Yes, and we have five sources all saying that's wrong, three of which you provided.
Indeed, if you incorrectly put in a minus-sign, you'll need other minus-signs to compensate for that mistake.
From the articles it's clear that it's a mistake due to not understanding minus-sign conventions; we've been over this.
And Yang's idea is, what, a dozen years old? Obviously it will contain more mistakes because it's so new. Yes, all of this is sound logic; the truth of an idea depends on its age.
I know enough details to know it's wrong. If you truly want to know all the details; you've provided three textbooks in this thread that contain them; read them.
Yes, mistakes needs to be compensated for, I agree.
If I'm messing around, purely by repeating your argument back to you, then what does that say about your argument?
I don't think you are wrong; Yang is. And it's not just me that thinks that; it's Einstein, Carroll, Adler, Weinberg, etc. as well. Pretty much every GR-expert over the past 100 years.
No, that's not how this works. You don't get to just ignore fundamental mistakes when you're pointed out to you. Mistakes must be rectified; that's how science operates.
I'm not quarrelling with you; if it feels that way to you, that's because you are not able to actually discuss Yang's work. I've pointed out a mistake in his work; it's now up to you to show this is not a mistake, or how this mistake is not a problem (which you've already conceded). You've been unable to disprove this mistake so far (in fact, you've provided three sources in support of this being a mistake in Yang's work), and thus we are currently stuck at that stage of this discussion. It's your unwillingness or inability to explain away this mistake that's leading to a constant repeating of steps. It's you that's frustrating this discussion.
You've indeed said that many times, and I've responded many times that you need to explain why. Outright denial without backing it up isn't a defense of your position. Better yet, the three sources you have provided contradict Yang's work on this very issue. You have to show how Yang's work is compatible with those three sources. Until you are actually able to do so, there is little else that needs talking about, because as you yourself have said: if Yang is wrong about the EFE, all his further work is without merit.
Then show that work! That's literally what I've been asking for for the last 100+ posts. If you and Yang have spent years on this, you must have a write-up of this or notes on this. It should be easy for you to post those here.
Not than me; you're saying you know more about its right and wrong than Einstein, Weinberg, Carroll, Adler, and every other GR-experts for the past 100 years.
The field equation before Yang's modification did make a lot of progress, but it was the achievement of its external solution, the internal solution was not ideal, and when the equation was used in cosmology led to a series of bad absurdities, such as the difficulty of horizon, the difficulty of singularity, cosmic constant difficulty, dark energy difficulty, etc., these difficulties show that this equation has serious shortcomings and must be improved. Yang's modification is a solution to this problem, and the modified field equation is very successful, which has greatly promoted the development of general relativity. So-called dark energy difficulty refers to that we must draw into something unwarranted to help the field equation otherwise it is going to the scrap heap at once.
Your revision is certainly not as profound, concise, and beautiful as Yang's. Yang's revision so far is the most natural and reasonable.And Yang's revision is of great practical value because of its concision .
Well, there are still many, many issues that haven't been addressed, but the two main issues we've been focusing on for the last posts are:
Nope. You have stated that the minus-sign difference is just notational (and thus that Yang is wrong in ascribing meaning to it), but you keep repeating it as well. And the $$4$$; you've simply claimed that its correct, without demonstrating where your three sources are wrong. All you've done is wave your hands about, saying "Yang is right" without backing that up.
Partially perhaps, and you've given contradictory explanations. We've conclusively established that with the alternative Ricci tensor definition indeed a minus-sign difference between the EFE's occurs. This minus-sign difference has thus already been known about for many years, and it has no physical meaning; it's just notational. Yang's interpretation that the other EFE is wrong, is incorrect. You have not explained Yang's incorrect interpretation at all.
Then don't handle me; handle Carroll, Weinberg, Adler et al. Show where they are wrong.
What others?
What? Do you mean you don't even know what the EFE does, what it means in the context of GR?
False. Truth isn't, just our understanding of and knowledge about it.
Correct; I expect you and Yang to do the same.
Well, not the whole history, but sure.
Sure, but that's not done by introducing mistakes and errors. You said it yourself just now: we need to correct the errors. Yang introduces errors, so accepting Yang's work would be a step back. You yourself just said we "will have to move on", i.e. forward, not backward.
You think Yang's modification wrong, well, I argue with you no longer. But You might as well solve directly the field equation modified by Yang to see if its solution is more reasonable and valuable, and it will also promote your understanding, You should be able to solve this equation, are you?