欢迎! 登陆 注册

高级搜索

Part XXXIV: The Fangangsters (IV): He Zuoxiu, a Shameless Party Man (II) (3949 查看)

February 02, 2014 06:01PM
【Due to the webpage capacity,a few paragraphs and the entire notes are not posted here. The full-length article is attached as a PDF file.】


Shamelessness Shouldn’t Be Anyone’s Nature──An Open Letter to Nature (Part XXXIV)


Xin Ge, Ph. D.


Columbia, SC, USA



The Fangangsters (IV): He Zuoxiu, a Shameless Party Man (II)

【Contents】


1. Background: A Henchman of the Gang of Four

2. A Sudden Attack

(1) He’s Stolen and Crooked Science
(2) He’s Political Stick
(3) He’s Knowledge in Chinese History and Philosophy
(4) He’s Knowledge in Marxism

3. Parallel, Intertwine, Conflict, Contrast: A Tale of Two Academicians

Notes



According to He Zuoxiu’s memoir, what he did during the 10-years Cultural Revolution, from 1966 to 1976, was nothing but building his “quantized theory of composite particles.”[1] Of course it was a plain lie - he had the capacity of doing a lot more, and indeed, he didn’t waste his talent during that difficult time. In this part, I will tell a story about his attack on Mr. Tang Xiaowei in the 1970s, which shows vividly how bad money drives out good money in China’s physics community.


Academicians Tang Xiaowei and He Zuoxiu


1. Background: A Henchman of the Gang of Four

After Lin Biao Incident which occurred in September 1971, and before the “Criticize Lin, Criticize Confucius” movement which started in the second half of 1973, there was a brief renaissance in China. In 1972, a magazine named Physics (物理, wùlǐ) was initiated, and it was only one of two scientific periodicals published at that time. In the first two years, the magazine published 7 issues, about 60 articles, all related to physics, none of them involved politics or ideology. Among the important papers published during its first two years were Studies on Crystal Structure of Insulin at 2.5Å[2], Evidence for the Possible Existence of a Charged Particle with Large Mass[3], and, more importantly, Fang Lizhi’s On a Solution of the Cosmological Equations with Matter and Blackbody Radiation in Scalar-Tensor Theory[4], which has been regarded as the first paper on modern cosmology in China[5].

Then, year 1974 came. The first 3 articles in the first issue of that magazine were all about politics. As a matter of fact, for the next 3 years, politics and ideology were the main theme of the magazine: except for one issue, every issue else contained some articles about “Criticize Lin, Criticize Confucius,” about Marxism, about proletarian dictatorship, and of course, natural dialectics (see the table below).



So, exactly what happened to the magazine? Sure, the power struggle between the two wings of the CCP leaders played a critical role; however, the more direct reason was that in 1974, He Zuoxiu became the magazine’s first editor-in-chief. During his long career, He Zuoxiu has been bragging about many things, however, he rarely mentioned his experience as the head of one of China’s top science magazines for nearly 4 years[7]. Why? Because the people to whom he had sworn allegiance, the Gang of Four, were overthrown in 1976, and mixing politics with science was no longer in fashion after 1978. In 2012, the magazine compiled a book with 40 articles it had published in the past 40 years, and only one of them was published during He’s era, and that article was published right before He left his office[8]. In 1992, He Zuoxiu admitted that under his leadership, the magazine’s sales declined continuously, however, he blamed the magazine’s policy, rather than himself, for the failure[9].

The fact is, He Zuoxiu in the 1970s was the same person in the 1950s and 1960s, who hated “bourgeois sciences,” so under his leadership, the Physics magazine became a major battleground to criticize Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity. Here is the survey, conducted by Dr. Hu Danian, of the second wave of attacks on the theory:

“The debate in Wuli [Physics magazine] began in early 1975 and did not end until the summer of 1977. The last group of the debating papers appeared in June 1977, eight months after the arrest of the Gang of Four, which indicates that the debate was not directly controlled by the radical leaders. Ever since, it has been difficult, if not impossible, to publish anything in mainstream professional scientific journals in China challenging the theory of relativity.”[10]

The strange thing is, during the period when He was the editor-in-chief of the Physics, he didn’t publish any article in the magazine, at least not with his real name. However, in a memoir written in late 1980s or early1990s, He wrote:

“In 1970, I wrote an article entitled On the Special Theory of Relativity to oppose some people who wanted to bring down the theory of relativity and Einstein. In 1974, I wrote articles entitled Can Mass transform to Energy? and The Theory of ‘Continuous Creation of Mass’ Must Be Criticized. These three articles were written to defend the law of mass conservation, thereby to defend the principle of indestructibility of matter.”[11]

He’s On the Special Theory of Relativity could not be found anywhere, which is weird because He, like Fang, has the habit of republishing his own articles in books, and the article was not in any of He’s books. Therefore, it is safe to say that the article was the basis of his talk in the CAS meeting held in October 1969, in which “He supported the criticism of Einstein,……Nevertheless, He disagreed with members of the CRSC on many arguments in their paper.”[12]

Like On the Special Theory of Relativity, He’s Can Mass Transform to Energy? couldn’t be found anywhere either. However, in the third issue of the Physics published in 1974, there is an article with the exact title and by an apparent fictitious author, Ren Qing (任青. Please note that name of Chairman Mao’s wife, and the head of the Gang of Four, was Jiang Qing). Furthermore, both the tone revealed, and the viewpoints expressed in the article resemble those of He’s, so that article must be He’s second article “to defend the law of mass conservation.” Let’s take a look at its first paragraph:

“The Science Press published in December 1973 a booklet, Time and Space, about time and space theories in special theory of relativity. The booklet goes so far as to repeat again the mistakes of energetics, i. e. believing that mass could be transformed into energy, which had been criticized a long time ago. The so called energetics is an idealist school in modern physics, invented by Ostwald. The school claimed that there exist movements without mass, believing that it is unnecessary to answer the question of the undertaker of movement, it is enough to say ‘moving.’ ……Since the discovery of special theory of relativity, some people, citing the formula concerning energy and mass, E=mc2, where E is energy, m is mass, and c is the speed of light, believe that mass could be transformed into energy, therefore, leading to the conclusion that mass could be reduced to energy. Idealist Cohen actually claimed that the transformation of matter into force is the biggest victory for idealism. To the idealist thoughts in physics, Lenin used to criticize sharply.”[13]

In other words, the author tried to refute Wilhelm Ostwald, Albert Einstein, and Hermann Cohen by citing Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, apparently believing Lenin was the ultimate authority in physics.

