Chinese Scholar Yang Jian liang Putting Wrongs to Rights in Astrophysics

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. from T=-d to T=3p-d=-4d, this is an important change, Why don't you consider this important change? ，instead, focus your energy on the eight that are out of touch with each other.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

As I've said many times before, the previous metric can't make geodesic equations back to Newtonian mechanics in a weak field for a high speed's object , specifically, the spatial components of the metric need to be modified, and when put the reasonable metric in field equation, the pressure was worked out to be negative, and simultaneously,the coupling coefficient must be 4 instead of the usual -8. It is worth emphasizing that the negative pressure is solved out of field equation, not an artificial assumption.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, you've said that before, but you've yet to demonstrate why this is an issue. And, as I've pointed out, considering the evidence supporting GR, if this was really irreconcilable, it would disprove SR, not GR.

Except that's not how science works. Pressure is something measurable, and we don't measure it to be negative (in general). How can matter even have negative pressure? You are no longer merely modifying GR, you're inventing an entire new type of physics!

So, you're saying, there's a factor 2 difference between the old and the new EFE's magnitude?

In which case, you are no longer talking about normal matter, which clearly and measurably produces positive pressure. So you need to introduce some exotic type of matter in order to make the modified EFE work. This demonstrates (once again) that Yang is not talking about our universe; his model doesn't fit it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And now that I think about it...
T=3p-d
For p=d: T=2d
For p=-d: T=-4d

Both a sign difference, and a factor 2 (in magnitude)? Coincidence? I think not. Are you sure you're not just introducing one change to compensate for the other? Oh wait, you've already explicitly stated that is exactly what's going on.

Right, I think we've solved another mystery: Yang's model contains (at least) 2 mistakes, that (at least in some cases) cancel as to (allegedly) match observations.

 

Yes, one of Yang's work is to connect general relativity with special relativistic mechanics in waek field

 

你的

it seem that Your mentality is not very good, why do you transcendentally think Yang's work is wrong, I may affirmatively tell you that Yang's work is excellent, you do not always fantasize that Yang is wrong, wrong is exactly the experts you worship

 

That is not a response to what I said; please re-read my post, and try again.

I could say the same about yours.

Transcendentally?

I think Yang is wrong, because it appears he made a couple of mistakes.

And why should I believe your opinion about the matter? You had a lot of trouble calculating 8 divided by 4; that's quite a bad track record.

What do you mean by that?

Because you say so? Again, your track record is terrible, so why should I believe your opinion on the matter? Why are you to be trusted more than the ten of thousands of GR-experts over the past 100 years?

Also, that's an argument from authority, and not the way science works.

 

please don't increase new assumption of p=d at your will, inYang's paper p=-d, which is solved out of field equation together with metric, that is, p=-d is a solution , and p=d is out of all reason

 

Do you understand the concept of "comparison"? You take two (possibly contradictory) stances, and compare them. Look up the definition of the word. Comparison two stances doesn't mean implying one is somehow equivalent or even directly related to the other.

 

please don't increase new assumption of p=d at your will, inYang's paper p=-d, which is solved out of field equation together with metric, that is, p=-d is a solution , and p=

I don't know why you put forward this childish comparison. this implies that you really don't understand the essence of Yang's work. It is impossible to understand the beauty of Yang's amendment without personally calculating with a pen

 

It's love to claim credit for it, but it's the equation of state for a perfect gas. I'm surprised you don't recognize it. Perhaps you should brush up on the GR.

Yes, you've mentioned before that Yang has to introduce an exotic type of matter to make his EFE work. We've been over this.

It's the core process of science. One comes up with a new hypothesis, and compares it to the already established one. If the new one is better, one rejects the old one. If not, the old one stands. Perhaps you should brush up on how science works.

No, it means I'm aware of how science works, and clearly, you are not. Maybe Yang (who you claim is a great scientist) can explain it to you?

I don't see how that's relevant? It doesn't matter how beautiful some equation or concept is; if it's wrong, it's wrong.

 

note that the pressure p is also an unknown that need solve together with metric, and transcendental assumption often leads to error

 

Again, perhaps you should read up on the equation of state first: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology) Take particular note of the section "The equation" talking about a perfect gas.

 

well, it is wrong! it is wrong! however if you look at the application of Yang's modification in the universe, you can see how perfect it is, and how ugly the old equation was in the past.

 

well, it is wrong! it is wrong! however if you look at the application of Yang's modification in the universe, you can see how perfect it is, and how ugly the old equation was in the past.

 

How very mature of you...

So "perfect" that it doesn't even apply to our universe, because it needs some type of exotic matter that is completely different than what we see around us. Let alone all the assumptions Yang made that are incompatible with our universe that I pointed out many, many posts ago in this thread.

Again, the beauty of an equation or a model has no bearing on whether it is correct.

 

What is the equation of state that is not part of general relativity. the new state equation p=-d shows that P as source of gravitation is simple stress no longer and besides, it actually stands for a kind of energy, thus Yang explained the p for dark energy, or may as well explain it for comprehensive effect of stress and dark energy but mostly belong to dark energy.

 

You quoted the post in which I linked to its Wikipedia article. Please try to pay attention!

Not strictly, but then again, neither is anything else related to different types of matter that Yang brings up in his article. But so what? You say that Yang needs p=-d, which is not how matter in our universe works. It's perfectly fine from a pure GR point of view, but it falsifies the model. Please learn how science works.

Yes, and this is well-known and actually discussed in the Wikipedia-article you clearly didn't even read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology)#Acceleration_of_cosmic_inflation

...Is that what's going on? Are you actually merely talking about dark energy instead of ordinary matter, when you are talking about p=-d?

 

in the old scheme there are the assumption of dark matter and dark energy, aren't dark matter and dark energy exotic matter? why don't you oppose? Yang explains the negative pressure p for dark energy, this actually avoid two cosmological parameters at a stroke, and
it is more meaningful that the P can be solved by the field equation and don't need other assumption. another，because the p in any celestial body is negative, so the dark energy is right under our feet, and once developed, the value of the application is incalculable.