In the first paragraph, let's put aside the correctness of our views. Let's go back to a more fundamental question. Can this be called a rebuttal? In contrast, I prefer to classify it as shouting slogans. This will help you win the election, but it won't help clarify the truth. It seems too extreme to say that this passage is not desirable, but it can also encourage people to dare to speculate and question this point.
Sorry, I didn't catch the second paragraph at all. The wave-particle duality of microscopic particles has aroused the interest and debate in physics. I dare not say whether each ion has unique properties in specific treatment. Deriving the horizon of a black hole is quite complicated (it can be found on the Internet). Although Newtonian mechanics can get the same result, the principle is wrong and the correct result is just a coincidence.
Let's not talk about these tall topics ... regardless of whether this formula is right or not. If you are a teaching assistant or a marking teacher, you will lose points even if the answer is correct. Where did the formula come from? What is the physical quantity of each symbol? How to substitute the specific value? Nothing, just an answer.
That's all. The big deal means that the habit of answering questions needs to be improved. What's more, I want to remind the landlord that I made two low-level mistakes in a short time:
1. Dimensions: We don't discuss the dimensions of specific physical quantities (writing estimates will be criticized). It is unfair to rely only on1092 * 65438+500 million kilometers = 1092AU.
Second, even according to Newton's motion system, the speed of photons far exceeds the escape speed of the sun's surface, and it is impossible to stop above 1000 astronomical units. If you are interested, you might as well find the radius and mass of the sun yourself and make a calculation.
Judging from the two contents that the landlord gave me, it really surprised me. What surprised me was not the theory it put forward, but how did such a poor work pass the publishing review? Should the heads of relevant institutions be held accountable for corruption, or at least oversight? There is no basis and it is unreasonable. A flow of words is full of loopholes, not to mention the system of relativity, and the foundation of classical mechanics has not reached the level of high school. Give a kind explanation, this may not be a masterpiece of folk science, but a professional cross talk joke.