However, the more important thing to remember is the fact that He Zuoxiu, as the editor-in-chief of Physics, published an article in his own magazine with a fake name. Please be reminded that Fang Zhouzi has used dozens of fake names to post on his own New Threads. An old Chinese saying goes: people wouldn’t enter the same house if they do not belong together (不是一家人,不进一个门). You have to admire the wisdom of ancient Chinese.

2. A Sudden Attack

According to He, his third article for defending the law of mass conservation was entitled The Theory of ‘Continuous Creation of Mass’ Must Be Criticized. The article deserves detailed analysis, because it revealed many aspects of He’s, his writing, his thinking, his stealing, and his ignorance, among other things, so I separate this part from the last one.

In 1973, Mr. Tang Xiaowei (唐孝威), a research scientist in the Institute of Atomic Energy at CAS, the same institute where He was affiliated at the time, published a short paper in the Journal of Fudan University, proposing to explain the redshift phenomenon with a hypothesis of elementary particle evolution[14]. According to Mr. Tang’s hypothesis, the mass of electron is not constant; rather, it evolves with time according to the following formula, during a certain period of time:

m=moe-gt


where m is the rest mass of electron in the celestial bodies far away from the earth (in the past), mo is the rest mass of electron on the earth at current time, t is the time needed for the light to travel from celestial bodies to the earth, and g is the evolutionary constant of electron. Unfortunately, Mr. Tang cited a paper by Drs. Fred Hoyle published in Nature in 1971[15], as a support for his hypothesis, which became his primary crime.

Mr. Tang’s paper was published at the end of 1973, and it attracted little attention until May 1974 when Chinese Science Bulletin re-published it[16], followed by He’s “great criticism” article: The Theory of ‘Continuous Creation of Mass’ Must Be Criticized. Here is He’s first paragraph:

“For many years, F. Hoyle has been preaching the theory of ‘continuous creation of material.’ In 1940s, Hoyle threw out a so called ‘steady state cosmology,’ advocating that material could be created from nothingness, and having calculated that the creation rate was one atom per year in a volume equal to St. Paul’s Cathedral[1]. From time to time he preached that the rest mass of particles, such as electron, in different celestial bodies can be different[2], that various interaction constants can vary with time, thus resulting in the rest mass of electron varies with time[3]. In summary, according to Hoyle, material can be both created and eliminated, and the laws of mass and energy conservation, which have been fully proven by social practice, are dispensable. For many years, the ‘science’ preached by Hoyle by covering it up with a coat of science has not been accepted by the science community. On the contrary, these absurd theories have been frequently criticized by the natural scientists and philosophers who adhere to the materialism, pointing out that the basic purpose of these theories was to serve the theology[4]. However, such a theory, which is absurd scientifically and idealistic philosophically, received response in our country. For example, in recent year, Comrade Tang Xiaowei wrote a paper to interpret the astronomical phenomenon of cosmic redshift by citing Hoyle’s theory of continuous increase in particles’ rest mass[5]. The incident makes us feel that the criticism against idealism in natural science front must be enhanced. Here, I discuss with Comrade Tang Xiaowei.”[17]

He’s “discussion” was conducted in two ways: first, he tried to demonstrate scientifically that Tang’s hypothesis was invalid; then, he tried to demonstrate ideologically that Tang’s hypothesis was anti-dialectical materialism or materialist dialectics.

(1) He’s Stolen and Crooked Science

He’s scientific demonstration contained no originality at all: his argument was based entirely on the work done by western scientists. For example, He stole Dr. Freeman J. Dyson’s argument, from the perspective of nuclear systematics and presented against Dr. George Gamow’s hypothesis that “the elementary unit e of charge should increase with time”[18, 19], to refute Mr. Tang’s hypothesis: based on the rest mass of an electron, 510 keV, and Tang’s formula, He calculated that the electron rest mass 4 billion years ago was 418 keV, a difference of 92 keV. Then, He adopted Dyson’s -decay theory and got the half-life of Re187 4 billion years ago was 2.8X106 years. Then He concluded by using three sentences ended by exclamation marks:

“[The calculated number] is at least 1,400 fold less than the crust age currently known! And it means that there would be no such an isotope at all or only a tiny amount in the present crust! Obviously, the theory that electron rest mass automatically increases according to formulas (1) and (2) is in complete conflict with the isotopic abundance experiment!”[20]

And here is Dr. Dyson’s reasoning:

“The Re187 on the earth would not have survived if the half-life for its decay had been as short as 2 X 108 y during the early history of the earth, say 3 X 109 y ago. But the half-life for  decay between given nuclear states decreases at least as fast as -2.835 as  increases.7 Therefore, the value of  3 X109 y ago cannot have been greater than (200)0.353 = 6.50 X its present value. ……The growth of e2 according to (8) has been at least 300 times slower than Gamow's proposal (1).”[18]


Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery
In the attack on Mr. Tang’s hypothesis, He Zuoxiu’s argument and calculation were completely based on Dr. Dyson’s paper[18]. He did change a few parameters.


After imitating American Professor Dyson, He turned his eyes to South Asian subcontinent. Here is what He wrote in1974:

“At present, there are two basic methods for determining the age of fossils in the crust, one is uranium-lead method, the other is potassium-argon method. The former utilizes the phenomena of -decay or spontaneous fission of U238, with a decay constant about ~1.54 X 10-10 yr-1; the latter utilizes the phenomenon that K40 changes to Ar40 after its nucleus capturing a K-electron, and the decay constant is ~0.58 X 10-10 yr-1. Both methods have been used to measure meteoritic samples, and the results show that they agree with each other very well[7]. If the rest mass of an electron ‘evolves,’ the changes in the two results would differ greatly.”[21]

And here is what Indian physicists S. M. Chitre and Yash Pal wrote in 1968:

“Two well-known methods for geological dating are the uranium-lead method and the potassium-argon method. In the former the time scale is provided essentially by the -decay rate of U238, which is ~1.54 X 10-10 yr-1, while in the latter it is given by the K-capture rate in K40, which is ~0.58 X 10-10 yr-1. Both these methods have been used to date stony meteoritic samples and they yield ages which are in essential agreement. Since the rates of -decay of uranium and K capture in K40 differ significantly in their sensitivity to a change in e2, the measured spread in the ages obtained by the two methods can be used to put a limit on the variation of e2.”[22]

In his “great criticism” article, He gave 15 endnotes, citing a total of 24 references. However, based upon my estimate, He at most read 10 of them, including the above two. The fact is, the papers by Dyson and Chitre and Pal were discussing the hypothesis proposed by G. Gamow, who was trying to rescue the hypothesis proposed by Paul Dirac in 1937 that certain physical constants, such as gravitational constant, vary with time[23]. In 1948, Edward Teller made a calculation showing that had it been the case, the sun would have been hotter than it is now and the temperature on the surface of the earth, in about 200 or 300 million years ago, would have been “near the boiling point of water.”[24] And then Gamow proposed that instead of changing gravitational constant, the electron charge could vary with time. In his paper, Gamow introduced Teller’s calculation first, then he wrote:

