Chinese Scholar Yang Jian liang Putting Wrongs to Rights in Astrophysics

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

  1. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    Stop dodging the question: do you now understand what the factor 2 that we've been talking about for 100+ posts means, and where it comes from, yes or no?

    My learning is "rote"? I'm sorry, but you're the one that's stuck below high school level at the moment.

    His 4 replaces an 8 (well, -8, but we're talking magnitudes here), so obviously you're wrong.

    Not sure what you mean by that, but I can tell it's irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. heyuhua Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    564
    if you want to discuss with me you must follow my thought, please forget the 8 or -8, according to Yang's scheme take a trip
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    I was trying to do that, but then you forgot what we had been discussing for the past 100+ posts, and I'm currently in the process of explaining it to you, repeatedly. I don't get the chance to "forget the 8", because you keep forgetting everything...
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. heyuhua Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    564
    4 replaces an 8 is complerely feasible, it is the 4 provides the new more reasonable metric (space components), you don't calculate at all, what metric do you know the -8 provides ?
     
  8. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    Oooh, you're so close! Now just calculate the factor difference between those 4 and 8...!

    You do understand that there's a time component in the metric as well, right? So why is Yang's modification only more reasonable for the space components?

    Excuse me? Who in this thread has been refusing to divide 8 by 4 for a good dozen posts now?
     
  9. heyuhua Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    564
    the magnitude isn't an question, because the pressure changes into negative, react cleverly to this
     
  10. heyuhua Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    564
    I never talked about divide 8 by 4, you are absurd
     
  11. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    Erm, it's the question you've been asked, the source of the factor 2?

    Irrelevant.

    I don't need to; apparently, high school level mathematics is enough.

    You asked about the factor 2, which I've tried to explain multiple times to you now. Every time you seem to get close to understanding it, you dodge. Are you being intellectually dishonest, or are you really just that unintelligent?

    Said the person that's literally afraid of dividing 8 by 4...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. heyuhua Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    564
    this is your serious misunderstanding, and I don't know why you ask the question of the factor 2, and your factor 2 doesn't appear in Yang's papers nor in my discuession, why do you talk about it? and not only does the 2 equal =8/4 but also equal 4/2, as well 16/8, 32/16, , , , countless, why do you only talk about 8/4=2 ?
     
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2018
  13. heyuhua Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    564
    don't only see the modified coefficirnt 4 is different from the old -8, besides, you have also to see the change of pressure from old zero to today's -rou, which is a quite balance to this. why don't you calculate yourself ? You can figure it out yourself
     
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2018
  14. heyuhua Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    564
    do you see this change? when p=-d, the scalar T=3p-d=-4d, which is 4 times of the old T=-d for p=0 in weak field. Here d stands for density, and in usual files density is represented using rou. fromT=-d to T=3p-d=-4d, this is an important change, which you are ignoring. The change is actually a balance to the change the old coeifficient -8 is modified for new 4. Despite the existence of an offsetting element, the significance of the modification remains significant, which can be seen as long as you seriously calculate
     
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2018
  15. heyuhua Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    564
    a well - known magazine also makes an erroneous point of view , and some of the unremarkable magazines also deliver outstanding ideas . It is important to first determine the initiative right of true original results, and compared, it is less important where to publish
     
  16. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,832
    If you want pressure to be equal to density, you have the problem that they have different physical units.

    Pressure = Force / Unit Area, Density = Mass / Unit Volume.

    You have units \( kg\cdot m\cdot s^{-2} \) and units \( kg\cdot m^{-3} \). Do you somehow convert acceleration into a volume?
     
  17. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    No, it's yours, as I've explained multiple times now.

    What do you mean exactly by "the question of the factor 2"? I brought up the factor 2, and asked why it's there, and you are asking questions about where it's coming from.

    This is a demonstrable lie. I have explain where in Yang's article this factor 2 is. You continued outright denial is pathetic; you are extremely intellectually dishonest.

    I talk about it, because it's one of the two components that make up the critical part of Yang's work, as you yourself have stated.

    Finally! You have, after more than a dozen posts, managed to calculate 8 divided by 4! Good work!

    Now, it still seems you haven't grasped where these numbers are coming from. Please re-read post #398.

    Irrelevant.

    Re-read post #398.

    So close to understanding where the 4 and 8 are coming from! You had to touch the "4"- and "8"-keys on your keyboard! Didn't you notice that?

    Irrelevant to the discussion as hand.

    Why should I? Are you saying Yang didn't put all the required calculations in his article?

    I probably could, but let's stick to the topic at hand: the EFE.

    I'm not ignoring it; it simple hasn't become relevant (yet). First we need to establish that Yang's EFE is proper; without that, it makes no sense to dive deeper into his work.

    See? There's no sense talking about stuff needed to balance the modification (that this is apparently necessary sounds suspicious in itself), if we don't talk about the modification first.

    Which is still up for debate, because we still first need to establish that the modification is fine first.

    Maybe we'd get to that stage, if you actually answered questions. And I still find it funny (and a bit sad) that you keep telling me to seriously calculate stuff, while you took days to calculate what 8 divided by 4 is.

    Irrelevant. That somebody else makes mistakes doesn't give credence to lesser magazines. In fact, it takes it away further.

    "some"? Nice weasel word. But your sentence is worse: "unremarkable" strongly suggests that they more often than not don't. If this is your defense of the publishing channel Yang has used, you're doing a horrible job!

    What is "the initiative right of true original results"?

    No; modern science uses the peer-review to weed out mistakes, just like the one Yang has made with his EFE. That's why he hasn't gone through the same peer-review process that articles in Nature etc. go through: because his work can't. You seem to have a very bad understanding of how modern science works in practice. That's a typical crackpot thing, something that characterizes people who have never gone through the peer-review process. That suggests that you're not really a scientist...
     
  18. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    Wow, wow, calm down arfa brane! heyuhua is still recovering from his several days of seriously calculating 8 divided by 4!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. heyuhua Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    564
    Our research was carried out in natural unit. The unit of pressure is the same as that of density, pressure can directly adds or subtracts density
     
  20. heyuhua Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    564

    You're such a rascal, when and where do I calculate 8/4? that's a schoolboy assignment. my study doesn't deal with the thing, this is what you imagined out of thin air,
     
  21. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    Thank you!

    In post #409.

    Yes, one that took you several days to complete!

    Clearly not, that was apparently quite above your level, because it took you so long.

    No, it's coming from Yang's article, as I've explained to you many times now. See post #398.
     
  22. heyuhua Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    564
    As I have said many times, the modified coefficient is 4, and before the modification it is -8, but what matches it is that the pressure also changes with it,namely p becomes negative, which is very improtant for the coefficient 4 to hold . Why don't you follow my thinking and never put down that irrelevant 8 in your mind?
     
  23. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    So you do know where the 4 and 8 are coming from, after all? I guess then means you (at least now) know what the factor 2 is all about. Great! We can finally continue!

    So Yang changes the coefficient, then everything stops working, so he needs to arbitrarily change the pressure as well to compensate for it? That sounds a lot like cancelling one mistake with another...

    Where does Yang provide justification for changing the pressure? And I mean actual justification, not "I need to do this, otherwise my modification to the EFE won't work"?

    Because, in a chain of logic, it makes sense to start to check out the start before checking out the end. You were stuck trying to figure out where that factor 2 was coming from, so I took the time to explain it to you, so we were on the same page. Now that you have finally managed that, we can move on to the next bit.

    Because according to you, it's very relevant. It's the only (given) reason why the pressure needs to be adjusted!
     

Share This Page