Chinese Scholar Yang Jian liang Putting Wrongs to Rights in Astrophysics

[heyuhua]

" Yang derives a \(4\) where there should be an \(8\). \(8\) is the correct number, according to the three sources you provided."
this is wrong understanding, in fact Yang derives the 4 where there is usually -8, because Yang use Weinberg's definition to Ricci tensor, using the definition the usual field equation's coefficient is - 8 but not 8. Yang's modification is about the usual field equation with coefficient -8 . Of course, if use Carroll's definition to Ricci tensor the usual field equation's coefficient is 8, and for this equation Yang's corresponding modification should be -4 to take the place of 8.

 

[heyuhua]

In short, Ricci tensor has two definitions, but you can only choose one of them to use, and if you choose one you may forget another

 

[NotEinstein]

You think Yang's modification wrong,

I'm just following what your own sources say. Einstein thinks Yang's modification is wrong. Carroll thinks Yang's modification is wrong. Adler thinks Yang's modification is wrong. The Wikipedia-author thinks Yang's modification is wrong. The Chinese author thinks Yang's modification is wrong. Weinberg thinks Yang's modification is wrong.

well, I argue with you no longer.

You haven't been arguing; you've simply been ignoring and denying.

But You might as well solve directly the field equation modified by Yang to see if its solution is more reasonable and valuable,

No, that's something that Yang has to do; the burden of proof is on him. And why should I solve the equation myself? Einstein has done this, Carroll has done this, Weinberg has done this, Adler has done this. I'm just using their solutions; I trust them more than I trust myself when it comes to GR.

and it will also promote your understanding,

How can it improve my understanding, if it's in direct conflict with things that are correct?

You should be able to solve this equation, are you?

Whether I am or not doesn't matter; other people have already done this.
​

this is wrong understanding, in fact Yang derives the 4 where there is usually -8,

You are making the same mistake Yang is: the minus-sign difference is due to his Ricci tensor definition.

because Yang use Weinberg's definition to Ricci tensor, using the definition the usual field equation's coefficient is - 8 but not 8.

Exactly, so that minus-sign difference is just a notational/definitional thing, nothing more.

Yang's modification is about the usual field equation with coefficient -8 .

And that comparison is invalid. Apples and oranges.

Of course, if use Carroll's definition to Ricci tensor the usual field equation's coefficient is 8, and for this equation Yang's corresponding modification should be -4 to take the place of 8.

Yes, if you flip the minus-sign around everywhere, the mistake gets preserved, and Yang would still be wrong.

In short, Ricci tensor has two definitions, but you can only choose one of them to use, and if you choose one you may forget another

Yes, that's what I've been pointing out to you for many posts now; thank you for (finally!) agreeing this is the proper thing to do. However, Yang is in violation of this, as he mixes the two up when comparing EFE's. (And he gets the wrong absolute value too.) In other words, you yourself have once again proven Yang to be wrong.

 

[heyuhua]

"I'm just following what your own sources say. Einstein thinks Yang's modification is wrong. Carroll thinks Yang's modification is wrong. Adler thinks Yang's modification is wrong. The Wikipedia-author thinks Yang's modification is wrong. The Chinese author thinks Yang's modification is wrong. Weinberg thinks Yang's modification is wrong."

very sorry, they're all dead, and if they're alive, they'd appreciate Yang's modification, and their troubled problems for long time have been opened up by such modification, well,well.

 

[heyuhua]

I'm just following what your own sources say. Einstein thinks Yang's modification is wrong. Carroll thinks Yang's modification is wrong. Adler thinks Yang's modification is wrong. The Wikipedia-author thinks Yang's modification is wrong. The Chinese author thinks Yang's modification is wrong. Weinberg thinks Yang's modification is wrong.


You haven't been arguing; you've simply been ignoring and denying.


No, that's something that Yang has to do; the burden of proof is on him. And why should I solve the equation myself? Einstein has done this, Carroll has done this, Weinberg has done this, Adler has done this. I'm just using their solutions; I trust them more than I trust myself when it comes to GR.


How can it improve my understanding, if it's in direct conflict with things that are correct?


Whether I am or not doesn't matter; other people have already done this.
​

You are making the same mistake Yang is: the minus-sign difference is due to his Ricci tensor definition.


