不久前我将我的一篇题为“The Fall of Special Relativity and The Absoluteness of Space and Time”【[1]】的文章投稿给The European Physical Journal Plus。今天收到他们的编辑的报告说我在文章引用了Gibbs在1995年的文章，而Gibbs文章是支持光速不变的，所以我的文章一定错了。
这个编辑是根本没有阅读能力还是吃错药了还是要么就是白痴？？？
我在那篇文章中引用的文献何止那一篇说光速是常量？这与我否定光速是常量有什么关系？我在中文文章中也照样引用过Gibbs的那篇文章，我用那篇文章是为了说明不仅我从未找到过爱因斯坦说在引力场中光速不是常量，而且其他人如Gibbs也没找到。至于Gibbs他自己是否认为光速是常量关我的文章个屁事？？？
那个编辑不去读我的文章的相关论述，而专门在Gibbs的文章中找出GIbbs认为光速是常量的部分来。他怎么就跳过了Gibbs文章中提到没有人证明爱因斯坦说引力场中的光速是常量那部分呢？这到底是无赖还是白痴呢？？？
他怎么把Gibbs个人的观点看得比爱因斯坦还重？？难道Gibbs是他爷爷？？？
今天欧美的物理学杂志的编辑怎么就那么无赖加白痴呢？？？？
下面是那个白痴的comment:
【The author spends a long time arguing against the constancy of the speed of light (denoted by "c"). But the author's references include:
Gibbs, P. (1996). “Is The Speed of Light Constant?”. Updated by Carlip S. (1997). Retrieved
from:
https://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html
To quote from that reference.
"In special relativity, the speed of light is constant when measured in any inertial frame. In general relativity, the appropriate generalisation is that the speed of light is constant in any freely falling reference frame (in a region small enough that tidal effects can be neglected)."
"If general relativity is correct, then the constancy of the speed of light in inertial frames is a tautology from the geometry of spacetime. The causal structure of the universe is determined by the geometry of "null vectors". Travelling at the speed c means following world-lines tangent to these null vectors. The use of c as a conversion between units of metres and seconds, as in the SI definition of the metre, is fully justified on theoretical grounds as well as practical terms, because c is not merely the speed of light, it is a fundamental feature of the geometry of spacetime."
The author should heed his references.】
上面这段评论是该编辑是无赖加白痴的证据。下面是他低水平的直接表现：
【
This paper presents a number of "contradictions" in the now standard understanding of Special Relativity (SR), and in smaller space some "carry-over" misunderstandings of General Relativity (GR). These are issues that were argued in the decades after the introduction of Special Relativity, and were well settled, even though still disputed by "hold outs" 45 years after the publication of SR. But there is no coherent argument against the standard SR/GR interpretations at this time.
In particular this paper presents none. For instance the author argues against Einstein's definition of simultaneity in SR. He argues against the use of observation of muons at the surface of the Earth as demonstration of SR -- arguing that analysing from a frame moving with the muon leads to a contradiction to an analysis done in a frame on the surface of the Earth. That statement is INCORRECT.
】
他居然用我的文章对抗了现有的理论为理由来否定我的文章！什么东西呀！你有本事说出我错在哪里，你个X八X，居然说只要违背了现有的理论就是错！这就是今天的欧美物理学界的水平？？？！！！-----这个欧洲物理学杂志的编辑部在美国，所以他们的水平就是欧美的综合水平的代表！！！
[[1]] Dai, R. (2022). “The Fall of Special Relativity and The Absoluteness of Space and Time”. Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363582341_The_Fall_of_Special_Relativity_and_The_Absoluteness_of_Space_and_Time
