# Chinese Scholar Yang Jian liang Putting Wrongs to Rights in Astrophysics

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

1. ### heyuhuaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
432
obviously, Yang's considerations are more comprehensive，consider not only the case of v < c, but also v is close to c. Newton ' s limit is not a velocity limit , but rather a weak field limit，that is, the geodesic equation is required to return to Newton's law of gravity in the weak field. In the past, the geodesic equation was only required to return to Newton's law of gravity in the case of weak field at low speed，and the geodesic equation is now required to return to Newton's law of gravity rather than others in weak fields, whether at high or low speeds.
d(mv)/dt=-GMm/rr, m is relativistic mass of moving particle, there was no guarantee of high speed in the past

3. ### HaydenRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
110
If that is what Yang has done then it appears good, let us leave it aside for a moment.

Please give a link where the Yang's modified equations are shown to reduce to Newtonian in weak field scenario. Not a big thing to ask, you would agree?

5. ### heyuhuaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
432
In waek field when geodesic equations are required to return to d(mv)/dt=-GMm/rr, m is relativistic mass of moving particle, the spatial diagonal component of the metric must be g_11=g_22=g_33=1-2GM/r, it used to be g_11=g_22=g_33=1+2GM/r, but g—00 doesn't change. If this requirement is met, the coupling coefficient needs to be modified to 4paiG insteady of -8paiG, s imultaneous pressure is negative insteady of provious insteady of 0

7. ### heyuhuaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
432
In waek field when geodesic equations are required to return to d(mv)/dt=-GMm/rr, m is relativistic mass of moving particle, the spatial diagonal component of the metric must be g_11=g_22=g_33=1-2GM/r, it used to be g_11=g_22=g_33=1+2GM/r, but g—00 doesn't change. If this requirement is met, the coupling coefficient needs to be modified to 4paiG insteady of -8paiG, simultaneous pressure is negative insteady of the provious 0
see: http://pubs.sciepub.com/faac/3/2/1/index.html

8. ### wangchaoqingRegistered Member

Messages:
10
my point of view, Yang is a outstanding scienist, Yang's considerations are more comprehensive，consider not only the case of v < c, but also v is close to c. Newton ' s limit is not a velocity limit , but rather a weak field limit，that is, the geodesic equation is required to return to Newton's law of gravity in the weak field. In the past, the geodesic equation was only required to return to Newton's law of gravity in the case of weak field at low speed，and the geodesic equation is now required to return to Newton's law of gravity rather than others in weak fields, whether at high or low speeds.
d(mv)/dt=-GMm/rr, m is relativistic mass of moving particle, there was no guarantee of high speed in the past, which is great

9. ### wangchaoqingRegistered Member

Messages:
10
I believe that Yang's work will be writen into textbook before long, which has greatly developped GR and gravitational theory, and is a milestone

10. ### wangchaoqingRegistered Member

Messages:
10
I feel you don't have the ability to comment on Yang's work

11. ### HaydenRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
110
If, so then it makes sense. Present calculations explicitly require v<<c to reduce to newtonian. If Yang is able to do with v~c without any consistency issues then it is a good improvisation.

12. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,500
Any chance of you addressing how $-8=4$ in this case of $v<c$ then?

As heyuhua would say: "fantasy". It seems like you are afflicted with exactly the same inadequacies as heyuhua. Very suspicious...

Just to make sure: you (and heyuhua) are aware that sockpuppets are against forum rules, right?

Sorry, but it's you (and heyuhua) that are demonstrating an inability to comment. You (and heyuhua) have been dodging questions and issues throughout this thread. I wonder why you (and heyuhua) continually fail to address questions and issues...

13. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,500
I highly doubt you're going to get a satisfactory answer... I've asked that (and similar) questions multiple times. At best you're going to get a link. Not even a page or section number, just a link with some text that basically re-states the post you just quoted.

heyuhua can't do maths very well (it took him days to calculate $8/4$), and wangchaoqing seems to be exactly the same.

14. ### heyuhuaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
432
Do you have any masterpieces? Take it out and take a look at your level. You don't seem to know how to calculate 8 / 4, are you a primary school student or are you deliberately disgusting here?

15. ### heyuhuaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
432
yes, Yang is a great scientist，his contribution to general relativity is enormous,

16. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,500
What would it matter if I do or don't? I know you think Yang has, but what about you? And does wangchaoqing? If not, what would that change?

What do you mean? Are you asking me to posit some new theory myself? I don't see how that's necessary in order to evaluate Yang's work.

Erm, you were the one taking days to calculate that, not me.

Look, if you want to call somebody having severe difficulty calculating $8/4$ "disgusting", perhaps you should first realize who fits that description in this thread...

17. ### originIn a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
10,450
He has no contribution to general relativity. For there to be a contribution his ideas would have to be incorporated into relativity.
The best you can say is you believe his ideas someday will be a contribution to relativity. Based on this thread I think his contributions will be limited stimulating discussions in internet forum.

18. ### heyuhuaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
432
The more you say that I think you are more ignorant, you do not understand 1/100 of Yang's work, it seems to be your ability problem. obviously,it's a bit funny for a people who can't do calculations to talk about general relativity

19. ### heyuhuaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
432
You don't seem to have read Yang's paper. Yang's idea is completely in line with relativity. Yang has not broken the basic principles of relativity. Yang modified the details of the calculation

20. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,500
That's fine; you can think whatever you want. The reality of the situation doesn't change though.

I understand enough to point out severe issues that have gone unaddressed in this thread.

Says the person that took days to calculate $8/4$.

I fully agree!

21. ### heyuhuaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
432
I only accept the comments of registered users, those who spend all day on the Internet, seem to know everything, these people who want to comment everything must be troublemakers, and does who give them pay? Why pay such people? I really doubt they are members of the Fifth column, hired to thwart the spread of new theories. It is suggested that the departments concerned take a look at the details of the thugs who have been on the Internet all day to see who is funding them

Last edited: Jul 11, 2018
22. ### wangchaoqingRegistered Member

Messages:
10
yes, should be vigilant to the outsider evaluation, no matter how they slander, Yang's success is affirmative

23. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,500
Yes, because obviously there must be a global conspiracy against people like Yang, instead of him being simply, you know, wrong.

Talking about conspiracies, I find it interesting that you and wangchaoqing make the same typo's...

You mean that you should be vigilant against peer-review? Might I suggest you learn how science works?

Oh, that's what you mean! Yes, I indeed remain vigilant against the slandering of my character that heyuhua has done in this thread multiple times. I'm glad to have you on my side!

If that's the case, could you please address the many questions and issues raised in this thread? Thanks.