悄悄打开魔盒
悄悄打开魔盒
叫我魔盒，或者叫我ip君。
关注数: 73
粉丝数: 242
发帖数: 14,542
关注贴吧数: 460
初步猜测：假设以太就是真空能，具有质量 以太是电磁波传播的媒介； 以太的本质是真空能，是量子力学所说的由虚粒子涨落形成的狄拉克海； 以太（真空能）受到引力作用，导致地球附近的以太随着地球一起转动，所以解释了迈克尔逊-莫雷实验； 以太（真空能）受到引力作用，导致离地球越近的地方，能量密度越大，这样就解释了为什么在地球附近测到的真空能这么大，宇宙学常数却这么小； 以太的密度差异可以解释光线在引力场附近弯折的现象。 这只是一个初步猜测，请大家各抒己见。
初步猜测：假设以太就是真空能，具有质量 以太是电磁波传播的媒介； 以太的本质是真空能，是量子力学所说的由虚粒子涨落形成的狄拉克海； 以太（真空能）受到引力作用，导致地球附近的以太随着地球一起转动，所以解释了迈克尔逊-莫雷实验； 以太（真空能）受到引力作用，导致离地球越近的地方，能量密度越大，这样就解释了为什么在地球附近测到的真空能这么大，宇宙学常数却这么小； 以太的密度差异可以解释光线在引力场附近弯折的现象。 这只是一个初步猜测，请大家各抒己见。
38微秒——11.4公里论是错误的 所谓GPS有38微秒的相对论修正项，是有的，但是，认为没有这个修正，就无法运行，甚至认为GPS证明了相对论，这种观点是错误的。 要进行卫星定位，本质上就是把用户所在地点的四个未知数（x,y,z,t)三个空间坐标，一个时间坐标用四个方程解出来。 38微秒论者认为，用户自身可以测出一个时间坐标t=t0，然后知道三个卫星的空间坐标及用户和卫星的距离，就可以用勾股定理列出三个方程解出空间坐标。由于所谓相对论性效应，用户的时间和卫星的时间每天都会相差38微秒，38微秒乘以光速是11.4公里，每天累计的定位误差太大了，所以需要修正，方法是把卫星原子钟调慢38微秒/天。 但他们没有想到一个简单的问题——普通用户怎么可能用得起昂贵的原子钟呢？如果用最好的石英钟，每天的随机误差有20微秒，普通的石英钟每天相差半秒左右，如果乘以光速，就不可能定位了。 事实上，38微秒论者错误理解了GPS的工作过程。事实上并不需要用户用原子钟提供精确的t0，而是用户附近的四个卫星提供四个方程，这样就可以把用户的坐标解出来。 那么，如果相对论效应存在，卫星的时间需要修正吗？不需要，因为按照相对论，四个卫星都是延迟38微秒，他们之间的时间差是一样的。即使卫星上显示的时刻都延迟一百年，只要时间差相同，显然也不会影响定位。
我是一个对相对论半信半疑的人，现在来收集双方的证据 请反相和拥相两派提供证据
鸡三足的错误之处——实际上应该是鸡无足！ 证明：鸡有左足和右足，以白马非马相同的方式推理，则左足非足，右足也非足，所以鸡无足。
好累。。
有没有想玩区块链魔塔的 我正在积极筹备把魔塔放在以太坊平台，以智能合约的方式运行，成为世界第一座去中心化，不可篡改，不可作弊的魔塔
最新计划：区块链魔塔 我在设想把魔塔搬到以太坊区块链上，成为一个dapp，用以太币买道具，通关后可以得到以太币奖励
做记号
🎵七月份的尾巴 是狮子🦁️座♌️
那么，你就是我的新倩倩了 估计吧主短时间内不会看到 跑了 真刺激
倩倩呢。。 你在哪里，你还好吗
世界杯 不赌为赢
我是数学博士，愿为各位老师收费鉴定 仅限哥德巴赫猜想的证明。每论文鉴定费900元。鉴定前收费450，鉴定后再收费450。超长论文酌情加收费用。 仅提供我个人对该证明是否成立的鉴定意见。不论我认为成立与否，费用不变。不服者请找其他人鉴定。有意请私信联系我。
倩倩我想念你
悲伤 骑摩拜单车能穿越中国吗
想念伋雪中我 本群被荒废太久了
精神动力：植树问题 Cayley Algebra—>Bracket algebra
官科怒批相对论：相对论是笑话还是骗局？ RELATIVITY - joke or swindle ? Louis Essen re-states his view that Einstein's theory of relativity contains basic and fatal flaws. L. ESSEN Quelle: ESSEN, L (1988): Electronics & Wireless World, p. 126-127, February 1988 Some of your contributors find it difficult to accept my contention (WW October, 1978) that Einstein's theory of relativity is invalidated by its internal errors. Butterfield for example (WW February, 1987) denies that there is any duplication of units or any harm in obtaining results from thought-experiments. Moreover, if my contention is correct, the new experimental work described by Aspden (EWW, August, 1987 ) is not required to disprove the theory, although it might confirm that his assumptions were wrong. This is not to suggest that experimental results are not important but they should be considered as steps in the development of new theories. Discussions about the theory tend to be very involved and your readers may be interested in a brief history of the subject which I wrote some time ago for a friend who wanted to know what the controversy was about and in particular what was the significance of the clock paradox. The theory was an attempt to explain the result of an experiment which had been made to measure the velocity of the earth through space. Scientists reasoned that, since light is an electromagnetic wave travelling through space with a velocity denoted by the symbol c, and the earth is travelling through space with a velocity v, it should be possible to measure v by an optical experiment carried out in the laboratory. Michelson and Morley designed and used an interferometer for this purpose. A beam of light was split into two parts which were directed along the two arms of the instrument at right angles to each other, the two beams being reflected back to recombine and form interference fringes. The instrument was turned through a right angle so that, if one of the arms was initially parallel to earth's motion, it became at right angles to this direction. It was expected that there would be a movement of the fringes, from which the velocity of the earth could be calculated, but no change at all was observed. There have always been ... critics: Rutherford treated it as a joke; Soddy called it a swindle; Bertrand Russell suggested it was all contained in the Lorentz transformation equations; and many scientists commented on its contradictions. Fitzgerald and Lorentz pointed out that this result would be obtained if the arm of the interferometer which was moving parallel with the earth was, in consequence of this movement, reduced in length by the amount (1-v²/c²)½. Such an arbitrary assumption did not constitute a satisfactory explanation and scientists tried to think of a more fundamental