Exactly, so that minus-sign difference is just a notational/definitional thing, nothing more.


And that comparison is invalid. Apples and oranges.


Yes, if you flip the minus-sign around everywhere, the mistake gets preserved, and Yang would still be wrong.


Yes, that's what I've been pointing out to you for many posts now; thank you for (finally!) agreeing this is the proper thing to do. However, Yang is in violation of this, as he mixes the two up when comparing EFE's. (And he gets the wrong absolute value too.) In other words, you yourself have once again proven Yang to be wrong.

Your math is so poor that you seem not to be able to appreciate the beautiful modification. You could't master general relativity if you don't want to do hard arithmetic

 

[NotEinstein]

very sorry, they're all dead,

I didn't know Sean M. Carroll passed away? Also, somebody being dead doesn't invalidate their maths.

and if they're alive, they'd appreciate Yang's modification,

Then why hasn't Yang's work been peer-reviewed and published yet? There are many, many GR-experts out there. If you are so certain they'd appreciate Yang's work, then why don't then already?

Are you fantasizing by any chance?

and their troubled problems for long time have been opened up by such modification, well,well.

Then get Yang's work published. If you are so certain Yang's correct (after the many years you and him spent perfecting it), and that it will instantly be received with open arms, that shouldn't be a problem, right?

Your math is so poor that you seem not to be able to appreciate the beautiful modification.

My math knowledge contains at least these two nuggets:
+ and - are different; you can't simply exchange them.
4 and 8 are different; you can't simply exchange them.

Apparently, Yang and you didn't merely modify GR, you two have completely re-invented mathematics!

You could't master general relativity

Again, who says I don't have a Master's degree in Astrophysics?

if you don't want to do hard arithmetic

Says the person that doesn't understand that:
+ and - are different; you can't simply exchange them.
4 and 8 are different; you can't simply exchange them.

And again, I don't need to do the "hard" arithmetic; Einstein, Carroll, Weinberg, Adlert, etc. have already done so for me, and they clearly come to the conclusion that Yang is wrong. I'm merely standing on the shoulders of giants.​

 

[heyuhua]

I didn't know Sean M. Carroll passed away? Also, somebody being dead doesn't invalidate their maths.


Then why hasn't Yang's work been peer-reviewed and published yet? There are many, many GR-experts out there. If you are so certain they'd appreciate Yang's work, then why don't then already?

Are you fantasizing by any chance?


Then get Yang's work published. If you are so certain Yang's correct (after the many years you and him spent perfecting it), and that it will instantly be received with open arms, that shouldn't be a problem, right?


My math knowledge contains at least these two nuggets:
+ and - are different; you can't simply exchange them.
4 and 8 are different; you can't simply exchange them.

Apparently, Yang and you didn't merely modify GR, you two have completely re-invented mathematics!


Again, who says I don't have a Master's degree in Astrophysics?

Says the person that doesn't understand that:
+ and - are different; you can't simply exchange them.
4 and 8 are different; you can't simply exchange them.

And again, I don't need to do the "hard" arithmetic; Einstein, Carroll, Weinberg, Adlert, etc. have already done so for me, and they clearly come to the conclusion that Yang is wrong. I'm merely standing on the shoulders of giants.​

A bullhead always likes chopping logic with others, and only it is basic scientific attitude and method that if you are wrong, you should admit your mistake and not resort to lame arguments.

 

[NotEinstein]

A bullhead always likes chopping logic with others,

I'm not sure what you mean; probably a language barrier?

and only it is basic scientific attitude and method that if you are wrong, you should admit your mistake and not resort to lame arguments.

Yes, I fully agree! So stop resorting to lame (or even no) arguments, and properly address the issues raised, or admit that you (and Yang) are wrong.

 

[heyuhua]

Yang's work been peer-reviewed and published for some time, but like you a lot of people didn't understand and it is not yet valued for the time being, but in future it will gradually be understood by more and more people

 

[NotEinstein]

Yang's work been peer-reviewed and published for some time,

Please give the citation(s) to the industry-recognized, well-respected, peer-reviewed journal(s) in which this work was published. Note that since this work is about cosmology/astronomy, it can't be (for example) some IT-journal, as they can't be expected to have done the peer-reviewing on the physics content properly.

but like you a lot of people didn't understand

That's what happens if you invent your own mathematical rules without telling others about it. Also, if you write a paper on such a basic and well-explored subject and manage to make it ununderstandable, that's your own fault.

and it is not yet valued for the time being,

So... it deserves respect now because it in the future might be valued? What kind of argument is that? (Answer: a fallacious one.)

but in future it will gradually be understood by more and more people

More fantasizing?

