man’s nature exploring.
I set up the concept of universal repulsion at July 28, 1979 and a phoenix theory for the origin of solar system was educed in December 18, 2004.
“There is no natural force of attraction in nature. The concept of universal gravitation isn’t a correct one in the field of science. The basic interaction between masses is pure and absolute repellent. To repel or to be repelled is the only mode of motion of matter. The repulsion and the movement are consequence each other. Every natural motion is the result of repulsion: The apples fall, the celestial bodies moving, the raise of tide, and the bent of starlight, etc., every phenomenon isn’t caused by gravitation but repulsion…”
Man must sublate the wrong concept of universal gravitation which misled the field of astronomy for three hundred years.
The Universe has its criterion anew. The celestial bodies move under the new rule anew. The sun is lighted up anew.
The great snafu awakens the deaf, enlighten the benighted from the age-old and modern times. It results a contribution that remarkably original and forceful.
Thunders roll. It’s the thunderclap of the New Century and the New Millennium.
A new page is added in hundreds-year long history of man’s nature exploring and understanding.
Would you support Copernicus if you were lived in 1500s?
Would you accept the concept of universal repulsion and sublate the concept of universal gravitation in this scientific century of 2000s? Of course, it needs the scientific estimation and courage in the protection or accepting of truth and I am looking forward to your sagacious and clear comment on my theory.
Would you sponsor Copernicus if you were lived in 1500s?
Would you be kind to tell me your academic comment on my theory and help me to make an astronomical progress for mankind in this scientific 2000s?
Thank you and hope to hear from you.
Sincerely yours,
Peng Daze
Senior Member, American Astronautical Society (1980)
Senior Fellow, Alaska Academy of Sciences (1984)
E-mail: pengdaze@163.com
Address: Peng Daze, #65-1 Zhimin Lu, Chengdu, 610021 P.R.China
The Theory of Universal Repulsion
Peng Daze
I set up the concept of universal repulsion on July 28, 1979. I affirm that the concept of "universal gravitation" isn't a correct one in the field of science. There is no natural force of attraction in nature. The basic interaction between masses is pure and absolute repellent. To repel or to be repelled is the only mode of motion of matter. Sir Newton's magnificent "inverse-square law" is the brilliant achievement of his own time and the famous formula is still glittering the talent rays on the interplanetary exploration, in the field of calculation. In fact, the rocket does overcome the universal repulsion that acts along the line joining the earth and it. The earth does not attract the rocket although the repulsion and the "gravity" are equal magnitude. Every natural motion is the result of repulsion. With the theory of universal repulsion, the inner quality of gravitation has been explained, Sir Isaac Newton's conception of gravitation has been overthrown and the unified field theory can be established.
Universal repulsion is a fundamental interaction in nature, every particle of mass in the universe is repelled by the repulsion.
Every particle of mass does not attract every other particle of mass but repels.
The apparent phenomenon "gravitation" is the result of repulsion.
Sir Isaac Newton's magnificent "inverse-square law" is correct in the calculation of magnitude. It should be called the law of universal repulsion: the law that every two particles of matter in the universe repulse each other with a force that acts along the line joining them, and has a magnitude proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.
(RESEARCH ABSTRACT, University Microfilms International,
Michigan, 1985,vol.10,no.2,p.36)
Abstract #5022
THE BIRTH OF DIANA; THE ORIGIN OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM
Peng Daze
I set up the concept of universal repulsion on July 28, 1979, and a theory of the origin of solar system was set up on December 18, 2003. With all the fundamental problems solved correctly, there results a new theory for selenogony as declared below.
1. Regard the spiral arms of a galaxy as the river with banks made from billions of stars. When interstellar matter enters the spiral arm star river, a moving huge section mass lump is accelerated by the star wind from the central bulge of the Milk Way. On its torrent backwards the center of the galaxy, this mass lump is offered with heavy elements and energy from the Star-Banks.
2. When this huge section interstellar matter is pushed through a protruding on the left bank, there appears an anticlockwise vortex. The vortex becomes a spinning moving ball soon and the heavier elements are pushed to the center of this mass ball and the lighter elements, mainly H, He, are distributed on the outer shells.
