Chinese Scholar Yang Jian liang Putting Wrongs to Rights in Astrophysics

[heyuhua]

Yang modifies the previous coupling coeffecient -8 for 4 and simultaneously pressure P is required negative, which is Yang's important contribution to GR. Based on the modification a large number of cosmological problems are readily solved

 

[NotEinstein]

Yang is a great physicist, he couldn't have made those low - level mistakes that you point out,

It's not just me pointing those mistakes out: your own provided sources prove he's wrong.

you should read Yang's article with awe.

Why? The article should stand on its own merit; that's how science works. And since we've found a fundamental mistake in it that destroys its conclusion, the article should be discarded.

And first you are ready to check yourself

What do you mean? Check out the article? I've done that, and found that fundamental mistake in it. You know, that mistake that's backed up with your own provided sources.

and don't say always Yang is wrong.

Why am I not allowed to say what has been demonstrated even by you to be the truth?

Yang modifies the previous coupling coeffecient -8 for 4

Which was proven wrong, even by you, in this very thread.

and simultaneously pressure P is required negative, which is Yang's important contribution to GR.

Yang's important contribution is a minus-sign mistake?

Based on the modification a large number of cosmological problems are readily solved

But since these solutions are based on bad math, it doesn't matter: the solutions are bad, and should be discarded.

 

[spidergoat]

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.

Oh, the argument from "he's great". You just lost. Goodbye.

 

[heyuhua]

By now, no matter how much I inspire you, you haven't made any progress. You always say the minus sign is wrong. What's wrong with it? When and where did I prove Yang wrong? I don't understand, it is very ridiculou to say I prove Yang wrong. I said 100 times that the minus sign belongs to the definition of Ricci tensor , isn't a mistake, but you don't seem to understand anything. I don't expect you to promote Yang's achievements, but please don't shit on it, don't make comments where you don't understand, and respect others. In Yang's paper with me, all the mathematical calculations have been checked repeatedly a lot, and I can assure you that there is nothing wrong with mathematics. Mistakes are inevitable, but there are no such mistakes as you point out. You just have to be modest and cautious. If you are not prepared to be a student, you can't go on to study Yang's paper

 

[heyuhua]

It must be a remarkable improvement that Yang modifies the previous coupling coeffecient -8 for 4，and if use the field equation whose coupling coefficient is 8, that is, Ricci Tensor uses another definition, the corresponding modification is to replace the coupling coefficient 8 with -4. Note that the previous two forms of coupling coefficient, namely 8 and -8, isn't a modification, because the two forms of field equation are equivalent to each other although they look different in form

 

[NotEinstein]

By now, no matter how much I inspire you, you haven't made any progress.

I learned about the two Ricci tensor definitions, and you learned that Yang is wrong. I'd call that progress.

You always say the minus sign is wrong. What's wrong with it?

Have you not understood anything that was said in the past 100+ posts? Perhaps you should read them more carefully. Additionally, have you not understood your own two provided sources? Perhaps you should read them more carefully.

When and where did I prove Yang wrong?

As I have said multiple times: both your own provided sources demonstrate that Yang's $$4$$ in the EFE is wrong, as both sources derive a $$(-)8$$ in its place.

I don't understand, it is very ridiculou to say I prove Yang wrong.

You have; both the sources you provided (Adler et al., and the Chinese textbook) reach EFE's that are different from Yang's. Conclusion: Yang's EFE is wrong. Unless you now want to argue the two sources you provided were wrong after all, (in which case I of course am going to question why you provided them in the first place).

I said 100 times that the minus sign belongs to the definition of Ricci tensor , isn't a mistake, but you don't seem to understand anything.

Please re-read the last bunch of posts. I've accepted that there is an alternative definition from Carroll's/Wikipedia's that includes that minus sign, but that then inevitably leads to the conclusion that Yang is comparing his EFE with one that most definitely it cannot be compared to, because it uses a different definition.

I don't expect you to promote Yang's achievements,

Except you've told me to do that at least twice in this thread.

but please don't shit on it,

I am not; I merely pointed out a mistake. You then proceeded to say that mistake destroys all his work. You provided the source that ultimately proved Yang conclusively wrong. If anybody is shitting on Yang's achievements, it's you!

don't make comments where you don't understand,

Exactly; I expect you to do the same.

and respect others.