 

[heyuhua]

I'm not sure what you mean; probably a language barrier?


Yes, I fully agree! So stop resorting to lame (or even no) arguments, and properly address the issues raised, or admit that you (and Yang) are wrong.

it cann't be decided by you that I and Yang are right or wrong, and you know too little about GR.

 

[heyuhua]

Please give the citation(s) to the industry-recognized, well-respected, peer-reviewed journal(s) in which this work was published. Note that since this work is about cosmology/astronomy, it can't be (for example) some IT-journal, as they can't be expected to have done the peer-reviewing on the physics content properly.


That's what happens if you invent your own mathematical rules without telling others about it. Also, if you write a paper on such a basic and well-explored subject and manage to make it ununderstandable, that's your own fault.


So... it deserves respect now because it in the future might be valued? What kind of argument is that? (Answer: a fallacious one.)


More fantasizing?

THE citation http://pubs.sciepub.com/faac/3/2/1/index.html

 

[heyuhua]

"That's what happens if you invent your own mathematical rules without telling others about it. Also, if you write a paper on such a basic and well-explored subject and manage to make it ununderstandable, that's your own fault."

Rest assured, I have not invented any new rules , and all definition and relus belong to the common textbooks. This modification essentially resolves the field equation or, in other words, seeks a new and more reasonable solution.

 

[NotEinstein]

THE citation http://pubs.sciepub.com/faac/3/2/1/index.html

https://www.quora.com/Are-http-sciepub-com-s-journals-credible
https://clinicallibrarian.wordpress.com/2017/01/23/bealls-list-of-predatory-publishers/

I asked for "industry-recognized, well-respected, peer-reviewed journal(s)".

 

[NotEinstein]

Rest assured, I have not invented any new rules , and all definition and relus belong to the common textbooks

Then explain how Yang, using the same definitions and rules, gets a different answer than Einstein, Carroll, Adler, Weinberg, and tens of thousands of GR-experts all over the world over the past 100 years.

 

[heyuhua]

Rest assured, I have not invented any new rules , and all definition and relus belong to the common textbooks. This modification essentially resolves the field equation or, in other words, seeks a new and more reasonable solution.

 

[NotEinstein]

Rest assured, I have not invented any new rules , and all definition and relus belong to the common textbooks.

Then explain how Yang, using the same definitions and rules, gets a different answer than Einstein, Carroll, Adler, Weinberg, and tens of thousands of GR-experts all over the world over the past 100 years.

This modification essentially resolves the field equation or, in other words, seeks a new and more reasonable solution.

No, Yang is not looking for new solutions to the field equation; he is modifying it. In fact, you know this to be true, because you've called it a modification of the EFE in this thread many times. Stop lying in order to misrepresent what Yang is doing so you don't have to defend the indefensible (a position you've put yourself in, by the way).

 

[heyuhua]

Then explain how Yang, using the same definitions and rules, gets a different answer than Einstein, Carroll, Adler, Weinberg, and tens of thousands of GR-experts all over the world over the past 100 years.

indeed, this is crux of the problem, Yang's work is just focusing here

 

[NotEinstein]

indeed, this is crux of the problem, Yang's work is just focusing here

So you acknowledge the huge problem, and then completely ignore it? That's not how science works; explain how this problem is resolved in Yang's favor.

 

[heyuhua]

Then explain how Yang, using the same definitions and rules, gets a different answer than Einstein, Carroll, Adler, Weinberg, and tens of thousands of GR-experts all over the world over the past 100 years.


No, Yang is not looking for new solutions to the field equation; he is modifying it. In fact, you know this to be true, because you've called it a modification of the EFE in this thread many times. Stop lying in order to misrepresent what Yang is doing so you don't have to defend the indefensible (a position you've put yourself in, by the way).

this shows that you are unacquainted with Yang's process of calculation, the process to reconfirm the coefficient is the process of solving field equation, like Einstein through deciding the metric of spherically symmetric weak field confirmed the coefficient