3. When the temperature and mass of this pre-sun mass ball raise over the critical point, the thermonuclear reaction occurs on the plane of the equator of the galaxy. Between two galactic old disks of the Milk Way, the Sun is born.
4. Based on Sun's position in the galaxy and the relevant forces that act on it, the initial Sun's first intermittence outbursts must form ten coplanar, approximate circle, and same direction moving matter rings on the plane of proto-Sun's equator. The distances between the rings which follow Bode's Law show the intermittence period of the proto-sun's outbursts. Because of the burst power changes and the distribution of the elements in the mass ball, there will appear the difference between the terrestrial planets and the Jovian planets in their mass, dense, gaseous and rocky material composition, etc.
5. The Earth-Moon Matter Ring comes from the Sun's third outburst count backwards. That Ring mainly gets its accelerations from the proto-Sun's outburst at three fields listed below. a) The Ring radial moves at high speed till its radius expands to 1 AU. b) The proto-Sun's outburst pushes the anticlockwise moving Ring to revolve round the proto-Sun with a period of one year. c) That Ring itself is rolling round the central axis of the ring body at a period of one day, it is the source of Earth's rotation. The problem of the distribution of angular momentum in the solar system is solved .
6. The repulsion tidal dam cut the E-M Ring into two parts and there formed a spinning big matter ball and a small one both revolve on the same orbit. These two mass balls run against each other then and the proto-Earth is born in the outburst with a shock ring formed on its equator. This ring is the Moon Matter Ring. This ring radial moves till its radius expands to the distance of Earth and Moon. This ring revolves round the Earth with a period of one month and this ring itself is rolling round the central axis of the ring body with the rotation period of the pre-Moon.
7. The repulsion tidal dam cut this ring into two parts and there formed the pre-moon after the melting impact on their orbit round the Earth. The rocky matter falls back from the shell towards the proto-moon's surface as a magnificent meteorite baptism. The Moon has its craters on surface and the Earth its satellite Diana.
8.The same processes took place in other nine rings round the Sun, there formed planets from Mercury to Pluto including the asteroids.
This is the origin of the Solar System.
(Abstract #5022 for the 67th Annual Meeting of the Meteoritical Society, 2004, not accepted. Noted by Peng Daze, 2004-11-5)
July 28, 2004
Dear Dr. Morrison:
My name is Peng Daze, 57, an amateur astronomer in China. I set up my concept of universal repulsion in July 28,1979 and ploughed all my thought into astronomy from then. When the problem of sun’s first rotation was solved in December 18, 2003, I believed that a new theory for the origin of solar system is achieved. Would you be kind to tell me your academic comments on my work? I’ve read your Frontiers of Astronomy and I do believe that modern astronomy needs a reinvent to tally with the gospel truth. Please pay your regard to my work in real earnest since it will add a new page in the man’s history of knowledge and rewrite modern astronomy as Copernicus did in his time. An astronomical talent is Newton’s “inverse-square law” but an astronomical error is his concept of universal gravitation. “Dad, the apple is pushed down by stars, my book is pushed down by stars, too.” My 4-year-old daughter knows my theory very well. I’d sent my work to Peter Gruber Foundation for the Cosmology Prize without happy result because the eligible one must be nominated by a credible nominator. Would you be kind to nominate me for the prize? “The purpose of the Cosmology Prize is to acknowledge and encourage further exploration in a field that shapes the way we perceive and comprehend our universe. In doing so, we seek to extend the pioneering legacy of, among others, Plato and Aristotle, Ptolemy and Copernicus; Brahe, Kepler, and Galileo; Newton and Halley; Einstein and Hubble. ”
I do believe that the prize will help me to contribute my offering to the world.
Thank you and hope to hear from you sooner.
