Chinese Scholar Yang Jian liang Putting Wrongs to Rights in Astrophysics

[heyuhua]

emphasized again, in Yang's modified field equation the coupling coefficient is reconfirmed for 4 to take the place of the previous -8, of course, use Ricci tensor defined by Weinberg

 

[NotEinstein]

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

So, you're saying that in 100 years, not a single of the tens of thousands of people working on GR has found the time to check that out? Really?

One of the real reasons of course, is that it's irrelevant. Let's say you are right, and GR with the usual EFE doesn't match SR in high-velocity cases. Well, considering the vast amounts of evidence that support GR with the usual EFE, that would falsify SR, now wouldn't it? So all your argument is doing is disproving SR, not GR with the usual EFE.

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

I'm not saying Yang uses the 8; obviously, he doesn't. The 8 is used by Einstein, Carroll, Weinberg, Adler, Mesner, etc. Yang uses a 4. That a factor of 2 difference.

cosmic pr

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

That is not a response to what I said, so I'm going to ignore that irrelevant response. Any chance of you actually addressing what I said?

emphasized again, in Yang's modified field equation the coupling coefficient is reconfirmed for 4 to take the place of the previous -8, of course, use Ricci tensor defined by Weinberg

Right, and now take the absolute values of that 4 and -8; what factor difference do they have, pray tell?

 

[heyuhua]

Right, and now take the absolute values of that 4 and -8; what factor difference do they have, pray tell?

of course, 4 is different from -8, if they are the same effect the modification has no value. in spherical symmetric weak field outside the source , the field equation with coefficient 4 provides metric g_00=-1+2GM/r, g_11=g_22=g_33=1-2GM/r, -1<<g_ij<<1 as i doesn't equal j, which make sure the geodesic equation return to Newton law no matter high speed or low speed, namely return to d(mv)/dt=-GMm/rr for radial motion, here m is relativstic mass of moving object, however the previous equation with coefficient -8 doesn't provide such metric, it provides metric g_00=-1+2GM/r, g_11=g_22=g_33=1+2GM/r, g_ij=0 as i doesn't equal j, obviously different space components, which cann't make sure the geodesic equation return to Newton law at high and only at low speed holds. So is the origin of the modification

 

[heyuhua]

For simplicity, take the motion along y - axis as an example, using the modified metric the geodesic equation cann't reduce to

dv/dt=-(1-vv)GM/yy, v=dy/dt, which is just Newton law d(mv)/dt=-GMm/yy, m is relativstic mass of moving object, however using the previous metric the geodesic equation will reduce to dv/dt=-(1-3vv)GM/yy, not only which isn't d(mv)/dt=-GMm/yy but also leads to light speed <1. though dv/dt=-(1-3vv)GM/yy was found ago long time, none thought it was a question. It is Yang who think it is a question and realize that the error lies in the spatial component of the metric , it is in the course of trying to seek more reasonable spatial components that Yang thought field equation's coefficient need change, another change is that the pressure p must be negative value inside object ,which Yang explain it for dark energy, no dark matter exists in nature

 

[NotEinstein]

of course, 4 is different from -8, if they are the same effect the modification has no value.

Exactly. And when you take the absolute value of these two numbers, what is the factor difference between them?

in spherical symmetric weak field outside the source , the field equation with coefficient 4 provides metric g_00=-1+2GM/r, g_11=g_22=g_33=1-2GM/r, -1<<g_ij<<1 as i doesn't equal j, which make sure the geodesic equation return to Newton law no matter high speed or low speed, namely return to d(mv)/dt=-GMm/rr for radial motion, here m is relativstic mass of moving object, however the previous equation with coefficient -8 doesn't provide such metric, it provides metric g_00=-1+2GM/r, g_11=g_22=g_33=1+2GM/r, g_ij=0 as i doesn't equal j, obviously different space components, which cann't make sure the geodesic equation return to Newton law at high and only at low speed holds. So is the origin of the modification

(Ignoring irrelevant stuff.)

