Chinese Scholar Yang Jian liang Putting Wrongs to Rights in Astrophysics

if not change the metric the geodisc equation cann't return to Newton law in high speed, which you can see through directly calculation

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

the 2 is a step of derivation, that is, 1/2( )=b, then ( )=2b

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In Yang's new scheme, P=-rou, Yang explained the p for dark energy, on wikipedia P=0 and there is a comic const which is explained for dark energy

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

if not change the metric geodisic equations indeed cann't return to Newton in high-speed approximation in weak field, which you can see through direct calculation

 

in some textbook it is assumed as zero 0 and other textbooks isn't assumed as zero, but all of them belong to assumptions or guess, and only Yang's p=-rou is a conclusion, and Yang proved in the interior of a celestial body the p=-average value of density of the celestial body, otherwise cann't provide the correct metric, which make geodesic equations return to Newton law no matter high-speed or low-speed. Thus generizing to whole universe, the pressure P=-value of cosmic density

 

using the modified field equation obtained a new relation between distance and reshift, the relation well consists with observations. Note that so-called observational results refers to measured distances and reshifts of far celestial bodies or galaxies. In Yang's scheme CMB can also well be explained and early uniformity difficulty automatic clearing

 

You've missed my point: even if the usual EFE reduces to Newtonian mechanics only in the weak-field, low-velocity limit, it still gives back Newtonian mechanics. You are thus claiming that the coefficient in the EFE (both its sign and its absolute value) has no effect on Newtonian mechanics.

What are you talking about? A step of derivation? I think you're confused what we're talking about. The factor 2 comes from the fact that Yang uses an absolute coefficient of \(4\), while the usual EFE uses \(8\), and that \(8/4=2\).

Please re-read that post: I asked you about dark matter, not dark energy.

Please contact all the people I listed to tell them they are wrong.

Well, not really like that, but sure, because that's how science works.

You cannot generalize from the interior of a celestial body to the whole universe; they don't have the same metrics.

That is not what I asked about; please read up on basic cosmology and what the CMB is.

"so-called"? I'm going to assume that's a language barrier thing, because you can't dismiss observational data like that.

Then show it. You claim that Yang has derived the properties of the CMB with his EFE; prove it. Put your money where you mouth is. Stop hand-waving. Show that proof. Show that it's not you spouting nonsense, that you're not simply lying, but that what you say Yang's EFE can do, it can actually do.

 

obviously it is inappropriate only to require geodesic equations to return to newton law for low-speed approximation and not give consideration to high-speed case. It is Yang who replenishs the content

 

obviously it is inappropriate only to require geodesic equations to return to newton law for low-speed approximation and not give consideration to high-speed case. It is Yang who replenishs the content

 

It's clearly not obvious; Carroll doesn't think it is, and I have a hunch Weinberg, Adler, etc. didn't either. So two questions: why must it, and why should that be obvious?

You haven't addressed the EEP; care to comment on that?

​

 

what place does the 2 you talk about arise ? which equation does it arise in?

 

indeed all of they ignored the question, this has on wonder, science is always developping

 

The \(2\) arises when you divide \(8\) by \(4\).

It's the difference in absolute values of the coefficients of the usual and Yang's EFE, obviously. How can you not remember this? That's what we've been talking about for the past 200 posts!

Ever considered there may be a reason they "ignored the question", a reason you are (clearly) unaware of?

 

Like density, the pressure of the universe is also a statistical average value，and due to pressure equals negative value of density in any body, of course, external pressure is zero, then for whole universe the statistical average of pressure should equal the negative value of cosmic density

 

in Yang's paper there isn't such the dividing calculation 8/4, you are rather baffling， this is your illusion

 

in Yang's paper there isn't such the dividing calculation 8/4, this is your illusion

 

A star has a center, and is typically modeled as being spherically symmetric. Thus, it has a natural choice for the origin of the coordinate systems (its center), from which everything can simply be described radially.

Please point me to the center of the universe. If you cannot, you are admitting that a Schwarzschild(-like?) metric cannot possibly describe the universe (except in trivial cases, such as an empty universe).

Oh, and every physical object has a statistical average pressure. I guess the universe is thus also like a cloud, a moose, and a cactus.

The universe cannot have an external pressure, not even zero external pressure. You are making no sense.

Are you claiming the universe is in hydrostatic equilibrium? Then what is the expansion of the universe, pray tell?

Please read the past 200 posts; as I explained just now, I'm clearly referring to the differences in the coefficients of the EFE's, and I've referred to this as a factor 2 difference before. You are being very intellectually dishonest.

 

I guess, the geodesic equations to solve accleration, in which proper time is cancelled, had not been worked out at that time, they used only the standard form of geodesic equation, in which proper time arises explicitly, the standard form has few common language with Newton mechanics and cann't compare enough details

 

In Yang's paper didnt involve the coefficient 8 at all, you cann't always get rid of the irrelevant 8

 

cosmic pr

like density, cosmic pressure is also statistical average, the average is about all space including interior of star, and interior pressure of body isn't zero though exterior p is 0, thus taking its statistical average cosmic p isn't zero certainly and equals just negative value of cosmic density