Sincerely yours , Peng Daze
(Almost fifteen hundred astronomers keep silence on my abstract #5022
Noted by Peng Daze , 2004-11-5)
Dear Professor John Gribbin:
My name is Peng Daze, an amateur astronomer in China. From July 28, 1979, I have devoted myself to astronomy with my concept of universal repulsion. Nature will be explained correctly with my universal repulsion theory and an astronomical progress will add in man’s history of knowledge. It’s an astronomical project to end the wrong concept of universal attractive function between masses and hundreds of my messages are befallen cold reception. More than fifteen hundred doctors and professors kept silence on my serious scientific contention and there is not a single academic comment refers to my idea of the origin of solar system. Gravitation is an astronomical error and I am doing my best to end this dole of our time. Please help me to open the gate of the new astronomical era by your kind attention and help. Pray my message go into your mind for it’s not the whimsical challenge from a Baron Munchausen but the most important contribution from modern Copernicus.
Thank you.
Yours sincerely, Peng Daze
( Not mailed out for address unknown)
- Re: 彭大泽先生在吗?posted on 12/16/2006
玛雅您好!
这些英文也跟我的天文知识一样,自学滴:)
奉呈尊前,立此存照8。
彭大泽 2006/12/16 - posted on 12/16/2006
自由亚洲电台记者方媛的采访报道/中国总理温家宝星期二视察北京超市,遇到两位北京访民诉说被拆迁的冤情,据访民表示事件被认为是泄露总理行踪而惊动北京公安部门,两天来,两位诉冤访民及超市所在的宣武区访民都被警察挨个问话,追查透露总理去超市的消息来源。
本台在星期三曾报道了温家宝总理视察北京超市时,有两位北京访民向总理诉冤情,星期三,本台曾采访了其中一位访民吴田丽,她递上了状纸,并表示总理和蔼可亲,可以说她异常兴奋,而本台没有找到另一位诉冤访民李海珍,据北京的其他访民星期四向本台透露说,李海珍得到总理在12号视察超市的消息后,为了躲避警察的看管,她当天早晨4点出门,当超市一开门,她就进入,又躲过了警方的清场,好不容易才抢前与总理握手诉冤。
知情的一位姓周的北京访民对本台描述了当时的情景,她说:李海珍当时就说了两句话,她说,总理,我是宣武的,因为拆迁我冤枉。然后就把材料递给了总理,总理顺手就把材料交给了王岐山市长,李海珍说,总理,你别相信他们俩,她指的就是陪同的刘淇和王岐山,她说,他们俩尽唬弄你。说完就被警察给拉走了。
姓周的访民还表示;之后李海珍和吴田丽被警察叫去询问是怎样得到总理的行踪的,他们都表示是偶然撞到的,虽然吴田丽第二天处在兴奋的状态,但是,李海珍可能因为当着总理的面批评了北京市长王岐山和市委书记刘淇,因此受到很大的压力,以致闷闷不乐,姓周的访民说:李海珍星期三到了市政府,只登了记,谁与她说话她都不理,去了一趟厕所就走了,显得特别郁闷,我们认为她可能受到了威胁。
据访民表示到了星期四,吴田丽也不象第二天那样的兴奋,并对人表示从没想到见到总理,就好像犯了罪一样。
本台记者星期四再次打电话给吴田丽,但是,她的电话一直处在关机状态,本台至今也无法询问到李海珍的电话号码,记者曾试图联络与她有密切联系的访民,但是,电话不是不开就是没人接听。
那位姓周的访民表示,国家国保及北京治安总队警察已进驻宣武区调查泄露总理行踪的人员。该区访民都被叫去问话,因此,宣武区访民目前都三缄其口。她说:访民都被威胁,所以他们都不敢再谈论这事,甚至有的宣武区的访民还劝其他城区的访民低调一点儿。此外,北京市政府信访办都特别紧张,因为连续两天北京市治安总队在信访办驻守。
另一位姓王的北京访民也表示:宣武区的访民这几天都被盘问,就是说到底是谁把总理去超市视察的消息透露出去的,听说宣武区公安分局的局长,派出所的所长及管片民警都被撤职。
本台记者打电话到超市所在的广外派出所询问有关所长被撤职的情况,对方表示他病假在家,不知情。
而据本台了解,自从温家宝总理视察宣武区的超市遇到两位诉冤的北京访民后,虽然新华社及电视的报道对此事只字不提,但是,事件却成了北京访民近两天的热门话题。
- posted on 12/16/2006
彭大泽:
我好心劝你一句,如果你坚信你的理论是正确的,与其花时间到处游说,不如踏下心来好好继续研究推导公式。大家关心的是你的结果,不是你fighting的过程。你的东西在我看来,只能算个猜想,要想让猜想变成理论就得有理论模型。如果你已经在学术圈有一定的名气,别人或许还会当回事,否则不会关注你的猜想的。这倒不是势利,是因为人的命只有一条,谁愿意浪费自己的时间在一个有很多疑问的猜想上呢?去证明这个猜想的最有动力的人是谁啊,是您啊,您自己都不去做,别人就更怀疑了。。。如果你有一些研究的credit那自然另当别论。
你这样到处游说,别人只是当笑话看的。truth always hurts. 你这样真是浪费生命~ 还有,你没有回我的帖子,说明你对相对论并不是很懂,试想,对一个自己都不懂得东西就妄加否定,是科学的态度么?科学不是看你惊天地泣鬼神就承认你的~~ 是看真家伙的。。。祝你好运吧~
- Re: 彭大泽先生posted on 12/16/2006
- posted on 12/16/2006
可不可以请彭 大 泽先生 解释一下什么是相对论, 科学不仅仅是描述~~
Dear Mr.Lanruo,