cause. Einstein came to the conclusion that the answer rested on the way time was measured and the simultaneity of two events was defined; and on the basis of these ideas and two additional assumptions he developed his theory, published in 1905. It was essentially the electromagnetic theory of Maxwell and Lorentz modified to incorporate the Michelson-Morley result. Later, in 1907, he extended the theory to include gravitational effects and predicted that light would be deflected as it passed near the sun. The prediction could be tested only by observing the path of the light from stars during an eclipse of the sun and in 1919 Eddington led an expedition to the island of Principe, where the eclipse was total; and when the results had been studied, announced that the prediction was confirmed. The theory was then gradually accepted, eventually being regarded as a revolution in scientific thought. But there have always been its critics: Rutherford treated it as a joke; Soddy called it a swindle; Bertrand Russel suggested that it was all contained in the Lorentz transformation equations; and many scientists commented on its contradictions. These adverse opinions, together with the fact that the small effects predicted by the theory were becoming of significance to the definition of the unit of atomic time, prompted me to study Einstein's paper. I found that it was written in imprecise language, that one assumption was in two contradictory forms and that it contained two serious errors. ... he concluded that, at the end of the journey, the time recorded by the moving clock was less than that recorded by the stationary clock. The result did not follow from the experiment, but was simply an assumption slipped in implicitly during the complicated procedure. The essential feature of science is its dependcnce on experiment. Results of experiment are expressed in terms of units which must not be duplicated if contradictions are to be avoided and units of measurement are the only quantities which can be made constant by definition. When Einstein wrote his paper, two of the units were those of length and time. Velocity was measured in terms of these units. Einstein defined the velocity of light as a universal constant and thus broke a fundamental rule of science. One of the predictions of the theory was that a moving clock goes more slowly than an identical stationary clock. Taking into account the basic assumption of the theory that uniform velocity is purely relative, it follows that each clock goes more-slowly than the other when viewed from the position of the other. This prediction is strange but not logically impossible. Einstein then made his second mistake in the course of a thought-experiment. He imagined that two clocks were initially together and that one of them moved away in a number of straight line paths, at a uniform velocity, finally returning to the starting point. He concluded that on its return the moving clock was slower than the stationary clock. Moreover, since only uniform motion is involved there is no way of distinguishing between the two and each clock goes more slowly than the other. This result is known as the clock paradox or, since the clocks are sometimes likened to identical twins, one of whom ages more slowly than the other, the twin paradox. ... I do not think Rutherford would have regarded (the theory) as a joke had he realised how it would retard the rational development of science. Einstein defined the velocity of light as a universal constant and thus broke one of the fundamental rules of science. Hundreds of thousands of words have been written about the paradox but the explanation is simple, arising from Einstein's use of the expression, "as viewed from". Clearly if the time of one clock is viewed to be slower than the other even when it has returned to the same position as the other then it must indeed be slower. But the rates of distant clocks are not compared by viewing them. Ticks from them are received and counted on a separate dial, a process now carried out continuously throughout the world for the synchronization of atomic time. It is the reading on this subsidiary dial which would be less and not that on the dial of the clock itself. If the thought-experiment is carried out correctly, the result is that the time of the moving clock as measured at the position of the stationary