“Since Teller's original article was published, the astronomically estimated age of the universe has been brought up to about 10 eons (9.25 eons to be exact),3 so that the time period separating us from the Cambrian era became a smaller fraction of the total age of the universe. Correspondingly, the ‘age of boiling oceans’ moved back in time, making the Cambrian and pre-Cambrain eras safe for marine life. On the other hand, still more recently, paleontologists have found the remainder of bacteria and algae in the deposits the age of which is estimated to be 3.1 eons by radioactivity-dating method.4 And, even though Teller's argument makes life safe for the inhabitants of the Cambrian ocean, it certainly threatens the life of organisms living a few eons ago.”[19]

Obviously based on Gamow’s description and discussion, He wrote:

“Gamow pointed out that Teller made a calculation in 1948[11] ……estimating that 5 X 108 years ago, the temperature on the earth would have been more than 100oC, oceans would have been boiling, and before that time, there would have been no oceans, the earth would have been covered by superheated vapor. Thus, there would have been an ocean boiling period on the earth and the organisms with life would have not existed. However, Schopf, Banghoorm and other paleontologists have found by using radioactivity-dating method that the remainder of bacteria and algae have existed for about 3.1 X 109 years[12]!”[25]

Has anyone noticed that He changed Gamow’s uncertain guess into an affirmative conclusion? The fact is, Teller never mentioned “superheated vapor” in the pre-Cambrian era in his paper - it was Gamow’s invention -, and Teller stated explicitly that “our present discussion cannot disprove completely the suggestion of Dirac.” Why? Because Dirac had suggested that “the number of protons and neutrons in the universe must be increasing proportionally to t2”[23], and if that was the case, Teller reasoned, “changes in the opacity of the sun due to changing chemical composition may materially influence the results obtained.”[24]

He not only manipulated Gamow’s words, he also stole them. The fact is, as early as 1964, Pochoda and Schwarzschild of Princeton University had already pointed out that Teller’s projected higher average temperature on the earth in the pre-Cambrian period was based on the old knowledge of the age of the universe:

“However, with the newer, rather long estimates for the age of the Universe, the time elapsed since the Pre-Cambrian appears only a rather modest fraction of the total time scale, so that the excess of G in the Pre-Cambrian over its present value and the consequence excess in the solar luminosity would be quite small according to any of the proposed theories.”[26]

And the funny thing is, He did cite Pochoda and Schwarzschild’s paper in his article:

“Pochoda et al. even have calculated that if the gravitational constant decreases with time, and if the sun was burning 2 X 109 years ago, then it would have by now burned up all its hydrogen energy, and turning into a red giant star[10].”[27]

He’s reference [10] is the paper by Pochoda and Schwarzschild published in 1964[26]. The fact is, that paper was based almost entirely on Teller’s calculation. According to Teller, a greater gravitational constant G in the past could lead to two consequences: it would overheat the earth, and it would exhaust the energy supply in the Sun sooner. Pochoda and Schwarzschild dismissed the first possibility, and focused their study on the second one. Therefore, had He read their paper, he would have definitely read the paragraph I just quoted above, which was actually the second paragraph in the original paper. The question is, whether He’s oversight of the paragraph was intentional, or he didn’t read the paper at all?

In their paper, Pochoda and Schwarzschild stated clearly, in both the abstract and conclusion sessions, that their calculated results do not exclude the possibility of mild variation of G:

“It was found that a mild variation of G, corresponding to n = 0.2, produces no difficulty for the representation of the observed Sun as the end product of an evolution starting with the initial main-sequence state and lasting for 4.5 billion years. In contrast, a strong variation of G, corresponding to n = 1.0, permits a satisfactory representation of the present Sun only if the age of the Universe is about 15 billion years or more.”

“We may then conclude that a mild variation of G, as represented by the exponent n = 0.2, does not lead to any difficulty in the representation of the observed present Sun, but that the assumption of a strong variation of G corresponding to n = 1.0 permit a fitting of the observed Sun only if simultaneously the age of the Universe is assumed to be about 15 billion years or longer, an uncomfortable condition in view of the most recent estimates for the Hubble constant.”[26]


Also, in the entire paper, the authors didn’t mention the number “2 billion” (2 X 109). Then, where did He get his number? The answer is, not only the number, but his entire sentence was stolen from Gamow. Here is what Gamow wrote in 1967:

“Also, a new approach has been developed to check the possibility of the brighter sun without any reference to the life on the surface of the earth. Pochoda and Schwarzschild5 have shown, by using an electronic computer, that the original nuclear resources of the sun simply could not last long enough at such high energy expenditures, and that if the sun was burning two eons ago it would have by now burned up all its central hydrogen supply, turning into a red giant star.”[19]

In other words, He never read his reference [10], he simply copied Gamow’s summary of his reference 5.

The fact is, He Zuoxiu didn’t read his reference [12] either: what he wrote was completely based on what Gamow wrote about his reference 4, and that’s why he misspelt the name of the senior author, “the father of Pre-Cambrian palaeontology,” E. S. Barghoorn, as “Banghoorm,” because Dr. Gamow made a similar misspelling before He (see images below).


The stolen goods
Upper left: the page image of Gamow’s reference 4 and He’s reference [12], showing the authentic name of the senior author; Top right: the page image of a portion of the reference list of Dr. Gamow’s paper[19], in which he misspelt E. S. Barghoorn’s name as Banghoorn; Lower panel: the page image of a portion of He Zuoxiu’s article[17] (p.221), in which he translated Dr. Gamow’s reiterations of his reference 4 manipulatively and his reference 5 faithfully, and pretended that his own reiterations were based on reading the original papers [12] and [10], respectively. He also misspelt Dr. Barghoorn’s name, like Dr. Gamow did, but he changed the last letter n into m, apparently due to either the fine font of Physical Review Letters, or the poor quality of the photocopy of the paper.


(2) He’s Political Stick

Of course He’s attack on Mr. Tang’s hypothesis was not merely because of its lack of scientific evidence. As it was revealed in his first paragraph, the reason for his fierce attack on Mr. Tang was that Mr. Tang cited Fred Hoyle’s paper as his support. The questions are, how come He Zuoxiu knew Dr. Hoyle so well, and how come he hated Dr. Hoyle so much? The keys to the questions are in He’s reference [4].

