# Chinese Scholar Yang Jian liang Putting Wrongs to Rights in Astrophysics

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by heyuhua, Apr 22, 2018.

1. ### exchemistValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,410
But surely such phenomena are adequately explained already, without resorting to this hypothesis?

Or do you contend they are not?

3. ### heyuhuaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
432
Yang is wise and correct, if you don't read hard, you will not understand the mystery of Yang's article

5. ### heyuhuaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
432
only use Yang's new theory these phenomena can be explained uniformly and systematically and completely, and form the chain of evidence, and opposite, the other explanations are fragmentary

7. ### exchemistValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,410
But these explanations work fine and do not require a new hypothesis for which there is no evidence.

8. ### heyuhuaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
432
because can not form the chain of evidence, thoes explanations are actually farfetched and their exisence isn't because they're reasonable, but because they don't have better alternatives for the time being. Yang's work of the integration of the continuous creation of matter into the framework of general relativity is a major step forward

Last edited: Jun 13, 2018
9. ### heyuhuaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
432
General relativity is not only the theory of gravity but also the theory of repulsive force.

10. ### exchemistValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,410
What is far-fetched about tidal effects?

11. ### heyuhuaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
432
The tidal effect alone can not explain the retreat of the moon. According to tidal theory, the retreat distance of the moon within one year does not exceed two centimeters, but observations show that the retreat distance of the moon is 3.8 centimeters a year. Only considering the Hubble expansion(2.7 centimeters per year) can really solve the observed 3.8 centimeters.

12. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,526
Except obviously not; you yourself have provided multiple proves in this very thread that he's incorrect! Too bad you don't have the intellectual honesty to admit that, and have to ignore the past 100 posts happening altogether, now that even you understand that Yang is wrong.

That's exactly what we've done in the past 100 posts; you are just not willing to admit that after doing that, Yang was proven wrong, even by you.

That's the reason you are ignoring me now, isn't it? Yang is wrong, and you (now) know it.

13. ### heyuhuaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
432
"Yang was proven wrong," , ha ha , what a joke you're kidding, you are stupid and irredeemable, instead of saying that others are wrong, don't you know shame? Only you're wrong, it is impossible that Yang is wrong, he's a great physicist and mathematician of our time. To be clear, I'm a close collaborator with Yang.

Last edited: Jun 13, 2018
14. ### spidergoatVenued Serial MembershipValued Senior Member

Messages:
53,174
Something a real scientist would never say.

15. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,526
Back to the insults? Pathetic.

Well, seeing as he was proven wrong in this very thread by you, I find that somewhat implausible.

Then I would expect him to know how minus-sign conventions work, which he clearly doesn't.

Then you should be able to ask him about this obvious mistake in his work, that even you now understand. Go on, we'll wait.

16. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,526
I get the sense heyuhua has never met a "real scientist" before...

17. ### originIn a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
10,494
What I have read is that the tidal effect cause the moon to recede at 3.8 cm/year not 2 cm/year as you claim.

18. ### heyuhuaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
432
if 3.8 cm/year is pure tidal effect the secular change of long of day will increase by 2 ms/cy at least, which is against observations, once considering of Hubble expansion the question disappear, note that spacetime expansion doesn't change the period of celestial spin or revolution though they are leaving each other. Besides, pure tidal effect makes other difficulty or not self-consistent too, see Yang's article recommended in head thread

Last edited: Jun 14, 2018
19. ### heyuhuaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
432

I have said already 100 times that "the minus mistake" is not a mistake, all over the world scientists are doing so , and don't impose your ignorance on others, you are obnoxious to be so stubborn

about the two forms of definition of Ricci tensor, as well corresponding different forms of Gravitational field equation, see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations

Last edited: Jun 14, 2018
20. ### Q-reeusValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,056
heyuhua - where do you and esteemed collaborator get that accelerated Hubble expansion will contribute that ~ 2.7 annual rate of growth of Earth-moon distance?
So-named dark energy believed responsible for positive dH/dt, exerts a feeble effective stretching force between bodies that is linear wrt separation. Applied to Earth-moon system, and assuming for the moment no tidal drag existed, that translates into an effectively one-off extra separation of shall we say X cm. That's it. To have X increasing at an annual rate, you would have to posit a continual growth in strength of DE - a so-called 'big rip' scenario. Are we doomed to be torn to shreds any time soon?

21. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,526
Yang disagrees with this statement. In his work, he clearly is saying his EFE is fundamentally different than the EFE all those other scientists are using. He is clearly assigning meaning to this minus sign that other scientists don't. As I said before, if the minus-sign itself isn't the mistake (and it turns out it isn't), then his interpretation of it is. And you yourself have clearly established that is indeed the case with your latest provided source. You yourself have proven Yang wrong.

Says the person who wanted me to recommend Yang's work, which contains basic mistakes, to others...

More insults instead of actually addressing the arguments, more breaking of forum rules instead of being intellectually honest.

Also, please point out in that article where it states that the EFE's used by Carroll, Adler et al., and Wikipedia itself are all wrong. Remember, Yang claims explicitly that the $-8$ in those EFE's is wrong, and needs to be a $+4$.

22. ### heyuhuaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
432
the +4 is a modification to the -8, which is Yang's achievement, and through the modification the dark matter and dark energy are included in GR (namely pressure takes negative ) and don't need other hypothesis.

23. ### heyuhuaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
432
the +4 is a modification to the -8 while other definitions do not change,which is the value of Yang's work