Chinese Scholar Yang Jian liang Putting Wrongs to Rights in Astrophysics

[heyuhua]

Sure, but you just admitted that Carroll thus does recover Newtonian mechanics in this limit, so the claim that only Yang does this correctly, is false. And while Carroll may not explicitly derive this for high speed cases, the two links I previously provided do claim to recover SR.

if not change the metric the geodisc equation cann't return to Newton law in high speed, which you can see through directly calculation

 

[heyuhua]

Please stop purposefully misrepresenting: there is a factor 2 difference in the absolute value of the coefficient of the EFE.

the 2 is a step of derivation, that is, 1/2( )=b, then ( )=2b

 

[heyuhua]

Sure, but you just admitted that Carroll thus does recover Newtonian mechanics in this limit, so the claim that only Yang does this correctly, is false. And while Carroll may not explicitly derive this for high speed cases, the two links I previously provided do claim to recover SR.


Please stop purposefully misrepresenting: there is a factor 2 difference in the absolute value of the coefficient of the EFE.


It isn't zero in standard GR in general either, so I don't know why you'd say that?


Does Yang derive the $$C_l$$ of the CMB somewhere (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background#/media/File:PowerSpectrumExt.svg )? That would be quite convincing that his EFE doesn't need dark energy.

As for dropping dark matter: how does Yang explain all these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Observational_evidence ? It's quite clear dark matter is a local and stand-alone phenomenon, so getting rid of it by changing a global equation (the EFE) is quite suspicious...

In Yang's new scheme, P=-rou, Yang explained the p for dark energy, on wikipedia P=0 and there is a comic const which is explained for dark energy

 

[heyuhua]

You are claiming that SR is not recoverable from GR (when using the usual EFE); in other words, that the Einstein Equivalence Principle doesn't hold for this EFE. Well, please explain that to, for example, these people:

if not change the metric geodisic equations indeed cann't return to Newton in high-speed approximation in weak field, which you can see through direct calculation

 

[heyuhua]

It isn't zero in standard GR in general either, so I don't know why you'd say that?

in some textbook it is assumed as zero 0 and other textbooks isn't assumed as zero, but all of them belong to assumptions or guess, and only Yang's p=-rou is a conclusion, and Yang proved in the interior of a celestial body the p=-average value of density of the celestial body, otherwise cann't provide the correct metric, which make geodesic equations return to Newton law no matter high-speed or low-speed. Thus generizing to whole universe, the pressure P=-value of cosmic density

 

[heyuhua]

Does Yang derive the \(C_l\) of the CMB somewhere (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background#/media/File:PowerSpectrumExt.svg )? That would be quite convincing that his EFE doesn't need dark energy.

using the modified field equation obtained a new relation between distance and reshift, the relation well consists with observations. Note that so-called observational results refers to measured distances and reshifts of far celestial bodies or galaxies. In Yang's scheme CMB can also well be explained and early uniformity difficulty automatic clearing

 

[NotEinstein]

if not change the metric the geodisc equation cann't return to Newton law in high speed, which you can see through directly calculation

You've missed my point: even if the usual EFE reduces to Newtonian mechanics only in the weak-field, low-velocity limit, it still gives back Newtonian mechanics. You are thus claiming that the coefficient in the EFE (both its sign and its absolute value) has no effect on Newtonian mechanics.

the 2 is a step of derivation, that is, 1/2( )=b, then ( )=2b

What are you talking about? A step of derivation? I think you're confused what we're talking about. The factor 2 comes from the fact that Yang uses an absolute coefficient of $$4$$, while the usual EFE uses $$8$$, and that $$8/4=2$$.

In Yang's new scheme, P=-rou, Yang explained the p for dark energy, on wikipedia P=0 and there is a comic const which is explained for dark energy

Please re-read that post: I asked you about dark matter, not dark energy.

if not change the metric geodisic equations indeed cann't return to Newton in high-speed approximation in weak field, which you can see through direct calculation

Please contact all the people I listed to tell them they are wrong.

in some textbook it is assumed as zero 0 and other textbooks isn't assumed as zero, but all of them belong to assumptions or guess,

Well, not really like that, but sure, because that's how science works.

and only Yang's p=-rou is a conclusion, and Yang proved in the interior of a celestial body the p=-average value of density of the celestial body, otherwise cann't provide the correct metric, which make geodesic equations return to Newton law no matter high-speed or low-speed. Thus generizing to whole universe, the pressure P=-value of cosmic density

You cannot generalize from the interior of a celestial body to the whole universe; they don't have the same metrics.

using the modified field equation obtained a new relation between distance and reshift, the relation well consists with observations.

That is not what I asked about; please read up on basic cosmology and what the CMB is.

Note that so-called observational results refers to measured distances and reshifts of far celestial bodies or galaxies.

"so-called"? I'm going to assume that's a language barrier thing, because you can't dismiss observational data like that.

In Yang's scheme CMB can also well be explained and early uniformity difficulty automatic clearing

Then show it. You claim that Yang has derived the properties of the CMB with his EFE; prove it. Put your money where you mouth is. Stop hand-waving. Show that proof. Show that it's not you spouting nonsense, that you're not simply lying, but that what you say Yang's EFE can do, it can actually do.