According to He, Fred Hoyle’s “absurd theories have been frequently criticized by the natural scientists and philosophers who adhere to the materialism, pointing out that the basic purpose of these theories was to serve the theology[4].” However, unlike his many other endnotes which contained multiple citations, He’s note [4] gave only a half citation:

“Hollitscher, W. Die Natur im Weltbild der Wissenschaft.”

He knows English and Russian, however, he has never showed his ability of reading German, to the best of my knowledge. Also, the citation gave no information about the publisher, about the year it was published, let alone page numbers, indicating that it was another piece of stolen goods. And indeed it was. However, before we examine He’s stealing, let’s take a look at the reference itself first.

“Hollitscher, W” was Walter Hollitscher (1911-1986) who received his doctoral degree from the University of Vienna in 1933, and became an active communist from that time on. The German Wikipedia identified him as “a philosopher, Marxist, educational worker, journalist and psychoanalyst.”[28] His book, Die Natur im Weltbild der Wissenschaft, (The Nature in the World of Science), was published in 1960 by Globus Verlag in Vienna, Austria. Here is the review of the book by the great Theodosius Dobzhansky:

“This is a concise and well-rounded presentation of the fundamentals of natural science, written by a faithful Marxian for faithful Marxians. The book will also be interesting and useful to those non-Marxians who wish to study this perplexing phenomenon─Marxist science on this side of Iron Curtain.”

“The tone of the book is set in the opening chapter by quotations from these great scientific authorities-Marx, Lenin, Mao Tse-Tung, and Engels.”

“But, after all, the value of the book is in the light it throws on Marxist science, not on science in general.”[29]


Enough said.

Almost immediately after its publication in Vienna, Hollitscher’s book was translated into Russian and published in Moscow, and hailed as a major milestone in the history of natural dialectics by the famous Russian natural dialectician M.E. Omel'yanovskii (М.Э.Омельяновский,1904-1979):

“Science has long been looking for a book depicting the natural landscape from the dialectical materialist points of view. It is philosophically important to write such a book, and it requires the book’s author to do a lot of work, to have the ability of thinking, a broad knowledge in sciences, and the ability of philosophically generalizing the huge amount of scientific dada. Such a task, even a person who has mastered every piece of necessary scientific material might not be able to accomplish. It is difficult to predict how to write such a book and when the book will be finished. However, it should be pointed out that Professor W. Hollitscher’s The Nature in the World of Science has accomplished such mission to a great extent. Such an accomplishment has immeasurable significance to modern natural sciences, especially to philosophy.”[30]

In 1965, the Chinese version of Hollitscher’s book, translated from Russian by Gong Yuzhi’s wife Sun Xiaoli and her colleagues, was published for internal circulation. Obviously, He knew the book from very beginning: in 1960, he was in the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research at Dubna, Russia, and in 1965, he was a red hot philosopher of science in China. And based on his writings, it can be said with absolute certainty that He had been reading Hollitscher’s book like a devout Christian reading the Bible. For example, the book wrote:

“Therefore, the formula E=mc2 should not be interpreted as ‘mass is transformed to energy.’ ‘There is no mass without energy, and there is no energy without mass: the two characters of the matter are connected inseparably.’ ”[31]

It must be based on this doctrine that He wrote his Can Mass Transform to Energy? in 1974 under the fake name Ren Qin (see above). And the second part of He’s article attacking Mr. Tang was also based on the book. The second chapter of Hollitscher’s book was entitled “Matter in Motion,” and the first section was to preach the basic doctrines of materialist dialectics: matter could neither be created nor eliminated. And in the article attacking Mr. Tang’s hypothesis, the first two sentences of He’s second part are:

“However, the problem in the hypothesis of the automatic increase in electron mass is not only that it lacks sufficient scientific evidence, but also that it brutally undermines the laws of mass and energy conservation. These two laws are the natural scientific foundation of the two important laws in dialectical materialism: matter conservation and motion conservation.”[32]

Why are the two conservation laws so important? Because Engels said so: He cited 4 quotations from Engels’ books to demonstrate this point. Then, he wrote:

“Therefore, the philosophical laws of matter and motion conservation are inevitably to be linked tightly with the laws of mass and energy conservation. The formers are the philosophical generalization of the latters, and the latters are the scientific foundation of the formers. Conversely, if one discards mass conservation, discards energy conservation, he is bound to support idealism, and oppose dialectical materialism.”[33]

Of course, pro-idealism and anti-materialism were two of the most fearful labels at the time. Of course Mr. Tang’s direct link to idealism was evidenced by his citing of Fred Hoyle. Therefore, He quoted Hoyle repeatedly to demonstrate that the British physicist was an idealist, and the bizarre thing was, every word He quoted also appeared in Hollitscher’s book. Yes, in Hollitscher’s, Fred Hoyle was picked on as one of the major representatives of metaphysical and idealist “philosophers or philosophized physicists.” Here is what Hollitscher wrote against Hoyle by citing his The Nature of Universe:

“Hoyle claims: ‘new material appears to compensate for the background material that is constantly being condensed into galaxies……The most obvious question to ask about continuous creation is this: Where does the created material come from? It does not come from anywhere. Material simply appears─it is created. At one time the various atoms composing the material do not exist, and at a later time they do.……It is certainly a new hypothesis, but it only replaces a hypothesis that lies concealed in the older theories, which assume, as I have said before, that the whole of the matter in the Universe was created in one big bang at a particular time in the remote past. On scientific grounds this big bang assumption is much the less palatable of the two.’”[34]

“Indeed, Hoyle’s continuous creation just pointed out: ‘The new material does not appear in a concentrated form in small localized regions but is spread throughout the whole of space. The average rate of appearance of matter amounts to no more than the creation of one atom in the course of about a year in a volume equal to that of St. Paul’s Cathedral.’ Like this, the density in a defined region with Hoyle’s phenomenon is disappointedly small. ‘It would be quite impossible to detect such a rate of creation by direct experiment.’”[35]


And He’s quoted exactly the same contents, and all of them, as what Hollitscher quoted, including the suspension points, and including the reference to “St. Paul’s Cathedral.”[36]

The fact is, the “St. Paul’s Cathedral” metaphor was only used by Fred Hoyle in his BBC broadcasting, and in this book’s first British edition: it was not present in the book’s American edition published by Harper and Row in 1950, neither in its revised edition published by Basil Blackwell of UK in 1960. In these two books, Hoyle used “a moderate-sized skyscraper” (1950 edition, p.125), or “a skyscraper” (1960 edition, p.112), respectively. According to the Chinese translation of Hollitscher’s book, Hollitscher’s citation was Hoyle’s book published by Basil Blackwell in 1950. It is extremely unlikely that He Zuoxiu had the access to that early edition in 1974. In other words, it is very likely that He stole Hollitscher when he was attacking Mr. Tang.


