Chinese Scholar Yang Jian liang Putting Wrongs to Rights in Astrophysics

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by heyuhua, Apr 22, 2018.

  1. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,593
    The value of Yang's work is exactly -1/2? Or is that an approximation?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,267
    Yes, and as we've established here, at least the minus-sign part of that change is a mix-up of minus-sign conventions, and thus wrong. Your latest own provided source proves that. And that source proved that the change of 8 to 4 is wrong too. You yourself have provided ample evidence Yang is wrong; you yourself have proven Yang wrong. All you need to do now is be intellectually honest, and admit that's what you've done.
    If that's the only part of Yang's work that contains value, I guess we've discredited all of it...
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. heyuhua Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    235
    it is improtant to admit that the pressure can be taken negative, thus the scalar P actually absorbs the effect of dark energy and dark matter and no longer only represents ordinary pressure, obviously the modified field equation is an equation to include two dark, and tell us two dark are nearby,not mysterious. But, on the other hand, the scalar P represents negative energy too, and matter is postitive energy, total energy of universe is zero all time though matter creates continuously considering of P+matter=0
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2018
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. heyuhua Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    235
    P+matter=0 tell us the energy of universe is zero all the time though matter creates all the time, the negative P generates after matter
     
  8. Michael 345 In China - finding my way :) Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,481
    Most of what has been posted I have no idea what you are talking about. Not just this poster but any of you

    However this gem caught my attention

    Earth growing up - I take to mean increasing in mass - cause - I thought space dust falling on us

    No idea about bright sun

    Moon moving away - cause - tidal bulge speeding up the moon

    Also cause of Earth slowing

    Now I have not read anything about matter being continuously created on the back of my cornflakes box

    Can it be explained how much matter is being produced, say per day, and who doles it out around the universe?

    My cornflakes box information says matter was created after the Big Bang but has since stopped

    Thanks

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,267
    So you're just going to ignore the fact you yourself disproved Yang and discredited all of his work just a couple of posts ago? You're just going to quote my post, but ignore its contents entirely? I'll let everybody in this thread draw their own conclusions as to how this reflects on your intellectual honesty.

    But, I've got to give credit where credit is due: at least you've stopped throwing insults at me, which is an improvement.
     
  10. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,201
    This article does not seem to think there is any difficulty accounting for the observed rate of retreat of 3.8cm/yr: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_acceleration

    Can you refer me to a source that shows only 2cm/yr can be explained satisfactorily?
     
  11. heyuhua Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    235
    not only the earth is growing but also all celestial bodies are growing up,
    not only the earth is growing but also all celestial bodies are growing, the growth is joint increase of mass and volum, celestial body expands with universal expansion, for a elestial body its mass changes to meets dm=-Pdv, Yang had proven that interior P of celestial body must take negative, thus dm>0, that is to say, when a body's volum is increasing its mass increases too, exact calculation shows that the change of mass meets dm= 3mH(t)dt, H(t) is Hubble parameter, a changing quantity with time. thus the continuous creation of mass is real, not only happened at the instant of big bang but also other time
     
  12. heyuhua Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    235
    if pure tidal effect can make the retreat the long of day will increase more than 2ms/cy, this is against observations, see https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/10.1142/S0218271815300153 . In fact, not only moon is going away from the earth but also the earth is going away fron the sun, and so on, these only can be explained by Hubble expansion. Note that Hubble expansion doesn't change rotation or revolution's periods of any celestial body
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2018
  13. heyuhua Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    235
    universe is expanding means: the solar system is expanding and its planets are leaving each other, all celestail bodies in universe are growing, matter is generating in interior of celestial bodies, space is creating wherever, all change synchronously and organically together. In a word, universe is a alive mechine
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2018
  14. Michael 345 In China - finding my way :) Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,481
    To many points to chat about individually but collectively CRAP

    Two for special mention

    Only a tiny portion of the Universe is organic

    Universe is NOT alive and not a machine

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. heyuhua Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    235
    Bruno used to say that the earth is alive, and now I say the whole universe is alive, and everything is in motion and change, and that's what living means. All pessimistic and negative views are undesirable, and there is no dead star, once it dies, it disappears. living is the form to exist
     
  16. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,593
    Ok, I've managed to run out of tinfoil.

    Where's that colander?
     
    exchemist likes this.
  17. Michael 345 In China - finding my way :) Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,481
    You must be very proud

    Is that meaning from your private dictionary?

    Sounds like a quote from my next book

    Thoughts From a Guru in a Cave at the Top of a Mountain

    OR alternatively

    How to Sound Wise While Talking Crap

    Make sure you put it on during a full moon to get maximum efficiency

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,267
    heyuhua, any chance of you showing some intellectual honesty and/or backbone, and addressing the fact that you've disproven and discredited all of Yang's work? Or, in fact, some common decency, because you've previous insulted my intelligence multiple times, only to find out it was you that was wrong all along.

    Please look up the definition of "life" in any dictionary (even a Chinese one will do), because that's not it.
     
  19. heyuhua Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    235
    You are a man who doesn't want and doesn't dare to admit mistakes. I don't want to waste my time with you. I feel that you hate my job , very much, and you are in opposition to me everywhere,
     
  20. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,267
    I think you've confused you and me?

    I can easily admit my mistakes. For example, in this thread, I first mistakenly said that Yang had messed up the minus-sign in the Ricci tensor. Turns out (which your second attempt at providing a source) that was just an alternate convention I was not aware of, and his mistake was in the mixing of minus-sign conventions with the comparison of the EFE.

    Then stop wasting time, and address the issues raised!

    I don't even know what your job is? But since you don't know me, you're most likely wrong anyway. So stop trying to guess what I think or feel; you're wasting time.

    I'm not in opposition to you; at most, I can be said to be in opposition to Yang's work. Also, I'm not everywhere, so that's false. Or did you mean: "on everything"? In that case, also false: I agree with the sources you provided that prove that Yang's wrong.
     
  21. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,201
    The abstract of this paper lists several "alleged anomalies", none of which includes the increase in the Earth-Moon distance.
     
  22. heyuhua Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    235
    Yang is a great physicist, he couldn't have made those low - level mistakes that you point out, you should read Yang's article with awe. And first you are ready to check yourself and don't say always Yang is wrong.
     
  23. heyuhua Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    235
    after you read the full article and grasp the content, you will understand all
     
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2018

Share This Page