Chinese Scholar Yang Jian liang Putting Wrongs to Rights in Astrophysics

I said Einstein was wrong, just that the coupling coefficient was wrong, not anything else.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Except those very important ones I already mentioned. You know, those that you are actively ignoring? How very intellectually honest!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Says the person defending a model which contains matter more exotic than everything we've ever seen before.

You yourself keep admitting that it works fine, at least in the weak field, low velocity limit. So this statement by you is wrong.

What prophecy? I think you mistranslated that; you can please rephrase that?

Such as?

Sure, it can be said, but that wouldn't be true.

I'm pretty sure that's worth points on the crackpot index!

But more hypocritical of you: why aren't you fighting back? I've raised numerous issues with Yang's model, and you've simply ignored most of them. Why must others do your work for you?

The best way to do this, is to do through the peer-review process and have Yang's work published in a respected journal. Nature or Science, for example. I've told you this before, but it seems you (and Yang?) are unwilling or unable to do so... I wonder why?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Wait, who accused me of having fantasies?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Peer-reviewed, perhaps, but by a predatory journal. The quality of the peer-review is important, and that obviously can't be guaranteed here. This is especially clear because I managed to raise many issues with one article that any decent peer-review would have fixed.

Comparing with Einstein; that's worth points on the crackpot index!

True, but Yang's article was clearly never reviewed by anybody with knowledge even remotely similar to Einstein's. Take me for example; I'm literally NotEinstein, and even I managed to demonstrate severe issues with the article. Imagine what an actually experience GR-expert's peer-review would be like.

And on that topic: why have you failed to contact Carroll?

And sometimes, those counter attacks are correct. How many theories have been proposed, only to have been correctly shot down almost immediately? Cold fusion, N-rays, ... That something is new doesn't mean it's better.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

heyuhua: can you please explain what you meant when you said: "In fact, if the space is finite, the whole mathematics collapses because the axis is infinitely long." ?

 

Yang's papers about the modification published already via peer reviewed, if you still think that there is no peer review, I will not be ready to argue with you, because that is your freedom. However, a paper reviewed by individual reviewers is not necessarily accepted by most people, that is to say, for original articles even after peer review there will still be a heated debate, and just as Einstein published relativistic articles, he was fiercely attacked after his papers were published, and an outstanding original paper would never be all right because of the affirmation of individual experts. Of course, some arguments because of the academic, some of the argument is because the personal interests of the damage. In a word, new things replace the old things, it is inevitable that the old things counter attack. Like Yang's papers which go sharply against the tide is impossible to publish in Mainstream journal which controlled by interest groups especially today, only because they hate and fear, and just as Planck said: it's impossible for opponents to accept your new ideas and unless they die. Only science lovers and those who seek truth will cheer Yang's achievement from the heart.

 

Well, that's plainly wrong. Here's a recent thread about a paper doing just that: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/new-vector-theory-of-gravity-challenges-gr.160900/

Ah, so there's a grant conspiracy. That's worth points on the crackpot index!

That's slightly off from what he said, but I suppose that's due to a language barrier on your side.

Except that you dismiss many of the science lovers. Take Carroll, for example. He's most definitely a science lover, and he seeks the truth. Yet I haven't heard him cheer about Yang's work from the heart?

Which reminds me: why did you fail to contact Carroll?

And can you please explain what you meant when you said: "In fact, if the space is finite, the whole mathematics collapses because the axis is infinitely long." ?

 

Obviously, those articles are far less challenging than Yang's, they're not very competitive----they're not closely connected to reality, they're either starting a new stove (actually solve no more practical problems than the old theory) or they're not challenging the backbone of the old theory, and they don't have killing at all.

 

Yes, completely overthrowing the GR paradigm and replacing it with a theory that's not even remotely similar in its approach is much less challenging than a mere modification, as you've described Yang's work.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Obviously, those articles are far less challenging than Yang's, they're not very competitive----they're not closely connected to reality, they're either starting a new stove (actually solve no more practical problems than the old theory) or they're not challenging the backbone of the old theory, and they don't have killing at all. Why is Yang's work a real improvement? It is because Yang's work is based on the work of Einstein，Winberg and other great scientists, and therefore it is a further perfecting for Yang to stand on the shoulders of the predecessors

 

In today's world, a new stove must be superficial and impossible to recognize. If you want to develop science, the best and most effective way is to find out the flaws in the old theory and then put forward some ways to improve it. Therefore, the discovery of flaws in old theories is a key issue, which requires scientists to be proficient in all the knowledge in the field, to be able to handle flexibly all kinds of calculations with ease. Those who memorize a few conclusions by rote cannot make any new discoveries.
There was a time when computers were improved almost every day. Why? Because every day there were people who discovered the shortcomings of the former product, if no one found the product defects, there is no improvement. And the people who found the defects were the people who were proficient in all the knowledge of the computer, and not everyone could find them.

 

You mean, exactly like what I've been doing in this thread: pointing out issues in Yang's work.

Ah, so you mean, like the hundreds of students each year going through the derivation of the EFE themselves. I though you considered all of them to be wrong, but now you're saying they are doing the right thing?