Where did He Zuoxiu’s “St. Paul’s Cathedral” come from?
Hoyle’s quotations provided by He Zuoxiu were exactly the same as those appeared in Hollitscher’s book, including the reference to “St. Paul’s Cathedral.” However, the term is not present in the book’s more popular and more recent editions. Upper panel: Hoyle’s The Nature of the Universe published by Harper and Row in 1950; Lower panel: the book’s 1960 edition published Basil Blackwell of UK and republished by Pelican Books in 1963.


The thing is, Hoyle’s paper cited by Mr. Tang had nothing to do with that theory of continuous creation; rather, it was about “a gravitational ‘constant’ that is decreasing with time”[15], which, of course, was originated by Paul Dirac – even his theory of continuous creation of matter could trace its origin to Dirac’s “the number of protons and neutrons in the universe must be increasing proportionally to t2”[23]. So, why didn’t He Zuoxiu attack Dirac? And how did he link the variation of gravitational constant to continuous creation of matter and to idealism?

The answer to the first question is very simple: since 1930s, Paul Dirac had been considered “a sincere friend of Soviet science”[37], and in Hollitscher’s book, Dirac was praised repeatedly for his theory which predicted the existence of positrons, and his assertion of the existence of matter in “zero field” in his classic The Principles of Quantum Mechanics[38]. Therefore, even if He had been loaned a million guts, he would still have been too scared to attack Dirac: In his article, He did acknowledged the fact that Dirac proposed the hypothesis earlier than Hoyle in a footnote, and then he let Dirac go and continued to blast Hoyle till the end of the article, and then 3 years later.

The answer to the second question was actually revealed by He himself, first briefly in his initial attack on Mr. Tang, then, about three years later, in a more detailed form:

“If judged from the details of reference [2] [referring to Hoyle paper cited by Mr. Tang], it seems that it indeed differs in form from Hoyle’s theory of ‘continuous creation of material.’ ……However, if judged from the most important viewpoint of the paper, [it is obvious] that the paper is the continuation of Hoyle’s consistent view. The gravitational theory deduced from conformal transformation in the paper is an example of brutal destruction of the law of conservation of mass, and the law of conservation of energy. The formula for the increase of the rest mass of electron based on the theory is:

m=(constant). t2 (10)


(in which t is cosmic time), is a figurative statement on the creation of mass from nothing. It can be seen from formula (10), the world would start from a certain cosmic time when the God likes, i. e. when t=0, the rest mass of every particle is zero. After that, the rest mass of the particles would grow with time to infinity! What fundamental difference does this theory have from Hoyle’s consistent view?”[39]


And based on such reasoning, He attacked Tang’s idealism and anti-dialectical materialism:

“Comrade Tang Xiaowei changed Hoyle’s ‘law’ of mass increase with the square of time ‘phenomenologically’ (i. e. for no reason) into the form of exponential increase of electron rest mass! Isn’t it so obvious to which world view the hypothesis provides ‘scientific’ support? Especially, in this hypothetical ‘law,’ if the time t extends to the infinite past, then from formulas (1) and (2) we could immediately know the electron mass was zero, and if the time t extends to the infinite future, then the electron’s rest mass would be infinite! Isn’t this an exact figurative description of the process called 'material created from nothing' !”[40]

You have to admire Mr. He’s ability of infinite exaggerations. The fact is, in Hoyle’s paper, it states clearly “There need be no 'origin' in the Minkowski representation”[15], and in Tang’s article, he clearly defined the range of application of his formula: “in the scope of our observed space and time, in the process of evolution of this specific celestial body”[41] Of course they were meaningless to He, otherwise, his political stick would have been powerless, and he himself would have been worthless.

The funny thing is, by 2007, the fight between materialism and idealism was no longer important to anyone in China, and He not only accepted the theory of universe expansion, he even accepted the theory that physical constants are variable. Why? Because his old boss Peng Huanwu believed so:

“We know that in the past period, there appeared new trends in our science. In the universal space, besides the dark matter, there is possibly dark energy, and the universe is expanding at an accelerated speed. Why would the universe expand at accelerated speed? Master Peng immediately thought of Dirac’s big number law. In Dirac’s work, an important thought is that the gravitational constant could vary with time. And a natural explanation to the accelerated expansion of the universe is that the gravitational constant gradually weakens, which makes the universe look like expanding at an accelerated speed. Therefore, to explain the accelerated expansion, Master Peng especially did a research on the gravity field with a variable gravitational constant. Master Peng is already 89 years old. At this age, he is still capable of doing so much specific work, suggesting how deep and solid his theoretical physic knowledge is. I admire him very much. Such a work ethic is really worth learning by us.”[42]

However, He has never apologized to Mr. Tang, or Dr. Hoyle, or Dr. Gamow, for his attacks on them, because deep in his heart, he is still believing, or pretends to believe, that the doctrines preached by Engels are absolute truth.

(3) He’s Knowledge in Chinese History and Philosophy

Like Yu Guangyuan and Fang Zhouzi, He Zuoxiu is extremely fond of pretending to know everything: from Chinese to Western, from natural sciences to philosophy to humanities. And when he was attacking Mr. Tang by stealing from the American and Indian physicists and the Austrian philosopher, he didn’t forget that he could also steal something from his Chinese brethren. Commenting on Hoyle’s objection to the “Big Bang” theory, He wrote:

“In the history of philosophy, quarreling with each other among various idealist schools is not a rare phenomenon. In the history of Chinese philosophy, there was a very famous 'Swan Lake Debate.' In 1175, in Southern Song Dynasty, Zhu Xi, an objective idealist, and Lu Jiuyuan, a subjective idealist, engaged in an epistemological debate in the Swan Lake Temple in Xin County, Jiangxi. The debate lasted for several days, but the two sides were at loggerheads. Lu Jiuyuan, from the idealist perspective, criticized Zhu Xi’s ‘knowing by studying things’ ‘could mislead people by things,’ and his theory was ‘too fragmental,’ ‘the more [you] talk, the more [I am] confused.’ Zhu Xi, on the hand, criticized Lu Jiuyuan’s ‘Mind-and-Heart Learning’ was ‘too simple,’ he also alleged that ‘Lu Jiuyuan’s theory contains many teachings of Zen.’ To the last point, Lu Jiuyuan replied: ‘I am not like some people who are in fact following Zen by dishing up the same old stuff in a new form, and concealing its source on the surface.’[15] Like that, the two sides exposed the truth that their theories are connected to Zen (a school of Buddhism).”[43]

He’s note [15] listed 3 references[44]: one was quotations of Zhu Xi (Chu His, 1130-1200), collected and edited by his disciples (The Classified Conversations of Master Zhu); one was The Records of Song and Yuan Scholars, a history book written and compiled by Huang Zongxi (Huang Tsunghsi, 1610-1695); and the last one was a booklet written by two contemporary scholars Pan Fu’en and Ou Qun, published in 1973, entitled The Struggle Between Two Epistemologies in Ancient China. Of course, the main idea, the story, and the quotations presented in He’s paragraph, quoted above, were almost exclusively derived from a paragraph in that last literature. As a matter of fact, He even stole a Lenin’s sentence from it.

