Chinese Scholar Yang Jian liang Putting Wrongs to Rights in Astrophysics

You are antagonizing wherever me maliciously, and this is not academic discussion,

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This parameter is superfluous in the solar system, not always there. to plus this parameter, you have to assume that it's small enough, which means to add a more hypothesis,and science is rigorous and can never add hypothesis optionally. Einstein thought that adding cosmic constants was his biggest mistake, and Einstein's understanding was profound. Unfortunately, later generations did not understand Einstein, once encountered difficulties to continue to add cosmic constants, this is the folly of posterity. Please remmber that the random addition of parameters or hypothesis may make any calculation meaningless

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

it is one-sided to portray known celestial systems as the whole universe and to proclaim that the universe is finite and borderline. It is similar to Newton's laws of mechanics and is only a special case in a very small range of nature. As science unfolds in the future, these theories are bound to be overturned at a higher level, as Einstein denied Newton's absolute view of time and space

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Says the person that changed the subject away from the factor 2...

Please don't put words in my mouth. Where did I say that information came from a paper?

Again, read the textbooks, and search online to all the students (or people in general) that have pointed out problems with the establishing of the coefficient.

As you've demonstrated multiple times in this thread: you indeed don't.

*BOOM*

There went another irony-meter!

Says the person not able to provide any evidence for most of his/her claims.

So now you're backpeddling on your comment in post #534? Typical.

That's a contradiction.

Perhaps you should look up what the word "innovation" means?

Except it isn't, as we've discovered in this thread.

Wait, now innovation is something positive again? Which is it?

Says the person that has been insulting me and calling me names throughout this thread.

No, thankfully for you, because in an academic setting, you'd have to prove your claims, instead of dodging questions and issues.

I suspect that may be part of why Yang article hasn't gone through peer-review by a respected journal?

Neither is the Hubble constant, so you're also arguing that's a mistake too.

If it were large, it'd be easily measurable in the solar system. So your argument is circular; you are using the fact that it isn't (easily) measureable in the solar system to prove that the cosmological constant is small-ish (which is true), and then you argue that thus it cannot be large, so it must be false. You are attacking your own assumption.

False; as I said, it's a free parameter. That you don't know what that means, doesn't mean it's not.

And it wasn't. That you don't understand this, doesn't mean it's bad science.

No, you believe Einstein was wrong about the EFE entirely, remember?

And neither do you, as you've demonstrated in this thread.

Except the truth is the total opposite. But clearly, you don't know what you are talking about.

​

"may"? That sounds like a strong argument...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And that's false as a general statement. For example, adding an additive constant to any equation is fine, if you later set it to zero. But the cosmological constant isn't even that: it's a free parameter, so it's always there already. But as you've demonstrated multiple times in this thread now, you don't understand what a "free parameter" is, and you lack the intellectual honesty to find out.

 

It's not difficult to have patience when truth is on your side.

What gave it away?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I'm here to introduce Yang's achievements. The key to this achievement is to modify the coupling coefficient of the field equation, that is, to change the original -8 to the present 4, and the pressure is proved to be negative. This modification is essentially to seek another more reasonable static spherically symmetric weak field approximation's solution to the field equation-----note that the coupling coefficient and pressure are also solved together with the metric as an unknown number, unlike before, pressure was treated as zero in advance. To ensure that a new and more reasonable metric can occur, the coupling coefficient was redefined as 4paiG to replace the provious -8 paiG, and the pressure must be negative. The whole calculation process is clear and clear, step by step, and there were also 2 in the middle, but there was no special significance. there is no factor 2 problem, but you try to tangle factor 2 over and over again and treat it as a problem, this is clearly your misconception and you bring up unnecessary ramifications. But instead of looking at yourself, you continue to mess with it, you're too disgusting.

 

I'm here to introduce Yang's achievements. The key to this achievement is to modify the coupling coefficient of the field equation, that is, to change the original -8 to the present 4, and the pressure is proved to be negative. This modification is essentially to seek another more reasonable static spherically symmetric weak field approximation's solution to the field equation-----note that the coupling coefficient and pressure are also solved together with the metric as an unknown number, unlike before, pressure was treated as zero in advance. To ensure that a new and more reasonable metric can occur, the factor -8 in the field equation should be replaced by 4, and the pressure must be negative. The whole calculation process is clear and clear, step by step, and there were also 2 in the middle, but there was no special significance. there is no factor 2 problem, but you try to tangle factor 2 over and over again and treat it as a problem, this is clearly your misconception and you bring up unnecessary ramifications. But instead of looking at yourself, you continue to mess with it, you're too disgusting.

 

I'm here to introduce Yang's achievements. The key to this achievement is to modify the coupling coefficient of the field equation, that is, to change the original -8 to the present 4, and the pressure is proved to be negative. This modification is essentially to seek another more reasonable static spherically symmetric weak field approximation's solution to the field equation-----note that the coupling coefficient and pressure are also solved together with the metric as an unknown number, unlike before, pressure was treated as zero in advance. To ensure that a new and more reasonable metric can occur, Yang found that the coupling coefficient should be 4paiG but not the provious -8 paiG, and the pressure must be negative. The whole calculation process is clear and clear, step by step, and there were also 2 in the middle, but there was no special significance. there is no factor 2 problem, but you try to tangle factor 2 over and over again and treat it as a problem, this is clearly your misconception and you bring up unnecessary ramifications. But instead of looking at yourself, you continue to mess with it, you're too disgusting.

