Chinese Scholar Yang Jian liang Putting Wrongs to Rights in Astrophysics

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

  1. heyuhua Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    564
    Anyway, if you don't go deep into the calculations, you couldn't understand anything
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    Yang's process is the same as Weinberg's, Adler's, Carroll's, and yet he reaches a different answer. Clearly, Yang made a mistake somewhere; it's the only reasonable conclusion.

    False; please look up what "solving an equation" means.

    Yes, and then this field equation was applied to other scenario's, and it turns out the coefficient doesn't change. In fact, the coefficient is independent of the scenario. So if Yang reaches a different coefficient, he's wrong.

    I've gone as deep as I need to, to figure out that Yang is in conflict with Einstein, Carroll, Adler, your own provided Chinese author, that Wikipedia-author, and Weinberg.

    How about Einstein; did he understand anything?
    How about Weinberg; did he understand anything?
    How about Adler; did he understand anything?
    How about Carroll; does he understand anything?
    How about your Chinese author; does he understand anything?

    I guess not, because clearly all of them (according to you) "didn't go deep into the calculations". Then why did you bring three of these up yourself, if you know that they don't understand anything?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. heyuhua Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    564
    "I've gone as deep as I need to, to figure out that Yang is in conflict with Einstein, Carroll, Adler, your own provided Chinese author, that Wikipedia-author, and Weinberg."
    well, I ask you, do you know how Einstein confirmed the coefficient -8 ? and can't the -8 be replaced?and Did Einstein prove its uniqueness?
     
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2018
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    Well, let's see:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations
    "First published by Einstein in 1915", followed by a link to the paper. Go read it.

    It can't be off by a factor 2, because (as I've said in this thread before) that would have been detected by now. And it can't be sign-changed, because then it wouldn't give a description of anything resembling gravity.
     
  8. heyuhua Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    564
    well, on Wikipedia, the coefficient is 8, show that Wikipedia's author use another definition of Ricci tensor, this isn't a question. And for the case the process to confirm the 8 is conpletely same as the process to comfirm the -8 in use of Weinberg 's definition of Ricci tensor
     
  9. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    (Your link is broken; this is Wikipedia's entry on Wikipedia, not anything to do with GR.)

    OK, and now explain how Yang's \(4\) is compatible with Wikipedia's \(8\).

    Aha, so you're saying Yang is wrong when he claims a modification is needed when he compares the \(8\) and \(-8\) versions of the EFE, because he's comparing EFE's using different definitions of the Ricci tensor. Glad we agree on that!
     
  10. heyuhua Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    564
    I indeed don't know Carroll alive, if real, please recommend Yang's work to his, and let his judge
     
  11. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
  12. heyuhua Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    564
    THE 8 to -8 are not a modification, they come from different definitions of Ricci tensor. they are equivalent to each other
     
  13. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    Exactly, so any "the minus sign needs to be different in the EFE" that Yang is saying is complete and utter nonsense. Glad we agree on that!

    Now please explain how Yang's \(4\) is compatible with Wikipedia's \(8\).
     
  14. heyuhua Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    564
    Yang always uses Weinberg's definition for Ricci tensor, thus Yang's modification is to aim at the field equation with coefficient -8
     
  15. heyuhua Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    564
    you think Yang's \(4\) is compatible with Wikipedia's \(8\), they actually have no relevance
     
  16. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    Right, so you're saying that anything Yang says about the minus sign difference in the EFE having any impact on the physics is wrong. Good, glad we agree. Now please explain how Yang's \(4\) is compatible with Weinberg's \(8\).
     
  17. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    Typo? You think that Yang's \(4\) is compatible with Wikipedia's \(8\); I've been saying they're not since the first time I posted on it.

    Excuse me? The modification of the coefficient is the entirety of Yang's work; that's something you said! So of course they have relevance. Or are you saying Yang's work is completely and utterly irrelevant to anything and everything?
     
  18. heyuhua Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    564
    in future in discussion to avoid confusion, please completely forget the Carroll's definition for Ricci tensor and in the same time forget the corresponding field equation with coefficient 8.
     
  19. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    Yang is the one that brought it up in the first place. And as I said: you can't just ignore a fundamental problem like that; that's not how science works. You can't just say "forget everything you know about GR", without any good reason as to why.
     
  20. heyuhua Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    564
    Yang's modification is to aim at the equation with coefficient -8, of course use Weinberg's definition for Ricci tensor
     
  21. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    Now please explain how Yang's \(4\) is compatible with Weinberg's \(-8\).
     
  22. heyuhua Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    564
    they aren't reletant at all, one 4 and another 8 , totally different, why do you say them compatible, and Weinberg's is -8 but not 8, why do you say Weinberg's is 8? and it is the -8 that corresponds to Weinberg's definition for Ricci tensor
     
  23. heyuhua Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    564
    Your foundation is too poor,I said a lot of things I shouldn't have said.
     

Share This Page