First of all, although the Swan Lake Debate is indeed one of the most important events in the history of Chinese philosophy, there is actually little information available about the content of the debate. As a matter of fact, except for some fragmental recollections and two poems, everything else is nothing but hearsays: people even don’t know for sure for how many days the debate lasted[45].

Secondly, based on the fragmental records, it was extremely an overstretching to say that the debate was “an epistemological debate,” (Pan and Ou said it was about “apriorism”). The fact is, the main theme of the debate, and indeed the major difference between Zhu and Lu, at least around the time of the Swan Lake Debate, was the methodology of learning (“为学之方”): Zhu’s emphasis was on reading the books written by the sages and saints, and Lu’s was reflections and self-examinations. And it was in this context, Lu made his “fragmental” comment on Zhu’s way of learning[46]. Therefore, it was not a criticism against, as both He and Pan & Ou claimed, Zhu’s “knowing by studying things,” which literally means getting knowledge by studying objective things in the natural world.

Thirdly, among the six quoted remarks cited by He (four of them were exactly the same as those by Pan and Ou), none of them, except for the “fragmental” comment mentioned above, was made during the “Swan Lake Debate.” Rather, they were made either before or after the debate. For example, Lu’s comment, “the more [you] talk, the more [I am] confused,” was made in a letter he sent to Zhu, debating about tai chi, in 1188, 13 years after the Swan Lake Debate[47].

Fourthly, the stupidest mistake He made was his last quotation, supposedly Lu’s counter-attack on Zhu Xi, saying that Zhu’s theory was based on Zen, but Zhu tried to hide his source. The fact is, these words were written by Zhu in his reply to Lu’s tai chi letter, in 1189, and it was not only clearly marked at the beginning of the paragraph that it was Zhu’s letter in The Records of Song and Yuan Scholars, which He listed as one of his references, it also revealed in the letter itself that it was Zhu’s letter since Zhu mentioned his own name at the end of the paragraph[48]. Therefore, He either didn’t read the reference he cited, which is most likely the case; or he didn’t understand what he read, which is probably also true.


The stolen goods, again
The upper panel shows He’s text about the “Swan Lake Debate,” in which the words resemble those written by Pan Fu’en and Ou Qun in their The Struggle Between Two Epistemologies in Ancient China ( pp.52-53, lower panel) were highlighted with red underlines. Please note that the words in bold font in both panels were a quotation from Lenin’s Philosophical Notes, “When one idealist criticizes the foundations of idealism of another idealist, materialism is always the gainer thereby.”



The more He talks, the more He gets confused
According to He Zuoxiu, Lu Jiuyuan refuted Zhu’s accusation of his affiliation with Zen by saying “I am not like some people who are in fact following Zen by dishing up the same old stuff in a new form, and concealing its source on the surface.” The fact is, the words were written by Zhu to Lu, instead of speaking by Lu to Zhu, and the text, quoted at least twice in The Records of Song and Yuan Scholars, which He listed as one of his references, clearly shows so: the red boxed words indicate unequivocally the quoted words were Zhu’s, and the words marked by red sidelines were what He Zuoxiu quoted in contemporary Chinese. See [48].


(4) He’s Knowledge in Marxism

One might think that since He had worked in the Propaganda Department for 5 years, and he claimed, repeated, that he is one of only a few people in China who know both science and Marxism, then his criticism of Mr. Tang’s hypothesis must be based on orthodox Marxism, right? Wrong! The fact is, Mr. Tang defeated He in his own backyard.

In June 1975, 13 months after the publication of He’s great criticism article, Chinese Science Bulletin published Mr. Tang’s rebuttal. This is his first paragraph:

“The Hypothesis of Elementary Particle Evolution and the Interpretation for Extragalactic Redshift proposed that particles such as electron and proton have developmental history in time dimension. Last year, Chinese Science Bulletin published Comrade He Zuoxiu’s article, which opposes the hypothesis, and its main theme is that ‘elementary’ particles do not have time dimensional history of development. This article is based on the fundamental principles of Marxism, ‘the electron is as inexhaustible as the atom’ and ‘in the fields of the struggle for production and scientific experiment, mankind makes constant progress and nature undergoes constant change, they never remain at the same level,’ further explains the hypothesis.”[49] (Note: The bold fonts were original.)

The so called “fundamental principles of Marxism” were from Lenin’s Materialism and Empirio-criticism, first published in 1909, and Chairman Mao’s comment on Premier Zhou Enlai's Report on the Work of the Government to the First Session of the Third National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China, made in 1964.

And in the article, Mr. Tang, whose knowledge in Marxism was basically unknown to other people, and still is till this day, cited Engels and Lenin four times each, and Chairman Mao five times, to demonstrate that the hypothesis that elementary particles evolve is in line with dialectical materialism. For example, Mr. Tang managed to find the following words from one of Engels’ notes for Anti-Dühring, which, according to Mr. Tang, criticized the metaphysical thinking in 18th century’s natural sciences:

“Nature was not at all regarded as something that developed historically, that had a history in time; only extension in space was taken into’ account; the various forms were grouped not one after the other, but only one beside the other; natural history was valid for all periods, like the elliptical orbits of the planets. ……Natural science, at the outset revolutionary, was confronted by an out-and-out conservative nature, in which everything remained today as it was at the beginning of the world, and in which right to the end of the world everything would remain as it had been in the beginning.”[50]

And based on the above, Mr. Tang bombarded He Zuoxiu with the following questions:

“As for the view that particles remain the same, doesn’t that the natural science which has already confirmed the evolution of celestial bodies and the evolution of organisms, stand today in front of the conservative ‘elementary’ particle world again? If not regarding electrons and protons as something that developed historically, that had a history in time; if believing that electrons and protons as well as their properties are the same forever; believing that the present electrons are the same as the ancient ones, and they will be the same billions of years later; then, doesn’t it mean in the area of ‘elementary’ particles, ‘heaven changeth not, likewise Tao changeth not’?”[51]