And as you've demonstrated little to no proficiency in GR (you don't know about many basic cosmological and GR concepts, you take days to calculate simple integer division, etc.), you've just disqualified yourself according to your own criteria. Good job!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Not only has not cosmology developed in the last 20 years, but also has been in chaos and some new ideas cannot form common point of view. Why not reach a common understanding? because most of them are superficial , or there is a contradiction between them and the logic is not consistent. Yang's work overcame the shortcomings of previous work and not only enriched the theory of general relativity, but also greatly advanced the theory and the application of cosmology, and there is infinite prospect. The revised theory is closely related to practice, and highly integrated with the rest of science as well as materialist philosophy, and the past and the future can be clearly inferred from the facts of today using the modified theory, therefore, we say that the improved cosmology is realistic cosmology.

 

You have a point，but this needs capital or media support. At present, Yang and I are nobody，and no media is willing to help spread this new theory. This is not only the sorrow of Yang , but also the sorrow of human civilization

 

Except for the things I already pointed out that you keep having to ignore. Great show of intellectual honest there!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The common understanding is modern cosmology.

None of which you've proven in this thread, even after repeatedly being asked to do just that.

Great! Then I'll just wait until he gets his work published in journals like Nature or Science, and is awarded a Nobel prize!

Sure, if you don't have to conform to reality, possibilities are endless. They are called "fantasies".

Something which you have failed to demonstrate.

Erm... Science and philosophy don't mix that well. Are you sure you have a firm grasp on what science is?

Wow, just like modern cosmology can!

Except that it's not applicable to our universe; a simple fact you keep forgetting about.

 

Your purpose in the posts has become more and more clear，and it is a deliberate disturbance not a rational academic discussion at all. Before the new theory is tenable, do your best to pour dirty water on it, put off people's understanding of the new theory as much as possible, how unscrupulous you are. Your such hatred and fear of Yang's new theory make it clear that Yang's new theory poses a serious threat to the old one, and possess strong competitiveness and challenge. But the light of truth cannot be obscured，I believe more and more people will realize the importance of Yang's work

 

We're not going to publish papers in these journals, because we are awake these journals are not for articles that challenge basic theories， and many original articles and even later Nobel prize articles were ever rejected by them. Today these journals have already become a tool for interest groups to gain fame and fortune, and no longer a mere platform for academic exchange, and these journals are so tightly controlled by vested interests that they cannot be expected to publish articles against their own reputation.It is gratifying that our article can be published, it is true that the journals to publish our papers are not very famous, but more and more people will gradually understand our work, we do not worry, after all, we have acquired the initiative power. In fact, revolutionary articles like this even if they are published in some big journals, there will still be some attacks and debates, and will never be truly recognized by most people without a period of precipitation, and even the attack could transfer to the journals, this is also a cause journals reject publishing the kind of articles.

 

Says the person that's avoiding just about all opportunities for a rational academic discussion. Why are you dodging questions and issues if you want a rational academic discussion?

If you think this is bad, try the peer-review process of a respectable astronomy journal!

I'm sorry, but it's you that's doing that, by avoiding answering questions and addressing issues.

Doing science can indeed be a cold, hard business. I'm surprised you aren't aware of that?

I indeed have a low tolerance level for incompetence, but I wouldn't call it hatred.

Fear? You're the one that's afraid to answer questions and address issues.

Take a look at my username. How do I represent the old theory? This is another one of your fantasies.

Not really. Me glancing over Yang's article was enough to identify severe issues you haven't been able to address. If it's that weak, I know why it wasn't published in a respected journal.

True in the long term. So, when are you going to embrace it?

More fantasies.

Waw, what a cop-out! Pathetic.

You already have been awarded the crackpot index points for claiming a global conspiracy; I don't think you're allowed to be awarded them twice?

Or very reputable...

Which reminds me: why did you fail to contact Carroll?

It's called "peer-review", and it's part of the scientific process.

So, now it's because the journals are afraid? What a pathetic excuse!

 

I didn't shy away from any question. I answered every question you asked more than once, but you didn't want to see it. If you really engage in academic discussions, please take a few days to seriously repeat Yang's calculations, and then ask questions. If you can't repeat Yang's calculations, you are not qualified to speak. the level is too low. A person who doesn't know how to do general relativistic calculations doesn't get into the gates of general relativity at all。

 

Ok, I have read few critical bits of this thread, mostly it is avoidable nonsense from either side.

The key point is that 8pi factor in Einstein Field Equations cannot be offered from the first principle, it is derived by considering the limiting v<<c and weak field scenario to get the Newtonian. So offering any other constant must be explained mathematically by deriving Newtonian from it. Can Yang do that?

 

Well, let's take a recent one, then. You still haven't pointed out the exact page/equation where Weinberg makes a mistake in his derivation of the EFE. Why don't you answer that question?

Why do you refuse to answer a question if it's only asked once?

Point me to (let's say) three instances where I ignored your answer.

How would me repeating Yang's calculation answer the question where exactly Weinberg makes a mistake?

Says the person that took days to divide 8 by 4.

Exactly; so following your own criteria, you've just disqualified yourself.