不久前我將我的一篇題為“The Fall of Special Relativity and The Absoluteness of Space and Time”【】的文章投稿給The European Physical Journal Plus。今天收到他們的編輯的報告說我在文章引用了Gibbs在1995年的文章，而Gibbs文章是支持光速不變的，所以我的文章一定錯了。 這個編輯是根本沒有閱讀能力還是吃錯藥了還是要麼就是白痴？？？ 我在那篇文章中引用的文獻何止那一篇說光速是常量？這與我否定光速是常量有什麼關係？我在中文文章中也照樣引用過Gibbs的那篇文章，我用那篇文章是為了說明不僅我從未找到過愛因斯坦說在引力場中光速不是常量，而且其他人如Gibbs也沒找到。至於Gibbs他自己是否認為光速是常量關我的文章個屁事？？？ 那個編輯不去讀我的文章的相關論述，而專門在Gibbs的文章中找出GIbbs認為光速是常量的部分來。他怎麼就跳過了Gibbs文章中提到沒有人證明愛因斯坦說引力場中的光速是常量那部分呢？這到底是無賴還是白痴呢？？？ 他怎麼把Gibbs個人的觀點看得比愛因斯坦還重？？難道Gibbs是他爺爺？？？ 今天歐美的物理學雜誌的編輯怎麼就那麼無賴加白痴呢？？？？ 下面是那個白痴的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.】 上面這段評論是該編輯是無賴加白痴的證據。下面是他低水平的直接表現： 【 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. 】 他居然用我的文章對抗了現有的理論為理由來否定我的文章！什麼東西呀！你有本事說出我錯在哪裡，你個X八X，居然說只要違背了現有的理論就是錯！這就是今天的歐美物理學界的水平？？？！！！-----這個歐洲物理學雜誌的編輯部在美國，所以他們的水平就是歐美的綜合水平的代表！！！
[] 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
| 
