Chinese Scholar Yang Jian liang Putting Wrongs to Rights in Astrophysics

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

  1. heyuhua Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    432
    Please publicize Yang's achievements and strike at the shameless insults。 It is the responsibility of every scientist to develop science, and the traditional guard must be hit,
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2018
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,583
    I am going to request the mods move this to the fringe sections, for several reasons but here are 2.
    Part of your conjectures have some extremely non-mainstream ideas such as:
    You are now moving into the conspiracy arena which has nothing to do with the math and science section.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,584
    Please demonstrate that they are actual achievements, and not just wrong.

    Says the person that has resorted to shameless insults multiple times in this thread.

    Exactly, so why don't you get started on that?

    I hope that's a translation issue, because calling for the application of violence is wholly unnecessary.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,751
    Yes, please do. And while you do that, please explain why and how Yang derives a constant which is half the value everyone else gets.

    Yang simply introduces this "result" in his papers, without really explaining or justifying it other than some vague reference to cosmic expansion and the continuous creation of new matter. If it's a revolutionary new idea, why not spend time explaining why he derives that result? Or is there nothing up his other sleeve?
     
  8. heyuhua Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    432
    What you said Yang has fully explained in his paper, but you didn't read Yang's paper seriously.
     
  9. heyuhua Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    432
    It's true that Yang's constant is half of others, and that's the key. If you know how other people's constants are derived, you can easily understand the half of Yang's constant, and the idea is the same. Do you know how people come up with this constant? Can you derive it independently without looking at a textbook? if you can, you will have ability to understand Yang,because Yang's improved derivation was based on a profound understanding of previous derivations. Notice that Yang's new constant is not only half the original, but also changing the sign, that is, -8 changes into 4
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2018
  10. heyuhua Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    432
    If you don't repeat Yang's calculations yourself, you'll never understand Yang's achievements. Because you're still at the gate of Yang's new palace, you can't know the layout without walking in. Like a student who doesn ' t do homework , he can ' t learn mathematics
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2018
  11. heyuhua Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    432
    Don't insult me
     
  12. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,751
    And you can't explain the result without referring back to Yang's "miraculous" paper.

    Eisntein wrote a book explaining his ideas and his new theory, why can't Yang do the same? Why are you, as a co-author (I've seen more than one of Yang's papers), unable or unwilling to explain, with rigorous mathematical arguments, why the constant is 4π, not -8π?

    This behaviour of yours suggests you don't have any really rigorous argument, all you have is polemics.
     
  13. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    31,656
    This thread is now about three months old.

    It appears that NotEinstein has pointed out some basic errors in Yang's work.

    heyuhua has blustered around, but has consistently failed to justify the errors.

    The opening post of the thread makes grandiose claims, but no observational evidence has been provided in favour of the ideas expressed there.

    heyuhua claims to be a close collaborator with Yang, but Yang has not seen fit to come here to correct his own errors.

    It seems that heyuhua is not equipped to address the errors in Yang's work, as pointed out by NotEinstein, so unless Yang can come to explain himself, it's looking a lot like further discussion will be a waste of time.

    Since NotEinstein has been patiently trying to get some answers for 3 months now, and none have been coming, I think the best thing would be to close this thread. It looks like unproductive pseudoscience, anyway.

    However, in deference to NotEinstein, who has been putting in the hard yards here, I will only close it if and when NotEinstein agrees that it should be closed.

    Please contact me by private messaging when you're done with it, NotEinstein.
     
  14. heyuhua Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    432
  15. heyuhua Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    432
    You are insulting us. What makes you believe that Yang is wrong, and it is obviously the ignorance and misjudgment of NotEinstein but not our mistake. Are you unreasonable? I know that blocking progressive truth is the nature of conservatives, you can block it
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2018
  16. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,584
    Let me answer this one...

    Yes, exactly, it's the same idea, which is why it's doubly surprising Yang gets a different answer. If tens of thousands of experts in the field say -8, and one person says 4, which scenario is more likely to be true? That ten of thousands of experts in the field are wrong, or that one person is wrong?

    Why "without looking at a textbook"? You've been pointing to textbooks throughout this thread yourself.

    And the answer is yes: Einstein did just that. Because there literally wasn't a textbook at that point in time.

    Can you derive Yang's EFE without looking at his articles? (See what a useless argument that is to make?)

    Both differences you've failed to explain.

    And I would prefer it if you did the same.

    Right there. That last part. Isn't that an insult, or at least insulting?

    So... the ten of thousands of GR-experts, are they all conservatives too, trying to block progress? While, you know, launching rockets into space and discovering new particles...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,584
    Lest we be accused of being part of the global conspiracy, I think it's better to do this out in the open.