One of my first short articles is "Starlight bent by Sun's Repulsion". It says "If the sun is elsewhere, we will see the star in the direction of D1. But because of the action of the sun's repulsion, the starlight will be pushed aside from the sun, then we will see this star in the direction od D2. The star's apparent position (B) will be farther than its true position (A) from the sun. A.S.Eddington verified this effect by eclipse on May 1919. According to the theory of universal repulsion, this effect proofs the action of sun's repulsion. It follows that the concept of "gravitation field" shoud be "repulsion field". Excuse me for I cannot email you the illustration since I am poor at pc skill. And there is Pete Conrad's letter on my article:" Dear Mr.Peng: Your short articles on "The theory of universal repulsion" and "Starlight bent by repulsion" are most interesting. Your concept of "repulsion" instead of "gravity" does offer considerations for symmetric behavior in the universe where the "Ying" and the "Yang" both coexist. My own personal view on your interesting subject is not the names affixed to the observations, but instead, what one can derive further from such observations to expand man's knowledge of the universe. Good luck and best wished on your pursuit of the "Universal Repulsion Study". Sincerely, Charles Conrad,Jr." Mr.Conrad was the commander of Apollo 12 and commander of
Skylab 1. Another letter was from Der Prasident des Deutschen Patentamts, it read:"Dear Mr. Peng Daze, Thank you for your exciting publication. With your concept of universal repulsion with which you doubt the lawfullness of gravitation. You doubt at the same time the general theory of relativity. I think that the future will prove which of these controversial theories are true. All the best for the future.
Yours sincerely, Dr. Hausser"
May I tell you the truth that Dr. Einstein was wrong, too.
Sincerely yours,
Peng Daze - posted on 12/16/2006
Right, you need to develop a theoretical system that may consists at least one mathematical equation to describe your so called universal repulsion force. Literally description by words of the thing will lead to nowhere. Given the fact that an apple will always fall down to earth towards the direction of the center of the earth. This fact is well explained by the Newton Laws in terms of falling speed and acceleration by just using the two LOCAL objects: the apple and the earth (if without a strong wind). What is the beauty of the Newton Laws? They use a few local objects to establish the math relationship so that they are simple, accurate and beautiful.
Now let's go back to your claim. Since the apple will always fall down to the direction of the center of the earth, if the apple is pushed by stars, then the stars on the side of the apple before falling will have to be uniformally distributed in order for the apple to fall to the direction of the earth center. Now we know the stars are not necessarily uniformly (or evenly) distributed within millions of miles around the earth. Fox example, the stars in our solar system are not evenly distributed around our earth. Now we see the difficulty in using "Repulsion Concept": you need to include stars perhaps at least trillions of miles away in order to have a roughly "evenly distributed star set". That is, you need perhaps millions of stars to exert roughly evenly forces on the apple side in order for the apple to fall down to the earth. And you still have to assume that the earth is a shield to cancel the repulsion force from stars distributed at the other side of the earth where this "APPLE" is absent. You also need to assmume the repulsion force from earth is very small compared to the repulsion force from the stars.