 

obviously, you are lying, heyuhua never said such words, that is Hayden's, who is another Registered. You don't even see the door, you shit

 

announced again,the Ricci tensor we use is the Wimberger's definition, not the carroll definition.The difference between the two definitions is a minus sign, that is, Rij defined by Wimberger=- Rij defined by Carroll. therefore, using Wimberger's definition the original field equation is Rij=-8paiGS ij, and using carroll's definition, the original field equation becomes Rij=8paiGS ij, these two equations are completely equivalent. Here Sij=Tij-gijT/2. Obviously, Yang's modification aimed at Rij=-8paiGS ij, not considering Rij=8paiGS ij,

 

That is a direct contradiction with the claim that pressure is negative. So which is it?

See? Pressure must be negative, but you just said that pressure was treated as zero. You can't have both.

And I never claimed otherwise.

You still don't understand: if two people derive the EFE, and one gets a coefficient of -8, while the other gets 4, at least one of the two must be wrong. You claim only Yang is right. I'm skeptical that all those tens of thousands of GR-experts are wrong.

That you don't want to face the music is your problem, not mine.

No, the disgusting part is the part where one of us continually ignored many issues, dodges questions, and doesn't understand half of the established cosmological knowledge that's brought up.

Oh, and the use of insults and name calling. That's quite disgusting too.

Obviously? Well, let's see the evidence for that then! If it's obvious, it should be easy for you to prove.

... Are you schizophrenic? Why are you talking about yourself in the third person?

And I never claimed otherwise.

Again, name calling. How very mature of you.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

But I don't get your point? I responded to Hayden's post, knowing that it was Hayden who posted it, not you. Am I not allowed by you to respond to other posters in this thread? Why are you so angry that I did that? What the heck is wrong with you?!

And thus Weinberg proves Yang wrong: there needs to be a coefficient of -8, not 4. That's what the factor 2 business is all about. You know, the thing that you, just a few posts ago, said wasn't a problem, that was my misconception. Well, clearly, Weinberg says otherwise. (As does Carroll, by the way.)

As I said before: your own provided sources prove Yang wrong. That you choose to ignore that issue, doesn't make it go away.

 

here I is still to say that pressure is negative, no contradiction. Of course, the conclusion that the pressure is negative is proven rather than a new hypothesis, that is, the negativs pressure is solved from the field equation rather than artificial imagination.

 

The fact is that, Weinberg did not prove Yang was wrong, but Yang proved Weinberg was wrong. If he saw Yang's demonstration, would be admired because Yang's demonstration was indeed higher level than he did

 

OK, I understand now: that particular statement was just broken language.

Yes, and the conclusion reached thus demonstrates that this EFE is not compatible with our universe: matter does not generates negative pressure in ours.

As I've asked you multiple times: point out where Weinberg makes a mistake. And Carroll. And Einstein. And Mesner. And Adler. And your own provided Chinese author.

I know you can't.

Again with your fantasies...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Have you contacted Carroll already? Since he's still alive, you should have no trouble convincing him, right?

 

you say so indicates you still have a lot of misunderstandings, it is inpossible that I proved Yang wrong, this is ridiculous

 

4 and -8 are different, where the 4 should appear the -8 appears, isn't that a mistake?

 

Please don't widen problem， I didn't say Wimberger was wrong， I just said he was wrong about the coefficient. A series of problems that followed were caused by this false coefficient, such as the problem of horizon, the limited space and time, the difficulty of flatness, the difficulty of galaxy formation, and so on.

 

I can't reach him. But I'm afraid it's harder to convince him than you. Planck seemed to have said that it is a waste of effort to let an expert accept new ideas unless they die.

 

It was this false coefficient that led to a series of difficulties that followed，such as the problem of horizon, the limited space or time, the difficulty of flatness, the difficulty of galaxy or celestial body's formation, Big Bang Singularity, mass missing and so on. It is in order to solve these difficulties that many absurd proposals have been put forward, such as assuming that there is dark matter, dark energy, adding cosmological constants and so on, so far no one found the two dark though a lot of measure are finished. The coefficient of correcting the error is the most important, obviously if the error is not corrected，people must go further and further along the wrong path，and there can be no real progress

 

Correction of errors in time is the basis for continuing progress. If the geocentric theory had not been corrected in those days, it was sure that astronomy could not develop normally. It is bound to fall into an increasingly confused and endless debate, and even the simplest problems would not have been solved. Today , this wrong coupling coefficient is constraining the development of cosmology, and the degree of hindrance is exactly the same as that of geocentric theory to astronomy. Unfortunately, due to people's blind worship of authority, dare not admit that the coupling coefficient is a mistake, so that circulate erroneous reports or incorrectly relay an erroneous message. In view of the current situation, Yang's work is obviously a kind of enlightenment or appeal, and there is no time to pay attention to whether or not to follow up