clock is less than that of the stationary clock. This is the same as the initial prediction, which is as it should be since a thought-experiment cannot give a result differing from the information put into it. Einstein's use of a thought-experiment, together with his ignorance of experimental techniques, gave a result which footed himself and generations of scientists. He convinced himself that the theory yielded the result he wanted, because the contraction of time is accompanied by the contraction of length needed to explain the Michelson-Morley result. The round trip could not have been made without accelerations being applied, but Einstein ignored their possible effect on the rate of the clock, thus implicitly assuming that they had no effect. Some years later, in 1918, he used another thought-experiment in an attempt to answer criticisms of the paradox result. One of the clocks again made a round trip, the changes of direction being achieved by switching gravitational fields on and off at various stages of the journey, the time recorded by the moving clock was less than that recorded by the stationary clock. The result did not follow from the experiment, but was simply an assumption slipped in implicitly during the complicated procedure. The slowing down of clocks which he had previously attributed to uniform velocity, acceleration having no effect, he now attributed to acceleration, a line of argument followed in many textbooks. Claims frequently made that the theory is supported by experimental evidence do not withstand a close scrutiny. There are grave doubts about Eddington's claim, both as regards the predicted value which was increased by a factor of 2 from that first given by Einstein and the way the results were analysed –some of the readings being discarded. The same criticism applies to a more recent experiment performed, at considerable expense, in 1972. Four atomic clocks were flown round the world and the times recorded by them were compared with the times recorded by similar clocks in Washington. The results obtained from the individual clocks differed by as much as 300 nanoseconds. This absurdly optimistic conclusion was accepted and given wide publicity in the scientific literature and by the media as a confirmation of the clock paradox. All the experiment showed was that the clocks were not sufficiently accurate to detect the small effect predicted. Why have scientists accepted a theory which contains obvious errors and lacks any genuine experimental support? It is a difficult question, but a number of reasons can be suggested. There is first the ambiguous language used by Einstein and the nature of his errors. Units of measurements, though of fundamental importance, are seldom discussed outside specialist circles and the errors in clock comparisons are hidden away in the thought experiments. Einstein's use of a thought experiment, together with his ignorance of experimental techniques, gave a result which fooled himself and generations of scientists. Then there is the prestige of its advocates. Eddington had the full support of the Royal Astronomical Society, the Royal Society and scientific establishments throughout the world. Taking their cue from scientists, important people in other walks of life referred to it as an outstanding achievement of the human intellect. Another powerful reason for its acceptance was suggested to me by a former president of the Royal Society. He confessed that he did not understand the theory himself, not being an expert in the subject, but he thought it must be right because he had found it so useful. This is a very important requirement in any theory but it does not follow that errors in it should be ignored. Insofar as the theory is thought to explain the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment I am inclined to agree with Soddy that it is a swindle; and I do not think Rutherford would have regarded it as a joke had he realised how it would retard the rational development of science. Dr. Louis Essen, D.Sc., F.R.S., has spent a lifetime working at the NPL on the measurement of time and frequency. He built the first caesium clock in 1955 and determined the velocity of light by cavity resonator, in the process showing that Michelson's value was 17km/s low. In 1959, he was awarded the Popov Gold Medal of the USSR Academy of Sciences and also the OBE.