Now you see, the so called repulsion force concept will be very difficult to put in a simple mathematical form since you need to consider at least millions of objects, assuming the idea is not incorrect.
What I said here is a logical way of conducting basic reasoning. Hope it has not hurt you.
Nathan 12/16/2006 In teh USA.
兰若 wrote:
彭大泽:
我好心劝你一句,如果你坚信你的理论是正确的,与其花时间到处游说,不如踏下心来好好继续研究推导公式。大家关心的是你的结果,不是你fighting的过程。你的东西在我看来,只能算个猜想,要想让猜想变成理论就得有理论模型。如果你已经在学术圈有一定的名气,别人或许还会当回事,否则不会关注你的猜想的。这倒不是势利,是因为人的命只有一条,谁愿意浪费自己的时间在一个有很多疑问的猜想上呢?去证明这个猜想的最有动力的人是谁啊,是您啊,您自己都不去做,别人就更怀疑了。。。如果你有一些研究的credit那自然另当别论。
你这样到处游说,别人只是当笑话看的。truth always hurts. 你这样真是浪费生命~ 还有,你没有回我的帖子,说明你对相对论并不是很懂,试想,对一个自己都不懂得东西就妄加否定,是科学的态度么?科学不是看你惊天地泣鬼神就承认你的~~ 是看真家伙的。。。祝你好运吧~
- Re: 彭大泽先生在吗?posted on 12/16/2006
尊敬的NATHAN:你好!
当牛顿在描述地球苹果这两体运动过程时他恰恰忽视了宇宙。忽视了银河系中两千亿个恒星,忽视银河系外的亿万个河外星系。恰恰与他的理论的大前提不能自洽:大前提是在宇宙中。平方反比公式在计算上是正确的,我所作过的工作(其实我想说我的贡献)是用排斥的机制来解释牛顿用吸引的机制来解释的所谓引力现象。牛顿错在对力的本质认知是错的!不是拉,是推!!(又是文学语言了) - Re: 彭大泽先生在吗?posted on 12/16/2006
这线好看,我是学现代物理的,爱读你们的争论。 - Re: 彭大泽先生在吗?posted on 12/16/2006
我好心劝你一句,如果你坚信你的理论是正确的,与其花时间到处游说,不如踏下心来好好继续研究推导公式。大家关心的是你的结果,不是你fighting的过程。你的东西在我看来,只能算个猜想,要想让猜想变成理论就得有理论模型……
你这样到处游说,别人只是当笑话看的。 ……科学不是看你惊天地泣鬼神就承认你的~~ 是看真家伙的。。。
这话说得没治了!,,,如果他再“顾左右而言他”,那就明显不再是无知,而是故意如此了。 - Re: 彭大泽先生在吗?posted on 12/16/2006
- posted on 12/17/2006
已知在离地心最近的玛利亚娜海沟处的重力加速度呈负增长,那水为什么要向低处流呢? 亿万吨海水被月亮“吸引”成潮,为什么水面上的一片木头却无法飞升?推拉这两个完全相反的运动是怎么同时同体存在于太阳本身?它要拉住地球,同时又要辐射出巨大的能量在实际上、在逻辑上科学吗?还有最直接的问题:引力在哪里?万有斥力概念不是简单的科普层面上的问题,她是经典天体物理学必须正面面对的挑战,皇上要是真的蟒袍玉带,街边看闹热的小娃儿会喊出“可是皇上没有穿裤儿得嘛”吗?(语出安徒生《皇上的新衣》)可以设想,肯定几个御前大臣会抢步上前:“你娃会裁剪吗?领长等于裤腿懂波?你晓得范思哲吗!你晓得皮尔卡丹吗!”
