Chinese Scholar Yang Jian liang Putting Wrongs to Rights in Astrophysics

[arfa brane]

The value of Yang's work is exactly -1/2? Or is that an approximation?

 

[NotEinstein]

the +4 is a modification to the -8, which is Yang's achievement, and through the modification the dark matter and dark energy are included in GR (namely pressure takes negative ) and don't need other hypothesis.

Yes, and as we've established here, at least the minus-sign part of that change is a mix-up of minus-sign conventions, and thus wrong. Your latest own provided source proves that. And that source proved that the change of 8 to 4 is wrong too. You yourself have provided ample evidence Yang is wrong; you yourself have proven Yang wrong. All you need to do now is be intellectually honest, and admit that's what you've done.
​

the +4 is a modification to the -8 while other definitions do not change,which is the value of Yang's work

If that's the only part of Yang's work that contains value, I guess we've discredited all of it...

 

[heyuhua]

Yes, and as we've established here, at least the minus-sign part of that change is a mix-up of minus-sign conventions, and thus wrong. Your latest own provided source proves that. And that source proved that the change of 8 to 4 is wrong too. You yourself have provided ample evidence Yang is wrong; you yourself have proven Yang wrong. All you need to do now is be intellectually honest, and admit that's what you've done.
​

If that's the only part of Yang's work that contains value, I guess we've discredited all of it...

it is improtant to admit that the pressure can be taken negative, thus the scalar P actually absorbs the effect of dark energy and dark matter and no longer only represents ordinary pressure, obviously the modified field equation is an equation to include two dark, and tell us two dark are nearby,not mysterious. But, on the other hand, the scalar P represents negative energy too, and matter is postitive energy, total energy of universe is zero all time though matter creates continuously considering of P+matter=0

 

[heyuhua]

P+matter=0 tell us the energy of universe is zero all the time though matter creates all the time, the negative P generates after matter

 

[Michael 345]

the earth is growing up, the sun is bright and bright, the moon is going away from the earth, the earth is going away from the sun, the earth's spin is slowing and slowing, and so on, such a series of phenomena an facts can uniformly and systematically explained based on continuous creation of matter

Most of what has been posted I have no idea what you are talking about. Not just this poster but any of you

However this gem caught my attention

Earth growing up - I take to mean increasing in mass - cause - I thought space dust falling on us

No idea about bright sun

Moon moving away - cause - tidal bulge speeding up the moon

Also cause of Earth slowing

Now I have not read anything about matter being continuously created on the back of my cornflakes box

Can it be explained how much matter is being produced, say per day, and who doles it out around the universe?

My cornflakes box information says matter was created after the Big Bang but has since stopped

Thanks

 

[NotEinstein]

it is improtant to admit that the pressure can be taken negative, thus the scalar P actually absorbs the effect of dark energy and dark matter and no longer only represents ordinary pressure, obviously the modified field equation is an equation to include two dark, and tell us two dark are nearby,not mysterious. But, on the other hand, the scalar P represents negative energy too, and matter is postitive energy, total energy of universe is zero all time though matter creates continuously considering of P+matter=0

So you're just going to ignore the fact you yourself disproved Yang and discredited all of his work just a couple of posts ago? You're just going to quote my post, but ignore its contents entirely? I'll let everybody in this thread draw their own conclusions as to how this reflects on your intellectual honesty.

But, I've got to give credit where credit is due: at least you've stopped throwing insults at me, which is an improvement.

 

[exchemist]

The tidal effect alone can not explain the retreat of the moon. According to tidal theory, the retreat distance of the moon within one year does not exceed two centimeters, but observations show that the retreat distance of the moon is 3.8 centimeters a year. Only considering the Hubble expansion(2.7 centimeters per year) can really solve the observed 3.8 centimeters.

This article does not seem to think there is any difficulty accounting for the observed rate of retreat of 3.8cm/yr: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_acceleration

Can you refer me to a source that shows only 2cm/yr can be explained satisfactorily?

 

[heyuhua]

Most of what has been posted I have no idea what you are talking about. Not just this poster but any of you

However this gem caught my attention

Earth growing up - I take to mean increasing in mass - cause - I thought space dust falling on us

No idea about bright sun

Moon moving away - cause - tidal bulge speeding up the moon

Also cause of Earth slowing

Now I have not read anything about matter being continuously created on the back of my cornflakes box

Can it be explained how much matter is being produced, say per day, and who doles it out around the universe?

My cornflakes box information says matter was created after the Big Bang but has since stopped

Thanks

not only the earth is growing but also all celestial bodies are growing up,

Most of what has been posted I have no idea what you are talking about. Not just this poster but any of you

However this gem caught my attention

Earth growing up - I take to mean increasing in mass - cause - I thought space dust falling on us

No idea about bright sun

Moon moving away - cause - tidal bulge speeding up the moon

Also cause of Earth slowing

Now I have not read anything about matter being continuously created on the back of my cornflakes box

Can it be explained how much matter is being produced, say per day, and who doles it out around the universe?