...says the person that's been throwing insults around like candy.

In Yang's paper with me, all the mathematical calculations have been checked repeatedly a lot,

Then why is there still a mistake in the EFE ($$4$$ vs $$8$$)?

and I can assure you that there is nothing wrong with mathematics.

Then why is there a comparison of two equations using different Ricci tensor definitions?

Mistakes are inevitable, but there are no such mistakes as you point out.

Except there is, as you own provided sources have demonstrated.

You just have to be modest and cautious.

...says the person calling Yang great and infallible just a couple of posts ago.

If you are not prepared to be a student,

How are you so sure I don't have a Master's degree in astrophysics? Looking through this thread, it looks like you are the one not prepared to be a student, so much so that you have to even deny a simple high school level mistake.

you can't go on to study Yang's paper

As is clear in this thread, I've studied it, and I've found it to be lacking. In fact, I found a fundamental mistake in it, that (according to you) destroys all his work. I think I've studied it enough; perhaps you should take a closer look at it yourself?

It must be a remarkable improvement that Yang modifies the previous coupling coeffecient -8 for 4,

Both your sources demonstrate clearly that that number cannot be a $$4$$; in other words, this "improvement" is introducing a mistake.

and if use the field equation whose coupling coefficient is 8, that is, Ricci Tensor uses another definition, the corresponding modification is to replace the coupling coefficient 8 with -4.

Yes, Yang is both wrong about the absolute value ($$4$$ vs $$8$$) and the minus sign; we've established that by now.

Note that the previous two forms of coupling coefficient, namely 8 and -8, isn't a modification, because the two forms of field equation are equivalent to each other although they look different in form

There are only equivalent if the different is the definition of the Ricci tensor. You cannot compare them otherwise. This is the minus-sign mistake Yang makes.

 

[heyuhua]

It's not Yang's fault，and it's your ignorance and shallow, you're not at all proficient in mathematical detail, nor do you have your own calculations. You're talking nonsense. Yang had not defined any Ricci tensor, the definitions used by yang are defined by others, for Weinberg，how could it be wrong ?

 

[NotEinstein]

It's not Yang's fault，and it's your ignorance and shallow, you're not at all proficient in mathematical detail, nor do you have your own calculations.

I indeed don't have my own calculations; I'm using the textbooks and sources provided in this thread. So you are claiming Carroll is wrong? You are claiming Adler et al are wrong? You are claiming your own Chinese source is wrong? You are claiming all GR experts over the part 100 years are wrong, and that Yang is the only one that is right? Yeah, clearly I'm the ignorant one...

You're talking nonsense.

I've been quite coherent throughout this thread, so that's false.

Yang had not defined any Ricci tensor, the definitions used by yang are defined by others,

Exactly, he didn't come up with it. And those other people prove that Yang made a mistake in his calculations.

for Weinberg，how could it be wrong ?

Right, I was waiting until you brought that textbook up. Yes, let's look at "Gravitation and Cosmology", 1972, by Steven Weinberg.
Page 135, equation 6.2.4: Weinberg defines the Ricci tensor as the contraction of the Riemann tensor over the third index, just like Carroll.
Page 154, equation 7.1.13: Weinberg derives the EFE. Notice that there's an $$-8$$, not a $$4$$.
So there we have it: your third source also proves Yang wrong.

As you asked: how could Weinberg be wrong? Hint: he isn't; Yang is wrong.

 

[heyuhua]

the important is that Yang think the -8 isn't very reasonable, should be modified or corrected for 4. About the details and reasons as wellas calculation see
http://prep.istic.ac.cn/preprint/inte.html?action=getFile&id=2c9282826370f9400164085432d20158

 

[NotEinstein]

the important is that Yang think the -8 isn't very reasonable, should be modified or corrected for 4.

So Einstein, Weinberg, Carroll, Adler et al., and the author of that Chinese textbook, and the Wikipedia-author are all wrong? You know better than all of them (but are somehow unable to provide support for that claim)? You know better than over 100 years of GR experts? That's quite a claim! (It's also worth quite a few points on the crackpot index.)