各人对成功的看法不同,我很高兴自己是第一个喊出引力不存在的那个老娃娃--花甲刚满,才领了人民政府颁发的老年屙尿优待证。
安徒生要是还在,在大臣们卫道护短后,他多半会酱紫结尾:
“未必你们没有看到皇上的雀雀儿嗦?!” - Re: 彭大泽先生在吗?posted on 12/17/2006
大泽先生,玛雅是文盲科盲,但喜欢狂想的人,您谦虚学习仔细听,他们都受到你的触动的,找人来证明您的观点的,不难的,建立模型不难的,不就是物理模型嘛,咖啡店里起码5个人有物理博士学位的,咖啡店里有霍金的学生,我们来听听他们怎么讲吧。
猪蹄儿,在吗? - Re: 彭大泽先生在吗?posted on 12/17/2006
玛雅 wrote:
,建立模型不难的,不就是物理模型嘛,咖啡店里起码5个人有物理博士学位的。
此话说得太轻巧,一个物理模型,从无到有,多不容易啊,哎,学位是另一回事~~
彭先生,你没有正面回答我的问题,算了,我不再问了。还有,你引得那位老外教授的话完全是客套话,对一个“理论模型”说interesting,那不是好话....还记得我在一次party上做过一个拔丝土豆,当时那个老外教授就说interesting,脸上却是无奈,哈哈~~ 不过他的两个孩子倒是蛮爱吃的~~ :D - Re: 彭大泽先生在吗?posted on 12/17/2006
突然觉得玛雅这个坑挖的挺妙的~~ :) - posted on 12/17/2006
pengdaze wrote:
尊敬的NATHAN:你好!
当牛顿在描述地球苹果这两体运动过程时他恰恰忽视了宇宙。忽视了银河系中两千亿个恒星,忽视银河系外的亿万个河外星系。恰恰与他的理论的大前提不能自洽:大前提是在宇宙中。平方反比公式在计算上是正确的,我所作过的工作(其实我想说我的贡献)是用排斥的机制来解释牛顿用吸引的机制来解释的所谓引力现象。牛顿错在对力的本质认知是错的!不是拉,是推!!(又是文学语言了)
新年快到了,大家在此“推推拉拉”地很热闹,象正月窜门送礼一般。
祝争论双方
虽经万有斥力,成万事仍不吃力;
既谈百年理论,辩百回尚能礼论。
- posted on 12/19/2006
Mr Peng,
En, it's a good idea not to claim that you are the first one to have the idea of the so called "universal repulsion force". As for the claim that there is ONLY universal repulsion force, we have to wait for proof.
Imagination is good. But science is not based on imagination alone. I have imagined a lot of craps and am still doing it. :-) Did Newton ignore the billions of stars in his reasoning? I doubt it. Since the force of far distant stars exerting on our earth is too weak, in a mathematical model, it can be ignored IN ORDER TO SIMPLIFY the model.
Okay, now lets' relax a bit on the mathematical modeling. In fact, some scientific idea does not need mathematics to verify and validate.
Your claim that there is no gravitational force (or attraction force) may be tested this way: Ask Neil Armstrong who's the first to walk on the Moon. If he says that it was much lighter to walk on the Moon, then it is good evidence to support the concept of "GRAVITATIONAL FORCE". The thoeretical height a person can jump on the Moon is 6 times the height he/she can jump on earth because our earth is about 6 times "heavier" than the Moon (given that he carries the same load and same physical condition).
So go and ask Neil Armstrong or his collegue if he really felt much lighter by walking on the Moon than on earth. If he claims so, then you are "probably" incorrect, unless they would lie to you!
I think this is a rather correct reasoning.
pengdaze wrote:
尊敬的NATHAN:你好!