 

[heyuhua]

obviously it is inappropriate only to require geodesic equations to return to newton law for low-speed approximation and not give consideration to high-speed case. It is Yang who replenishs the content

 

[heyuhua]

You've missed my point: even if the usual EFE reduces to Newtonian mechanics only in the weak-field, low-velocity limit, it still gives back Newtonian mechanics. You are thus claiming that the coefficient in the EFE (both its sign and its absolute value) has no effect on Newtonian mechanics

obviously it is inappropriate only to require geodesic equations to return to newton law for low-speed approximation and not give consideration to high-speed case. It is Yang who replenishs the content

 

[NotEinstein]

obviously it is inappropriate only to require geodesic equations to return to newton law for low-speed approximation and not give consideration to high-speed case.

It's clearly not obvious; Carroll doesn't think it is, and I have a hunch Weinberg, Adler, etc. didn't either. So two questions: why must it, and why should that be obvious?

It is Yang who replenishs the content

You haven't addressed the EEP; care to comment on that?

​

 

[heyuhua]

What are you talking about? A step of derivation? I think you're confused what we're talking about. The factor 2 comes from the fact that Yang uses an absolute coefficient of \(4\), while the usual EFE uses \(8\), and that \(8/4=2\).

what place does the 2 you talk about arise ? which equation does it arise in?

 

[heyuhua]

It's clearly not obvious; Carroll doesn't think it is, and I have a hunch Weinberg, Adler, etc. didn't either. So two questions: why must it, and why should that be obvious?

indeed all of they ignored the question, this has on wonder, science is always developping

 

[NotEinstein]

what place does the 2 you talk about arise ?

The $$2$$ arises when you divide $$8$$ by $$4$$.

which equation does it arise in?

It's the difference in absolute values of the coefficients of the usual and Yang's EFE, obviously. How can you not remember this? That's what we've been talking about for the past 200 posts!

indeed all of they ignored the question, this has on wonder, science is always developping

Ever considered there may be a reason they "ignored the question", a reason you are (clearly) unaware of?

 

[heyuhua]

You cannot generalize from the interior of a celestial body to the whole universe; they don't have the same metrics.

Like density, the pressure of the universe is also a statistical average value，and due to pressure equals negative value of density in any body, of course, external pressure is zero, then for whole universe the statistical average of pressure should equal the negative value of cosmic density

 

[heyuhua]

The \(2\) arises when you divide \(8\) by \(4\).

in Yang's paper there isn't such the dividing calculation 8/4, you are rather baffling， this is your illusion

 

[heyuhua]

The \(2\) arises when you divide \(8\) by \(4\).

in Yang's paper there isn't such the dividing calculation 8/4, this is your illusion

 

[NotEinstein]

Like density, the pressure of the universe is also a statistical average value，

A star has a center, and is typically modeled as being spherically symmetric. Thus, it has a natural choice for the origin of the coordinate systems (its center), from which everything can simply be described radially.

Please point me to the center of the universe. If you cannot, you are admitting that a Schwarzschild(-like?) metric cannot possibly describe the universe (except in trivial cases, such as an empty universe).

Oh, and every physical object has a statistical average pressure. I guess the universe is thus also like a cloud, a moose, and a cactus.

and due to pressure equals negative value of density in any body, of course, external pressure is zero,

The universe cannot have an external pressure, not even zero external pressure. You are making no sense.

then for whole universe the statistical average of pressure should equal the negative value of cosmic density

Are you claiming the universe is in hydrostatic equilibrium? Then what is the expansion of the universe, pray tell?

in Yang's paper there isn't such the dividing calculation 8/4, this is your illusion

Please read the past 200 posts; as I explained just now, I'm clearly referring to the differences in the coefficients of the EFE's, and I've referred to this as a factor 2 difference before. You are being very intellectually dishonest.

 

[heyuhua]

The $$2$$ arises when you divide $$8$$ by $$4$$.


It's the difference in absolute values of the coefficients of the usual and Yang's EFE, obviously. How can you not remember this? That's what we've been talking about for the past 200 posts!


Ever considered there may be a reason they "ignored the question", a reason you are (clearly) unaware of?

I guess, the geodesic equations to solve accleration, in which proper time is cancelled, had not been worked out at that time, they used only the standard form of geodesic equation, in which proper time arises explicitly, the standard form has few common language with Newton mechanics and cann't compare enough details

 

[heyuhua]

Please read the past 200 posts; as I explained just now, I'm clearly referring to the differences in the coefficients of the EFE's, and I've referred to this as a factor 2 difference before. You are being very intellectually dishonest.

In Yang's paper didnt involve the coefficient 8 at all, you cann't always get rid of the irrelevant 8

 

[heyuhua]

cosmic pr

The universe cannot have an external pressure, not even zero external pressure. You are making no sense.

like density, cosmic pressure is also statistical average, the average is about all space including interior of star, and interior pressure of body isn't zero though exterior p is 0, thus taking its statistical average cosmic p isn't zero certainly and equals just negative value of cosmic density