Chinese Scholar Yang Jian liang Putting Wrongs to Rights in Astrophysics

heyuhua said:
this shows that you are unacquainted with Yang's process of calculation,
Click to expand...
Yang's process is the same as Weinberg's, Adler's, Carroll's, and yet he reaches a different answer. Clearly, Yang made a mistake somewhere; it's the only reasonable conclusion.

heyuhua said:
the process to reconfirm the coefficient is the process of solving field equation,
Click to expand...
False; please look up what "solving an equation" means.

heyuhua said:
like Einstein through deciding the metric of spherically symmetric weak field confirmed the coefficient
Click to expand...
Yes, and then this field equation was applied to other scenario's, and it turns out the coefficient doesn't change. In fact, the coefficient is independent of the scenario. So if Yang reaches a different coefficient, he's wrong.

heyuhua said:
Anyway, if you don't go deep into the calculations,
Click to expand...
I've gone as deep as I need to, to figure out that Yang is in conflict with Einstein, Carroll, Adler, your own provided Chinese author, that Wikipedia-author, and Weinberg.

heyuhua said:
you don't understand anything
Click to expand...
How about Einstein; did he understand anything?
How about Weinberg; did he understand anything?
How about Adler; did he understand anything?
How about Carroll; does he understand anything?
How about your Chinese author; does he understand anything?

I guess not, because clearly all of them (according to you) "didn't go deep into the calculations". Then why did you bring three of these up yourself, if you know that they don't understand anything?​
 
"I've gone as deep as I need to, to figure out that Yang is in conflict with Einstein, Carroll, Adler, your own provided Chinese author, that Wikipedia-author, and Weinberg."
well, I ask you, do you know how Einstein confirmed the coefficient -8 ? and can't the -8 be replaced?and Did Einstein prove its uniqueness?
 
Last edited:
heyuhua said:
well, I ask you, do you know how Einstein confirm the coefficient -8 ? and can't the -8 be replaced?
Click to expand...
Well, let's see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations
"First published by Einstein in 1915", followed by a link to the paper. Go read it.

It can't be off by a factor 2, because (as I've said in this thread before) that would have been detected by now. And it can't be sign-changed, because then it wouldn't give a description of anything resembling gravity.
 
well, on Wikipedia, the coefficient is 8, show that Wikipedia's author use another definition of Ricci tensor, this isn't a question. And for the case the process to confirm the 8 is conpletely same as the process to comfirm the -8 in use of Weinberg 's definition of Ricci tensor
 
heyuhua said:
well, on Wikipedia,
Click to expand...
(Your link is broken; this is Wikipedia's entry on Wikipedia, not anything to do with GR.)

heyuhua said:
the coefficient is 8, show that Wikipedia's author use another definition of Ricci tensor, this isn't a question.
Click to expand...
OK, and now explain how Yang's $$4$$ is compatible with Wikipedia's $$8$$.

heyuhua said:
And for the case the process to confirm the 8 is conpletely same as the process to comfirm the -8 in use of Weinberg 's definition of Ricci tensor
Click to expand...
Aha, so you're saying Yang is wrong when he claims a modification is needed when he compares the $$8$$ and $$-8$$ versions of the EFE, because he's comparing EFE's using different definitions of the Ricci tensor. Glad we agree on that!
 
I indeed don't know Carroll alive, if real, please recommend Yang's work to his, and let his judge
 
NotEinstein said:
(Your link is broken; this is Wikipedia's entry on Wikipedia, not anything to do with GR.)


OK, and now explain how Yang's $$4$$ is compatible with Wikipedia's $$8$$.


Aha, so you're saying Yang is wrong when he claims a modification is needed when he compares the $$8$$ and $$-8$$ versions of the EFE, because he's comparing EFE's using different definitions of the Ricci tensor. Glad we agree on that!
Click to expand...
THE 8 to -8 are not a modification, they come from different definitions of Ricci tensor. they are equivalent to each other
 
heyuhua said:
THE 8 to -8 are not a modification, they come from different definitions of Ricci tensor.
Click to expand...
Exactly, so any "the minus sign needs to be different in the EFE" that Yang is saying is complete and utter nonsense. Glad we agree on that!

Now please explain how Yang's $$4$$ is compatible with Wikipedia's $$8$$.
 
Yang always uses Weinberg's definition for Ricci tensor, thus Yang's modification is to aim at the field equation with coefficient -8
 
you think Yang's \(4\) is compatible with Wikipedia's \(8\), they actually have no relevance
 
heyuhua said:
Yang always uses Weinberg's definition for Ricci tensor, thus Yang's modification is to aim at the field equation with coefficient -8
Click to expand...
Right, so you're saying that anything Yang says about the minus sign difference in the EFE having any impact on the physics is wrong. Good, glad we agree. Now please explain how Yang's $$4$$ is compatible with Weinberg's $$8$$.
 
heyuhua said:
you think Yang's \(4\) is compatible with Wikipedia's \(8\),
Click to expand...
Typo? You think that Yang's $$4$$ is compatible with Wikipedia's $$8$$; I've been saying they're not since the first time I posted on it.

heyuhua said:
they actually have no relevance
Click to expand...
Excuse me? The modification of the coefficient is the entirety of Yang's work; that's something you said! So of course they have relevance. Or are you saying Yang's work is completely and utterly irrelevant to anything and everything?
 
NotEinstein said:
Typo? You think that Yang's $$4$$ is compatible with Wikipedia's $$8$$; I've been saying they're not since the first time I posted on it.


Excuse me? The modification of the coefficient is the entirety of Yang's work; that's something you said! So of course they have relevance. Or are you saying Yang's work is completely and utterly irrelevant to anything and everything?
Click to expand...
in future in discussion to avoid confusion, please completely forget the Carroll's definition for Ricci tensor and in the same time forget the corresponding field equation with coefficient 8.
 
heyuhua said:
in future in discussion to avoid confusion, please completely forget the Carroll's definition for Ricci tensor and in the same time forget the corresponding field equation with coefficient 8.
Click to expand...
Yang is the one that brought it up in the first place. And as I said: you can't just ignore a fundamental problem like that; that's not how science works. You can't just say "forget everything you know about GR", without any good reason as to why.
 
Yang's modification is to aim at the equation with coefficient -8, of course use Weinberg's definition for Ricci tensor
 
NotEinstein said:
Yang is the one that brought it up in the first place. And as I said: you can't just ignore a fundamental problem like that; that's not how science works. You can't just say "forget everything you know about GR", without any good reason as to why.
Click to expand...
NotEinstein said:
Now please explain how Yang's $$4$$ is compatible with Weinberg's $$8$$.
Click to expand...
they aren't reletant at all, one 4 and another 8 , totally different, why do you say them compatible, and Weinberg's is -8 but not 8, why do you say Weinberg's is 8? and it is the -8 that corresponds to Weinberg's definition for Ricci tensor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top