Weird that you would provide three of those sources if they are wrong?

About the details and reasons as wellas calculation see
http://prep.istic.ac.cn/preprint/inte.html?action=getFile&id=2c9282826370f9400164085432d20158

This document contains the same mistake as we've been talking about; just deleting the explicit EFE comparison doesn't make the mistake go away.

 

[heyuhua]

Before Copernicus, geocentric theory existed for thousands of years, that is to say, wrong for thousands of years. The field equation exists for no more than 100 years, it is not surprising that the field equation has shortcoming , Yang's success lies in that he can find the shortcoming and give redress to it. You think Yang is wrong and just expose your ignorance and frivolity .

 

[NotEinstein]

Before Copernicus, geocentric theory existed for thousands of years, that is to say, wrong for thousands of years. The field equation exists for no more than 100 years, it is not surprising that the field equation has shortcoming ,

So all recent-ish ideas have shortcomings? OK, how old is Yang's idea then?

Yang's success lies in that he can find the shortcoming and give redress to it.

And I've identified a very basic shortcoming in Yang's work.

You think Yang is wrong

All three of your provided sources agree with me on that.

and just expose your ignorance and frivolity .

And you continued failure to address the issues raised, what does that expose?

 

[heyuhua]

"All three of your provided sources agree with me on that." , this is your misunderstanding. besides taking notice of the Ricci tensor's definition you need pay attentent to the matching question among 4 -speed definition and energy-stress tensor as well as the definition of Minkovsky's metric, see
http://prep.istic.ac.cn/preprint/inte.html?action=getFile&id=2c9282826370f94001640a9cf058015a
The matching question comes from the requirement that in weak field geodesic equations' first order approximation must return to Newton law

 

[heyuhua]

and again, zero divergence of energy-stress tensor returns to Euler equations in waek field, which decides the way of defining energy-stress tensor.

 

[Hayden]

Just by using the negative sign in place of positive, no great contribution or insight is offered by Yang.

 

[heyuhua]

Just by using the negative sign in place of positive, no great contribution or insight is offered by Yang.

Don't belittle this trivial modification, which has changed many conclusions, especially in the field of cosmology

 

[Hayden]

Don't belittle this trivial modification, which has changed many conclusions, especially in the field of cosmology

You say it is trivial and it's modification.

Then let Yang not take any drum beating credit for this. Let us say that Einstein made a small slip and he stands trivially corrected by Yang for better results.

 

[heyuhua]

To say that it is insignificant is to say that there are few mathematical changes, but the physical conclusions are significant.

 

[heyuhua]

You say it is trivial and it's modification.

Then let Yang not take any drum beating credit for this. Let us say that Einstein made a small slip and he stands trivially corrected by Yang for better results.

To say that it is insignificant is to say that there are few mathematical changes, but the physical conclusions are significant.

 

[NotEinstein]

"All three of your provided sources agree with me on that." , this is your misunderstanding.

No, it's yours. For all 5 sources used in this thread, I've given page numbers and/or equations numbers where they derive the EFE; none of them agree with Yang. Even a child that just learned numbers can see that.

besides taking notice of the Ricci tensor's definition you need pay attentent to the matching question among 4 -speed definition and energy-stress tensor as well as the definition of Minkovsky's metric, see
http://prep.istic.ac.cn/preprint/inte.html?action=getFile&id=2c9282826370f94001640a9cf058015a

Here's the problem with that: if it's all due to different definitions and conventions, that Yang's work is just GR but written differently. Then he hasn't done anything new. That clearly is not the case: Yang explicitly makes a big deal out of the changing of the EFE, so he clearly doesn't believe it's just a notational change.

The matching question comes from the requirement that in weak field geodesic equations' first order approximation must return to Newton law

Yes, and GR with the normal EFE does that just fine. In fact, that's one of the major tests that GR had to pass, and it's been doing that for over a hundred years!

Let us say that Einstein made a small slip and he stands trivially corrected by Yang for better results.

Well, not just Einstein, but Carroll, Adler et al, Weinberg, the Wikipedia-author, the Chinese author, and all the GR-experts over the past 100+ years...