当牛顿在描述地球苹果这两体运动过程时他恰恰忽视了宇宙。忽视了银河系中两千亿个恒星,忽视银河系外的亿万个河外星系。恰恰与他的理论的大前提不能自洽:大前提是在宇宙中。平方反比公式在计算上是正确的,我所作过的工作(其实我想说我的贡献)是用排斥的机制来解释牛顿用吸引的机制来解释的所谓引力现象。牛顿错在对力的本质认知是错的!不是拉,是推!!(又是文学语言了) - posted on 12/22/2006
尊敬的NATHAN:
现象与本质是应该理清楚的。依据平方反比定律,阿姆斯特朗在月球上可以蹦得更高一些这一现象当然可以用斥力来解释。月球的质量大大小于地球的质量,那吗,作用于月球与阿先生这一系统上的万有斥力遵循平方反比定律的计算公式当然大大小于作用于阿先生站在地球上时候受到的斥力,换种说法:星星们作用于老阿和月亮上的推力大大小于星星们作用于老阿站在地球上的时候的推力,所以阿先生在月亮上的时候可以跳得更高些。当我们对实验结果有两个不同的解释时,肯定要回顾一下是否将实验条件遗漏了。万有引力论所遗漏或所忽视的正是“宇宙”这个巨大的回避不了的实验条件。的确,只有在忽视了星星们的存在时万有引力说能够风行一时(几百年),但是,银河系能被否认吗,河外星系能被否认吗,半径为一百五十亿光年中的那么多个爆炸的恒星能够被忽视掉吗?我提出的是个严肃的课题,一个天大的课题,一个让所有的科学家尴尬的课题,一个从根本上扭转人类思维方向的课题。只有否认掉万物相吸这个错误观念,天文学才会回到科学的道路上来,物理学才能得到新生,人类认识史上将有崭新的里程碑。人类最基本的天文观念万物相吸是错误的,虽然牛顿的计算方法是光荣、伟大、正确的。我的贡献是为人类喊出了这第一声“引力不存在!斥力才万有!”而且贡献出了太阳系的起源(见《黛安娜之诞生》一文),用排斥的机制正确地解释了潮汐、光偏移、卡文迪许实验。等等,等等。都不是想象,是实证!是把被学者们写错了的实验报告纠正过来。再说一遍:“不,不,不!不是拉,是推!”
- Re: 彭大泽先生在吗?posted on 12/22/2006
突然觉得玛雅这个坑挖的挺妙的~~ :)
再深的坑我都跳:毕竟可以立此存照。我当成是自己把自己的名字一刀一刀刻在人类认识史上。等到二天万有斥力理论进入幼儿园课本的时候,我会微笑着说:“早给你们说什么来着?”
圣诞快乐 :)
彭大泽 拜复 2006/12/22
- Re: 彭大泽先生在吗?posted on 12/22/2006
Everyone is laughing at you and it is surprised that you are doing this kind of craps. :) - Re: 彭大泽先生在吗?posted on 12/23/2006
欢迎臧否,无论褒贬。既然我带着悲天悯人的苦笑说牛顿,当然不能禁止别人笑话我。HAHA!HAHA!但是,所有这些笑声都要在历史上留下回声滴。窃以为这便是怯懦的物理泰斗们闷起不开腔表态的原因--也可以提劲说是因为不屑。 彭大泽 2006/12/23
Please paste HTML code and press Enter.
- 玛雅
- #1 阿拉丁燃灯
- #2 玛雅
- #3 阿拉丁燃灯
- #4 阿拉丁燃灯
- #5 WOA
- #6 pengdaze
- #7 Nathan
- #8 阿拉丁燃灯
- #9 阿拉丁燃灯
- #10 玛雅
- #11 令胡冲
- #12 DingLin2
- #13 阿拉丁燃灯
- #14 WOA
- #15 阿拉丁燃灯
- #16 DingLin2
- #17 feiming
- #18 WOA
- #19 DingLin2
- #20 WOA
- #21 玛雅
- #22 阿拉丁燃灯
- #23 pengdaze
- #24 阿拉丁燃灯
- #25 玛雅
- #26 玛雅
- #27 Nathan
- #28 Nathan
- #29 Nathan
- #30 pengdaze
- #31 pengdaze
- #32 Nathan
- #33 lanruo
- #34 pengdaze
- #35 pengdaze
- #36 pangdaze
- #37 北京
- #38 兰若
- #39 小芹她爹
- #40 pengdaze
- #41 Nathan
- #42 pengdaze
- #43 July
- #44 阿拉丁燃灯
- #45 小芹她爹
- #46 pengdaze
- #47 玛雅
- #48 兰若
- #49 兰若
- #50 风子
- #51 Nathan
- #52 pengdaze
- #53 pengdaze
- #54 Haha
- #55 pengdaze
(c) 2010 Maya Chilam Foundation