For simplicity, take the motion along y - axis as an example, using the modified metric the geodesic equation cann't reduce to

dv/dt=-(1-vv)GM/yy, v=dy/dt, which is just Newton law d(mv)/dt=-GMm/yy, m is relativstic mass of moving object, however using the previous metric the geodesic equation will reduce to dv/dt=-(1-3vv)GM/yy, not only which isn't d(mv)/dt=-GMm/yy but also leads to light speed <1. though dv/dt=-(1-3vv)GM/yy was found ago long time, none thought it was a question. It is Yang who think it is a question and realize that the error lies in the spatial component of the metric , it is in the course of trying to seek more reasonable spatial components that Yang thought field equation's coefficient need change, another change is that the pressure p must be negative value inside object ,which Yang explain it for dark energy, no dark matter exists in nature

(Ignoring irrelevant stuff.)

Come on, you can do it! Here, I'll help you with the first part of this task you apparently find so difficult: the absolute value of 4 is 4, and the absolute value of -8 is 8. So, what is the factor difference between 4 and 8? Hint: try dividing them. Pro-tip: if you get a value smaller than one, try dividing them "the other way around".

 

[heyuhua]

if 4 is the same as -8 Yang's 1modification =zero, the value of Yang's modification lies in the difference, and I indeeed don't want talk about these superficial theme. I wonder why you are so true to the -8 which is a seriour error. we discussion must be in the same logical system

 

[heyuhua]

Come on, you can do it! Here, I'll help you with the first part of this task you apparently find so difficult: the absolute value of 4 is 4, and the absolute value of -8 is 8. So, what is the factor difference between 4 and 8? Hint: try dividing them. Pro-tip: if you get a value smaller than one, try dividing them "the other way around".

IN fact, you may completely forget the previous field equation and as long as use Yang'modification all can be solved better

 

[heyuhua]

Don't be superstitious to authority, they often make low-grade mistakes

 

[heyuhua]

Come on, you can do it! Here, I'll help you with the first part of this task you apparently find so difficult: the absolute value of 4 is 4, and the absolute value of -8 is 8. So, what is the factor difference between 4 and 8? Hint: try dividing them. Pro-tip: if you get a value smaller than one, try dividing them "the other way around".

so far, you cann't get rid of the affect of previous 8 or -8, and you should forget the previous field equation , why do you mention these again and again? and using Yang's modification you completely may forget the previous field equation with coefficient -8 or 8, why cann't you? Yang's modification is a fully new scheme, why cann't you complete a new trip of calculation?

 

[NotEinstein]

if 4 is the same as -8 Yang's 1modification =zero,

True, but I never claimed that it wasn't, so I don't know why you bring this up.

the value of Yang's modification lies in the difference,

I obviously have already agreed with this, so I don't know why you bring this up.

and I indeeed don't want talk about these superficial theme.

You don't want to talk about stuff that you bring up? Then don't bring it up!

I wonder why you are so true to the -8 which is a seriour error.

You yet have to prove this.

we discussion must be in the same logical system

What do you mean by "logical system"?

IN fact, you may completely forget the previous field equation and as long as use Yang'modification all can be solved better

That's only scientifically valid if it's demonstrated to be better, which is something you have failed to do so far.

Don't be superstitious to authority, they often make low-grade mistakes

Erm, didn't you call Yang a "great scientist" in this thread? Well, actually, I guess your statement may be truer than you think!

so far, you cann't get rid of the affect of previous 8 or -8,

I'm not trying to get rid of it; you and Yang are!

and you should forget the previous field equation , why do you mention these again and again?

Because, as you've stated yourself, Yang's is merely a modification of the usual EFE. Obviously, in order to judge Yang's EFE, we must compare the two. Yang does this himself in his article; why don't you go complaining to him instead?

and using Yang's modification you completely may forget the previous field equation with coefficient -8 or 8, why cann't you?

Again, forgetting the previous field equation is only a smart thing to do if the new one turns out to be better. You have yet to prove this, as you seem to be unable to address even simple questions.

Yang's modification is a fully new scheme,

I wouldn't call making a modification to an existing theoretical framework "a fully new scheme"; that's just silly.

why cann't you complete a new trip of calculation?

I'm going to ask you the same thing: have you managed to divide 8 by 4 yet? Come on, it isn't that hard! I mean, here you are (once again) demanding I go through all kinds of complicated GR calculations; doing some basic math even a child can manage shouldn't be a problem for you, right?

 

[heyuhua]

True, but I never claimed that it wasn't, so I don't know why you bring this up.


I obviously have already agreed with this, so I don't know why you bring this up.


You don't want to talk about stuff that you bring up? Then don't bring it up!


You yet have to prove this.


What do you mean by "logical system"?


That's only scientifically valid if it's demonstrated to be better, which is something you have failed to do so far.