只有回忆还残留着
官科孔丘是如何抹黑和残害民科少正卯的 孔子为鲁摄相，朝七日而诛少正卯。门人进问曰：“夫少正卯鲁之闻人也，夫子为政而始诛之，得无失乎，”孔子曰：“居，吾语女其故。人有恶者五，而盗窃不与焉：一曰：心达而险；二曰：行辟而坚；三曰：言伪而辩；四曰：记丑而博；五曰：顺非而泽。此五者有一于人，则不得免于君子之诛，而少正卯兼有之。故居处足以聚徒成群，言谈足饰邪营众，强足以反是独立，此小人之桀雄也，不可不诛也。是以汤诛尹谐，文王诛潘正，周公诛管叔，太公诛华仕，管仲诛付里乙，子产诛邓析史付，此七子者，皆异世同心，不可不诛也。诗曰：‘忧心悄悄，愠于群小。’小人成群，斯足忧也。”
民科成败的关键是——淡泊名利，宁静致远 本吧以物理民科为主流。物理是自然科学，是为了认识自然界，发现真理，直至改造自然界而产生的，不是为了发论文，评职称，申基金，得诺贝尔奖。现在，很多官科沉醉于这些名利之事，无心治学，更有甚者，个别败类利用权力贪污经费，奸污女生，其道德水准远不如普通老百姓。民科有了成果，官科就会说，你怎么不发在XXX杂志上呢？XXX权威怎么不认可你呢？他们自然是以发在XXX杂志，申请XXX基金，得到XXX权威的认可等为荣的，而不是了解了自然界，搞懂了哪个自然现象。本质上，这和那些追求升官而不是为人民服务的官僚是一样的。 官科的堕落，正是民科的机会。但是，这并不是说，每个民科都有同样的机会。某些民科功利心甚至比官科还重，动不动就说自己要得诺贝尔奖。实际上，如果你没有发现真理，得了诺贝尔奖又有什么用呢？甚至还会遗臭万年，例如，脑白质切除手术的发明人就是一个遗臭万年的诺贝尔奖得主。而如果你发现了真理，不得这个诺贝尔奖，甚至不发表在官科杂志上，没有学位，没有职称，没有基金，那又有什么关系！如果你的理论已经得到了自然界的认可，那些学阀不承认，那只能是他们的损失，而不是你的损失。 官科曾有辉煌的过去，但停留在印刷术时代的官科体制已经不能适应互联网时代的科学发展。起点中文网已经可以和作协作家分庭抗礼，影评家高度评价的《逐梦演艺圈》被网友普遍差评而被迫下映，在淘宝店的冲击下实体店纷纷倒闭，自媒体崛起的时代纸媒没落，这浪潮迟早是要冲击科学界的。那么，你会成为弄潮儿，还是沉入海底？任何时代都不会改变的关键，就在于端正你的态度，淡泊名利，宁静致远。
还活着真是太好了。 虽然你早已忘记，但我仍然不会放弃自己的责任。
好冷啊 雪下了一天
冷群了
三阶平方数幻方问题 3*3的格子里，填入9个互不相同的完全平方数，使得每行，每列，每条对角线的三个数的和相同。 法国人给这个问题1000欧元的奖金，各位民科朋友们可以试一试
「精神动力」彭罗斯镶嵌
这是不是Timmy第一次说出非“Timmy”的单词？
首页
1
2
下一页