The sentence “heaven changeth not, likewise Tao changeth not” was written by Dong Zhongshu (Tung Chung-shu, 179–104 BC), the very person who made Confucianism the official ideology in China, and in the “Criticize Lin, Criticize Confucius” and “Appraise Legalism, Criticize Confucianism” movements, the sentence was regarded as one of the most reactionary teachings in China’s history. Here is what He wrote a few months after Mr. Tang’s rebuttal about the sentence:

“In a word, the presentation of his reactionary theory was aimed politically at the justification of the ‘divine right of kings’ so as to enforce the absolute rule of feudal monarchs.”[52]

Therefore, you can imagine how scared He Zuoxiu was after reading Mr. Tang’s counter-attack. The more scaring thing is, Mr. Tang didn’t stop there. He went on:

“‘Heaven changeth not, likewise the Tao changeth not’ is a reactionary doctrine of Confucius and Mencius. Chairman Mao has pointed out in his On Contradiction: ‘It is only the reactionary ruling classes of the past and present and the metaphysicians in their service who regard opposites not as living, conditional, mobile and transforming themselves into one another, but as dead and rigid, and they propagate this fallacy everywhere to delude the masses of the people, thus seeking to perpetuate their rule.’ In the area of natural sciences, we should try hard to study Marxism, Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought, thoroughly criticize the doctrine of Confucius and Mencius, ‘Heaven changeth not, likewise the Tao changeth not.’”[53]

Mr. Tang’s above words certainly sent chills down He’s spine. In his reply to Tang’s rebuttal, which was published in 1977[39], He’s tone was much softer and gentler than it used to be, although the importunateness was the same.

3. Parallel, Intertwine, Conflict, Contrast: A Tale of Two Academicians

Surprisingly, Mr. Tang Xiaowei and He Zuoxiu have a very similar, or parallel, life experience and career path, although the end results are just the opposite: right now, Mr. Tang is one of the most respected scientists in China, while He Zuoxiu is THE most disrespected one, and among the most hateful persons in China as well.

Mr. Tang was born in 1931 in Wuxi, Jiangsu Province to a literary family[54]. His grandfather, Mr. Tang Wenzhi, was the president of Shanghai Higher Industrial School (上海高等实业学堂), the predecessor of Shanghai Jiao Tong University, from 1907-1920. He also found the Wuxi National Studies College (无锡国学专修学校) in 1920, which became one of the predecessors of Soochow University. In contrast to the lavish and extravagant life style of He Zhidao, He Zuoxiu’s great grandfather, exemplified by his He’s Garden, Mr. Tang Wenzhi was, and still is, known for his scholarship, honesty, and thrifty[55].


Mr. Tang Wenzhi (1865-1954) and some of his works


Wuxi is about midway between Yangzhou, He Zuoxiu’s hometown, and Shanghai, He Zuoxiu’s birthplace. Like He Zuoxiu, Tang Xiaowei did grow up in Shanghai: he even went to the same high school, Shanghai Nanyang Model High School, as He Zuoxiu did, right after He Zuoxiu graduated from that school in 1945. In 1949, both Tang and He joined in CCP, Tang in Shanghai as a high school student, and He in Beijing as a college boy in Tsinghua University. As a matter of fact, they both studied physics in Tsinghua University: He Zuoxiu graduated from Tsinghua in 1951, and Tang in 1952.

After graduating from Tsinghua, Mr. Tang was assigned to the Institute of Modern Physics at CAS, starting his experimental physicist career. He Zuoxiu, on the other hand, went to the Propaganda Department and ultimately became a scholar-like politician. In September 1956, Mr. Tang was sent to the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research at Dubna, Russia. After he returned to China in April 1960, he published 14 research papers in less than three years in the prestigious Acta Physica Sinica. He Zuoxiu, who went to Dubna in 1958 and returned at the end of 1960, on the other hand, published two papers in the journal between 1960 and 1966.

Since coming back from Dubna, Mr. Tang was assigned to work in China’s nuclear weapons program, in charge of designing and making equipment for the detection and measurement of nuclear reaction. And except for missing the beginning few months, Mr. Tang was directly involved in the entire history of the program, from atomic bomb to hydrogen bomb. Tang’s contribution to the program was well recognized. Here is a paragraph in China Today: Nuclear Industry, published in 1987:

“To measure pulse neutrons, Tang Xiaowei and other young researchers worked under the guidance of older scientists to complete development of monitoring systems and met the requirements for this test. The success of this experiment solved key technical problems in development of the atomic bomb and laid a reliable foundation for atomic bomb design and nuclear blast tests.”[56]

For his contribution, Mr. Tang, along with other people who had made important contributions to the atomic bomb project, was received by Premier Zhou Enlai in 1965[57]. As mentioned before, even though He Zuoxiu has been claiming that he is one of the pioneers in China’s hydrogen bomb theory, his claim has not been substantiated by any reliable evidence besides his own words[58].

................................................


In 1978, Chinese government sent a group of physicist to the Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron (DESY) to work in the MARK-J group under the leadership of Dr. Samuel C. C. Ting. According to Mr. Tang’s biographer[54], it was Dr. Ting who nominated Mr. Tang, and Mr. Tang was appointed the leader of the Chinese group, which contained initially 10 people, then replaced by another 17 people one year later. Tang was the leader of both groups. In 1979, MARK-J group found the gluons, and the New York Times reported the new on its front page, and said:

“For the first time in the history of international team research projects on nuclear particles, a major contribution came from China, 27 of whose scientists worked on the key experiment.”[59]

The 27 Chinese scientists were the combination of the two groups led by Mr. Tang.


The front page Special Report of New York Times
As shown on the front page of Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on Sept. 11, 1979.


In 1984, in a preface to one of Mr. Tang’s books, Dr. C. C. Ting wrote:

“Professor Tang Xiaowei, one of the authors of the book, is a physicist with much experience and great achievement. He personally participated in the electron-positron colliding experiment, and, especially, he made important contribution to the discovery of gluons in 1979.”[60]

In 1979 and 1980, Mr. Tang, as a member of the MARK-J group, published at least 11 papers, mainly in Physical Review Letters[61]. And before 1985, He Zuoxiu published a grand total of 4 papers in English, all in Scientia Sinica, including that noxious The Materialistic Theory of Yuan Ch'i—One of the Brilliant Philosophical Ideas of the Legalist School[58]. In 1980, both Mr. Tang and He were made academicians of CAS.

.........................................