My cornflakes box information says matter was created after the Big Bang but has since stopped

Thanks

not only the earth is growing but also all celestial bodies are growing, the growth is joint increase of mass and volum, celestial body expands with universal expansion, for a elestial body its mass changes to meets dm=-Pdv, Yang had proven that interior P of celestial body must take negative, thus dm>0, that is to say, when a body's volum is increasing its mass increases too, exact calculation shows that the change of mass meets dm= 3mH(t)dt, H(t) is Hubble parameter, a changing quantity with time. thus the continuous creation of mass is real, not only happened at the instant of big bang but also other time

 

[heyuhua]

This article does not seem to think there is any difficulty accounting for the observed rate of retreat of 3.8cm/yr: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_acceleration

Can you refer me to a source that shows only 2cm/yr can be explained satisfactorily?

if pure tidal effect can make the retreat the long of day will increase more than 2ms/cy, this is against observations, see https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/10.1142/S0218271815300153 . In fact, not only moon is going away from the earth but also the earth is going away fron the sun, and so on, these only can be explained by Hubble expansion. Note that Hubble expansion doesn't change rotation or revolution's periods of any celestial body

 

[heyuhua]

universe is expanding means: the solar system is expanding and its planets are leaving each other, all celestail bodies in universe are growing, matter is generating in interior of celestial bodies, space is creating wherever, all change synchronously and organically together. In a word, universe is a alive mechine

 

[Michael 345]

universe is expanding means: the solar system is expanding and its planets are leaving each other, all celestail bodies in universe are growing, matter is generating in interior of celestial bodies, space is creating wherever, all change synchronously and organically together. In a word, universe is a alive mechine

To many points to chat about individually but collectively CRAP

Two for special mention

Only a tiny portion of the Universe is organic

Universe is NOT alive and not a machine

 

[heyuhua]

Bruno used to say that the earth is alive, and now I say the whole universe is alive, and everything is in motion and change, and that's what living means. All pessimistic and negative views are undesirable, and there is no dead star, once it dies, it disappears. living is the form to exist

 

[arfa brane]

Ok, I've managed to run out of tinfoil.

Where's that colander?

 

[Michael 345]

Bruno used to say that the earth is alive, and now I say the whole universe is alive,

You must be very proud

and everything is in motion and change, and that's what living means

Is that meaning from your private dictionary?

pessimistic and negative views are undesirable, and there is no dead star, once it dies, it disappears. living is the form to exist

Sounds like a quote from my next book

Thoughts From a Guru in a Cave at the Top of a Mountain

OR alternatively

How to Sound Wise While Talking Crap

Ok, I've managed to run out of tinfoil.

Where's that colander?

Make sure you put it on during a full moon to get maximum efficiency

 

[NotEinstein]

heyuhua, any chance of you showing some intellectual honesty and/or backbone, and addressing the fact that you've disproven and discredited all of Yang's work? Or, in fact, some common decency, because you've previous insulted my intelligence multiple times, only to find out it was you that was wrong all along.

Bruno used to say that the earth is alive, and now I say the whole universe is alive, and everything is in motion and change, and that's what living means.

living is the form to exist

Please look up the definition of "life" in any dictionary (even a Chinese one will do), because that's not it.

 

[heyuhua]

heyuhua, any chance of you showing some intellectual honesty and/or backbone, and addressing the fact that you've disproven and discredited all of Yang's work? Or, in fact, some common decency, because you've previous insulted my intelligence multiple times, only to find out it was you that was wrong all along.



Please look up the definition of "life" in any dictionary (even a Chinese one will do), because that's not it.

You are a man who doesn't want and doesn't dare to admit mistakes. I don't want to waste my time with you. I feel that you hate my job , very much, and you are in opposition to me everywhere,

 

[NotEinstein]

You are a man who doesn't want and doesn't dare to admit mistakes.

I think you've confused you and me?

I can easily admit my mistakes. For example, in this thread, I first mistakenly said that Yang had messed up the minus-sign in the Ricci tensor. Turns out (which your second attempt at providing a source) that was just an alternate convention I was not aware of, and his mistake was in the mixing of minus-sign conventions with the comparison of the EFE.

I don't want to waste my time with you.

Then stop wasting time, and address the issues raised!

I feel that you hate my job , very much,

I don't even know what your job is? But since you don't know me, you're most likely wrong anyway. So stop trying to guess what I think or feel; you're wasting time.

and you are in opposition to me everywhere,

I'm not in opposition to you; at most, I can be said to be in opposition to Yang's work. Also, I'm not everywhere, so that's false. Or did you mean: "on everything"? In that case, also false: I agree with the sources you provided that prove that Yang's wrong.​

 

[exchemist]

if pure tidal effect can make the retreat the long of day will increase more than 2ms/cy, this is against observations, see https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/10.1142/S0218271815300153 . In fact, not only moon is going away from the earth but also the earth is going away fron the sun, and so on, these only can be explained by Hubble expansion. Note that Hubble expansion doesn't change rotation or revolution's periods of any celestial body

The abstract of this paper lists several "alleged anomalies", none of which includes the increase in the Earth-Moon distance.

 

[heyuhua]

I think you've confused you and me?

I can easily admit my mistakes. For example, in this thread, I first mistakenly said that Yang had messed up the minus-sign in the Ricci tensor. Turns out (which your second attempt at providing a source) that was just an alternate convention I was not aware of, and his mistake was in the mixing of minus-sign conventions with the comparison of the EFE.


Then stop wasting time, and address the issues raised!


I don't even know what your job is? But since you don't know me, you're most likely wrong anyway. So stop trying to guess what I think or feel; you're wasting time.

I'm not in opposition to you; at most, I can be said to be in opposition to Yang's work. Also, I'm not everywhere, so that's false. Or did you mean: "on everything"? In that case, also false: I agree with the sources you provided that prove that Yang's wrong.​

Yang is a great physicist, he couldn't have made those low - level mistakes that you point out, you should read Yang's article with awe. And first you are ready to check yourself and don't say always Yang is wrong.

 

[heyuhua]

The abstract of this paper lists several "alleged anomalies", none of which includes the increase in the Earth-Moon distance.

after you read the full article and grasp the content, you will understand all