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:
    1,500
    It's true that I initially didn't know about this difference in conventions, but neither did heyuhua; I had to find it out all by myself. heyuhua didn't correct this for many, many posts, so it's a bit disingenuous of you to solely blame me for it. Also, please refer to post #650, where somebody from the moderation staff evaluates my contributions in this thread. I suggest you take your difference in interpretation as to what is trolling up with the moderation staff.

    And perhaps you should read the rest of the thread, where it becomes quite clear that Yang still changes the sign; heyuhua explicitly mentions this multiple times. So it's not 8 versus 4, it's -8 versus 4. Perhaps it's not me that should "stop trolling on this point", but you that needs to start paying attention on this point.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Hayden Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    110
    Trolling could be persistent harassment, your argument is nothing more than these two points. Your every second post is pricking him with these two points, you have realised that he is not equipped to suitably answer this still you are raising this stuff again and again, this is nothing but persistent harassment aka trolling.

    You started off with a very poor understanding of the sign stuff by claiming that it will give negative gravity.

    The point is neither you nor Heyuhua (and nor me too) understand the actual derivation of how the Einstein Coefficient is achieved, so you can't blame him for not able to clarify this point. Both of you are in same boat, he is a votary of Yang without understanding the maths involved in toto and you are a votary of mainstream without understanding that in toto. Yes of course you have edge due to mainstream.

    James R has a job to do, he has to appear as maintaining mainstream content in science section, and he appears to have acted as per that by shifting this thread to fringe. You loved his praise then please accept the criticism too with grace.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,500
    True, but that's not what I'm doing, so I don't know what you're talking about?

    Perhaps, if heyuhua addressed those two points, we would be able to move onto other things. But alas, heyuhua has been unable to do that so far, so we're stuck at that point for now.

    So, how is that different from heyuhua constantly bringing up these two points himself? You do know this is a discussion forum, right? If somebody brings up something like that, they want it discussed. Why else post it?

    And if you consider my behavior to be harassment, I invite you to contact the moderation staff.

    Something that was not explained by Yang or heyuhua. Something that heyuhua also had no understanding of. Something that, as I found out the truth, I immediately acknowledged. Not only was I the one in this thread figuring that out, I was the one bringing up sign conventions in the first place. Neither Yang nor heyuhua mentioned anything about it before I did (and I believe I had to explain it to him), thus demonstrating that my "very poor understanding" was still superior to heyuhua's.

    Why are you complaining about my behavior on this, when obviously heyuhua is just as guilty, if not more so, because he claims to have direct access to an expert, and thus could have resolved this immediately?

    Well, the minus-sign difference can be absorbed into the stress-energy tensor, basically flipping the sign of mass (for stationary objects). What happens when you do that in Newtonian gravity?

    I have already admitted this is a very hand-wavy thing, and that's why I haven't pressed the point, but you tell me what happens when you throw a minus-sign into the EFE then.

    Even more interesting is that heyuhua actually says this himself too: that's why in Yang's model, matter has the same effect as dark energy (accelerating the universal expansion). So, my claim is actually confirmed by heyuhua... Have you even understood this thread?

    You are in no position to make that claim about me. You don't know me. How do you know I don't have a Master's in Astrophysics?

    Actually, I can. Let's say you study a textbook. Show me examples of textbooks (we've already got a great collection gathered in this thread) where the sign convention of the Ricci tensor is more than just a single line of text.

    Not so easy, is it? That's quite typical in physics and mathematics: authors pick one convention, and stick with it. It's only discussed once (if at all), often in just a single line. It's easy to miss, it's easy to forget.

    I never claimed to be an expert, but heyuhua claims he has direct access to one on a regular basis. So why wasn't he able to figure it out? Surely he was in a much better position than I am! So that complaint from you about me go doubly for heyuhua.

    Again, you don't know me. But I've at least demonstrated a much better knowledge of GR and cosmology than heyuhua in this thread. Certainly enough to point out severe issues with Yang's work.

    No, agreeing with the mainstream doesn't give one any edge. I have the edge of tens of thousands of people having done the calculations, reaching the -8 answer. People including Einstein, Adler, Mesner, Weinberg, Carroll, and heyuhua's own Chinese author. It's not me that's disagreeing with Yang; it's those tens of thousands of people.

    Are you claiming James R is (unwillingly?) part of the conspiracy heyuhua has been referring to? Are you saying he is intimidated by someone or something? Well, I guess you should probably bring that to this site's owner's attention then!

    Have you considered that, perhaps, Yang's work is fringe, and thus belongs in that subsection?

    Who doesn't?

    I want to, but I find it difficult seeing that you are extremely hypocritical in that you level that criticism only at me, when it applies even stronger to heyuhua.