Whether He Zuoxiu was involved in killing Mr. Tang’s proposal is unknown. However, after Dr. Koshiba won his Nobel Prize in 2002, Mr. He Jingtang, a research scientist in the Institute of High Energy, and a colleague of both Tang Xiaowei and He Zuoxiu, revealed the story in two Chinese professional journals[62], which generated some uproars in China. In July 2003, Science Daily published an article reporting Mr. He Jingtang’s story[63], however, it appears that the published article was an abridged version, its original version soon appeared on the internet, including on the New Threads, in which He Zuoxiu’s attack on Mr. Tang was mentioned:

“When He Zuoxiu attacked Tang Xiaowei in Physics magazine saying his research on proton decay violated the conservation of energy, which was equivalent to saying that Tang Xiaowei even didn’t have the basic knowledge, and of course it could influence the decision making by the leaders in charge.”[64]

Sure, the writer of the article got the basic facts wrong: the magazine which published He’s articles was Chinese Science Bulletin, not Physics, and Mr. Tang’s research being attacked was electron evolution, not proton decay. However, despite these factual errors, the writer’s argument is still valid: He’s attack could have an effect on the decision making process by the leaders of the CAS.

The fact is, the end of 1970s was probably He Zuoxiu’s proudest moment in his entire life. In 1978, the Institute of Theoretical Physics of CAS was established, approved by China’s paramount leader Deng Xiaoping. Although the institute was headed by the eminent Dr. Peng Huanwu, the person in charge of daily operation was no one else but He Zuoxiu: “Mr. Peng promised that he would only pay attention to two things, and take hands-off policy to the rest things.” The two things were the mission of the institute, and the promotion of the senior research scientists[65].

The question is, how could a person like He Zuoxiu find favor with two opposite camps, namely the extreme leftist Gang of Four, and their archrival Deng Xiaoping? The answer will be given in the next part of this serial letter, for now, let’s finish the story about Mr. Tang.

In 1982, in the midst of preparing the construction of Beijing Electron Positron Collider, Mr. Tang, arguably the top expert in the area, suddenly met unspecified “difficulty” in his work and working condition[66]. The “difficulty” was so big that it became the major reason for his turning his eyes to biology[67]. Since the mid-1980s, Mr. Tang has been mainly conducting biological research, especially in the area of behavioral and brain sciences. It is unknown to the public whether He was involved in causing the difficulty, but my educated guess is “very likely.”


No comparison
A paper on brain science published by Mr. Tang’s lab in 2005 has been cited for 141 times. He Zuoxiu’s most influential paper on physics is the one published in Physics Letters B in 1991. So far, it has been cited 59 times. The combined citation times of He’s 32 English papers, as of today, Feb. 2, 2014, are 324, including self-citations.


So far, Mr. Tang has authored or co-authored more than 450 original scientific research papers. Although Mr. He has published about the same number of articles, more than 80% of them are unrelated to science, for example, that noxious “Three Representatives theory is the fundamental criterion of the evaluation system of scientific and technological innovation.”

So far, Mr. Tang has published at least 14 books as their author, co-author, or editor, all of them are about science. Although Mr. He published about equal number of books, almost all of them are about politics and ideology (see the table below).



In 1998, Mr. Tang declined the HLHL Foundation award, arguably one of the most influential and authoritative science awards for Chinese scientists: unlike the “John Maddox Prize,” the judges of the HLHL award are all accomplished scientists or senior officials in charge of China’s science and technology policies[68], and its monetary value is 150,000 HKD, about $20,000, a large sum at the time to a Chinese scientist. Therefore, being selected for the HLHL award is a true honor, instead of a shame, to a Chinese. So, why did Mr. Tang decline the award? This is what he said:

“I don’t pay much attention to any awards and prizes, and my only wish is to honestly make more contributions to my motherland!”[69]

As far as I know, no one has ever doubted Mr. Tang’s honesty and sincerity in these words, because he literally practices these words every day, till today: He bring his own lunch to work, he doesn’t accept extra compensations for his extra work - lectures, seminars, and consultations -, and he even refuses to take the transportation provided to him by the institutions he works for[70].

In 2013, He Zuoxiu accepted the so called “New Threads Scientific Spirit Prize” from Fang Zhouzi[71]. The Prize is worth 10,000 Swiss francs, provided by a Swiss mercenary profiteer MDPI AG, an open access publisher founded and controlled by a Fangangster named Lin Shu-kun, who was dismissed from the University of Louisville in 1989 for various reasons, including stealing[72]. Except for Fang and Lin, it seems no one in this world knows how the selection for the prize was made; however, everyone knows for sure the reason for He’s being selected: because he “always supports Fang Zhouzi.” The event was not reported by any mainstream news media in China until a news release by kaiwind.com, a website controlled secretly and solely by the spooky 610 Office, to which both Fang and He have secret ties. In exchange, He might have arranged the connection between China Association for Science and Technology and MDPI AG[73]. The Swiss merchant Lin did get his money’s worth.


Exchanges
U. S. permanent resident Fang Shi-min has built a Science Nazi Mafia empire headquartered in Beijing by using terrorist means as his weapons, anti-pseudoscience and anti-fraud as his camouflages, and government agents, such as He Zuoxiu, as his backstage manipulators. Profiteers like Swiss merchant Lin Shu-kun, who relies upon China’s market for survival, could get the U.S.-Sino Mafia’s protection and promotion by paying a fee.




被编辑4次。最后被亦明编辑于07/05/2014 04:41PM。
附件:
打开 | 下载 - Part XXXIV_The Fangansters (IV)_He Zuoxiu, a Shameless Party Man (II).pdf (1.79 MB)
主题 发布者 已发表

Open Letter to Nature: Part XXXII: The Fangangsters (II): He Zuoxiu, a Shameless Party Man (I) (4989 查看) 附件

亦明 November 15, 2013 07:33PM

Part XXXIII: The Fangangsters (III): Shu-Kun Lin and His Predatory MDPI Journals (18532 查看) 附件

亦明 January 19, 2014 07:24PM

Part XXXIV: The Fangangsters (IV): He Zuoxiu, a Shameless Party Man (II) (3949 查看) 附件

亦明 February 02, 2014 06:01PM

Part XXXV: The Fangangsters (V): He Zuoxiu, a Shameless Party Man (III) (3653 查看) 附件

亦明 February 19, 2014 01:54PM

Part XXXVI: The Fangangsters (VI): Shu-Kun Lin and His Predatory MDPI Journals (II) (4081 查看) 附件

亦明 February 26, 2014 06:32PM

Part XXXVII: The Fangangsters (VII): Shu-Kun Lin and His Predatory MDPI Journals (III) (6846 查看)

亦明 March 04, 2014 07:05PM

Part XXXVIII: The Fangangsters (VIII): Shu-Kun Lin and His Predatory MDPI Journals (IV) (4980 查看) 附件

亦明 March 16, 2014 02:35PM



对不起,只有注册用户才能发帖。

登陆

2250s.com does not represent or guarantee the truthfulness, accuracy, or reliability of any of communications posted by users.

This forum powered by Phorum.