Erm, didn't you call Yang a "great scientist" in this thread? Well, actually, I guess your statement may be truer than you think!


I'm not trying to get rid of it; you and Yang are!


Because, as you've stated yourself, Yang's is merely a modification of the usual EFE. Obviously, in order to judge Yang's EFE, we must compare the two. Yang does this himself in his article; why don't you go complaining to him instead?


Again, forgetting the previous field equation is only a smart thing to do if the new one turns out to be better. You have yet to prove this, as you seem to be unable to address even simple questions.


I wouldn't call making a modification to an existing theoretical framework "a fully new scheme"; that's just silly.


I'm going to ask you the same thing: have you managed to divide 8 by 4 yet? Come on, it isn't that hard! I mean, here you are (once again) demanding I go through all kinds of complicated GR calculations; doing some basic math even a child can manage shouldn't be a problem for you, right?

The fact is irrefutable that It is Yang's work that has greatly developed the use of general relativity, injected new energy into general relativity, systematically solved the formation and evolution of galaxies and celestial bodies, eliminated the singularities of the Big Bang and a large number of cosmological problems. There has been no progress in general relativity in recent decades, and it is Yang's work that has broken the situation

 

[NotEinstein]

The fact is irrefutable that It is Yang's work that has greatly developed the use of general relativity,

Then I have done the impossible. QED

injected new energy into general relativity,

... by not getting anything published in industry-standard, peer-reviewed, respected journals after years and years of work?

systematically solved the formation and evolution of galaxies and celestial bodies, eliminated the singularities of the Big Bang and a large number of cosmological problems.

Have you managed to divide 8 by 4 already?

 

[heyuhua]

Have you managed to divide 8 by 4 already?

You're messing with me ， your 8/4 has nothing to do with Yang's work. I really don't understand why you keep talking about 8 / 4, you are too absurd. Yang's modified equation is an alternative to the old field equation, you may completely give consideration to the old equation no longer

 

[NotEinstein]

You're messing with me ，

I'm really not; I'm trying to answer your question what the factor 2 is all about.

your 8/4 has nothing to do with Yang's work.

The 8 comes from the usual EFE, but the 4 comes directly from Yang's work. It's (part of) Yang's modification to the EFE. So you're wrong; this has everything to do with Yang's work.

I really don't understand why you keep talking about 8 / 4,

You asked in post #371 where the factor 2 comes from. I'm explaining it to you (even though we've been talking about it for more than 100 posts), and now you seem to be forgetting about the EFE's as well.

you are too absurd

And you seem to be unable to divide 8 by 4; why is that?

 

[heyuhua]

I'm really not; I'm trying to answer your question what the factor 2 is all about.

be rather baffling，I don't know what place your factor 2 arise in? is there the factor 2 in Yang's papers?

 

[heyuhua]

I'm really not; I'm trying to answer your question what the factor 2 is all about.

be rather baffling，I don't know what place your factor 2 appear in? is there the factor 2 in Yang's papers?

 

[heyuhua]

In Yang's modified field equation there is coefficient 4, but it has no thing to do with 8 0r -8. it is completely for satisfying the requirement for changing metric

 

[NotEinstein]

be rather baffling，I don't know what place your factor 2 arise in? is there the factor 2 in Yang's papers?

Ok, because it appears you've once again forgotten about what we were talking about, here it is again:

Usual EFE coefficient: -8
Yang's EFE coefficient: 4

Now, let's look at the magnitudes (absolute value):

Usual: -8
Yang: 4

What is the factor difference between these two?
$$8/4=2$$

And there we are, the famous factor 2. Yang mentioned both coefficients in his FAAC article and directly compared the two, so yes, it's in there. It's quite surprising that you, claiming to be able to handle complex GR calculations, were unable to do this simple calculation that every high school student would be able to figure out within minutes.

Edit:

In Yang's modified field equation there is coefficient 4, but it has no thing to do with 8 0r -8

I never claimed there was an 8 in Yang's EFE, so I don't know why you'd bring that up?​

 

[heyuhua]

why don't you calculate yourself? if you calculate , I believe that you will also get the coefficient 4 for the new changing metric, it seem that your knowledge is of rote learning

 

[heyuhua]

Ok, because it appears you've once again forgotten about what we were talking about, here it is again:

In Yang's modified field equation there is coefficient 4, but it has no thing to do with 8 0r -8. it is completely for satisfying the requirement for changing metric