    But let's investigate this then. What would you have me do instead? How would you want me to handle heyuhua?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. heyuhua Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    432
    So far, I'm sure you scoundrels are uniting against major scientific discoveries,and turn black for white and slander truth as pseudoscience, You're really conspiring and not about academic discussion,You are sinners of scientific progress, and be careful to be reckoned in due course
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2018
  8. heyuhua Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    432
    It's not that I didn't answer him clearly,and on the contrary, I answered very clearly, just because of his ignorance and lack of understanding, even if I answered 10,000 times, he also said I didn't answer him.
     
  9. heyuhua Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    432
    It's not that I didn't answer him clearly,and on the contrary, I answered very clearly, just because of his ignorance and lack of understanding, even if I answered 10,000 times, he also said I didn't answer him.
     
  10. heyuhua Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    432
    You're playing a prank, you're venting lust, and your mind is seriously distorted
     
  11. heyuhua Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    432
    I never thought they were the same thing. You misunderstood me.
     
  12. heyuhua Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    432
    This is your serious miscarriage of justice. I can't prove Yang wrong.
     
  13. heyuhua Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    432
    I didn't fail anything. You failed
     
  14. heyuhua Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    432
    I've answered that question countless times, but you're blind
     
  15. heyuhua Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    432
    You're slandering me
     
  16. heyuhua Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    432
    You can't accept the 4 takes over the -8, which means you can't understand Yang, it really doesn't make sense to discuss the rest.
     
  17. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,500
    Then please show me your post where you point out exactly where Weinberg makes a mistake in his derivation of the EFE (eq. number or line number, and page number please). I've asked you this question multiple times; if you've answered it very clearly, you should have no trouble pointing me to the post where you do so.

    I think (hope?) that got lost in translation; can you rephrase that.

    Well, if it's distorted in the same way as Einstein's, Weinberg's, Mesner's, Adler's, Carroll's, then it can't be that bad, can it?

    I also never claimed you thought they were the same, but your arguments do equate them; remember the minus-sign Yang puts in the equation of state? That makes his matter behave roughly like dark energy. You not understanding that doesn't mean I misunderstood you.

    Justice?

    I know this is most likely a translation issue, but I agree 100% with you here.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Any chance you're actually going to address the questions and issues I raised, instead of childishly "No, you!"-ing?

    Then, once again, for the umpteenth time, point me to the post where you did that.

    That's not slander, but if you think it is, feel free to contact the moderation staff.

    No, it's your claim that both lead to the same result in the low-velocity limit that makes that unacceptable.

    Perhaps this is true. I cannot understand a mathematical mistake, so I can't understand Yang.

    So then, will you finally explain it to me instead of dodging it? Hayden wants us to move on to more complicated matter, so please, after all these dozens of posts of me asking, explain it to me.
     
  18. heyuhua Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    432
    I think hayden,a registered, is a fair scholar,and I have serious doubts about the hires, they seem to know everything, want to comment on everything, but almost all of it is a joke,
     
  19. heyuhua Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    432
    You don't do it yourself, of course you don't think it's understandable.
     
  20. heyuhua Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    432
    you can not understand the calculation of the 4 takes over the -8, obviously there's no chance to talk about more complicated things.
     
  21. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,500
    That "fair scholar" just called you "not equipped to suitably answer this", and that you don't "understand the actual derivation of how the Einstein Coefficient is achieved". If you think that's a good description of your abilities, then this is indeed all a big joke.

    Obviously, I don't claim that, because it's obviously wrong. -8 does not equal 4.

    What lead you to that conclusion?

    But can you? You've once again failed to point me to the explanation how tens of thousands of GR-experts have been getting -8 for over a hundred years, while 4 is the only right answer.

    I agree; you are unable to explain even the most basic or important bits of Yang's work, so talking about anything more advanced is quite futile.
     
  22. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,500
    You know what, perhaps Hayden is right, and I should simply stop responding. heyuhua, it's been fun; let me know when you're ready to discuss science. In the mean time, enjoy the fringe subsection.
     
  23. heyuhua Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    432
    It's never a scientific attitude to offer such questions,do you know how shameless and boring it is to ask that? in those days, the whole world opposed Copernicus' heliocentric theory, but that doesn't prove Copernicus wrong, in Galileo's time, the mainstream opposed him and sentenced him, but that did not prove Galileo wrong, too. In short, the majority does not mean truth, and the few are not necessarily false. Is truth or error judged on the basis of the number of supporters? is your question the number of supporters? If so, it's not worth the answer.
    "how tens of thousands of GR-experts have been getting -8 for over a hundred years, while 4 is the only right answer", this answer is simple------they all copied from Einstein and Einstein missed the high-speed approximation
     
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2018

Share This Page