    I'm OK with it being closed and locked, but I'm also OK with it just being moved into the fringe subsections. However, I'll most likely abandon the thread at that point, because you're right: I don't get the feeling I'm going to get anywhere with either heyuhua or wangchaoqing. Ironically, they are too set in their ways ("conservative").

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Additionally, I think my work here is done anyway: I've raised multiple questions and issues about Yang's work that both heyuhua and wangchaoqing are dodging and failing to address quite consistently. On top of that, every once in a while heyuhua throws around insults while complaining about the same when else somebody talks negatively about his attitude or Yang's work. It's (in my opinion) quite sad to see somebody take enough of an interest in science to dive into this amount of detail, only to not actually care enough about science to learn it properly, and get indignant when others try to teach them.

    James R, I'll leave it up to you (and the rest of the moderation staff) to choose whether to lock the thread, or move it: either is fine with me.
     
  18. heyuhua Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    432
    of course, Yang is correct, the truth is often in the minority.Why some of the difficulties in cosmology have not yet been solved are because people are unwilling to modify the defects of the basic theory,and don't even dare to face such a mistake. In order to cover up the errors of the basic theory, the dark matter dark energy hypothesis was put forward so that cosmology go further and further on the wrong road, and now it was indeed time to look back.
     
  19. heyuhua Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    432
    I've answered your questions countless times,but you won't have a look at all, and even less willing to accept it. the irritating thing is that you said I didn't answer you, I don't know what you're asking me to answer.
    About the coefficient 4 replaces the coefficient -8 , it's the result of our calculations. If you think it's wrong, you must calculate for yourself, or you will not be qualified to object. if you think the works of our predecessors were all correct and perfect, then science will stop developing
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2018
  20. heyuhua Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    432
    why lock or move the post, it is merely a post, are you scared?
     
  21. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,583
    What was insulting? You claimed that one of our members was being paid to disagree with your Yang's ideas. That is a conspiracy theory.
    Perhaps you meant something else and it is just a translation issue.
     
  22. Hayden Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    110
    The wiki link on EFE states as flows about sign in the RHS,


    Authors including Einstein have used a different sign in their definition for the Ricci tensor which results in the sign of the constant on the right side being negative

    {\displaystyle R_{\mu \nu }-{\tfrac {1}{2}}Rg_{\mu \nu }-\Lambda g_{\mu \nu }=-{\frac {8\pi G}{c^{4}}}T_{\mu \nu }.}

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    Therefore I suggest NotEinstein should stop trolling them on this point. Will see about 8 and 4, if I could get that.
     
  23. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,584
    Of course, something you've repeatedly failed to demonstrate.

    And this is not one of those cases.

    The only person unwilling to correct defects here appears to be you.

    Says the person dodging questions and failing to address issues.

    Dark matter and dark energy are two completely different things. I'm surprised you haven't learned this yet, even though I pointed it out to you multiple times now. What was that about unwillingness to correct defects again?

    Well, looking back at this thread, somebody is indeed going further and further on the wrong road.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Any chance of you actually answering some questions, or addressing some of the issues brought up?

    Go back to the start of the thread, and read through it again. There's a whole bunch of questions you haven't addressed, like how there can be movement in a static universe. But more recently, you've failed to address the question why Yang gets a different coefficient to the EFE than tens of thousands of GR-experts.

    I've look at everything you've said and linked to, even the sources you provided that prove Yang wrong. Have you looked at them yourself?

    You've failed to adequately support your position so far, so why should I accept it? You clearly aren't aware of how science works.

    Well, let's focus on the most recent issue: how is it possible that everybody going through the EFE derivations gets -8, but Yang gets 4? You've said yourself: the approaches are quite similar. So the precise question (that I've posed before) is this: point out the exact location in the derivation (equation number or line of text, plus the page number) in Weinberg's textbook, where Weinberg makes the mistake that leads him to reach -8 instead of 4, and explain why Weinberg is wrong there, but Yang gets it right.

    Who says I haven't done so?

    But better yet, I don't need to: it was already done by Einstein, Weinberg, Adler, Mesner, Carroll, and your own Chinese author. If you think they are wrong (and you do), why don't you show your calculations that demonstrate that?

    Again, that's not how science works.

    Also, you barely managed to calculate 8 divided by 4 in this very thread; according to your own criteria, that makes you unqualified to object to anything more mathematically advanced, such as GR. Congratulations, you just disqualified yourself (again)!

    I don't think that, but it seems you think that the work of Yang is "all correct and perfect". It's you that's stopped developing (actually, you went backwards), not science.
     

Share This Page