this is your serious misunderstanding,
No, it's yours, as I've explained multiple times now.
and I don't know why you ask the question of the factor 2,
What do you mean exactly by "the question of the factor 2"? I brought up the factor 2, and asked why it's there, and you are asking questions about where it's coming from.
and your factor 2 doesn't appear in Yang's papers nor in my discuession,
This is a demonstrable lie. I have explain where in Yang's article this factor 2 is. You continued outright denial is pathetic; you are extremely intellectually dishonest.
why do you talk about it?
I talk about it, because it's one of the two components that make up the critical part of Yang's work, as you yourself have stated.
and not only does the 2 equal =8/4
Finally! You have, after more than a dozen posts, managed to calculate 8 divided by 4! Good work!
Now, it still seems you haven't grasped where these numbers are coming from. Please re-read post #398.
but also equal 4/2, as well 16/8, 32/16, , , , countless,
Irrelevant.
why do you only talk about 8/4=2 ?
Re-read post #398.
don't only see the modified coefficirnt 4 is different from the old -8,
So close to understanding where the 4 and 8 are coming from! You had to touch the "4"- and "8"-keys on your keyboard! Didn't you notice that?
besides, you have also to see the change of pressure from old zero to today's -rou, which is a quite balance to this.
Irrelevant to the discussion as hand.
why don't you calculate yourself ?
Why should I? Are you saying Yang didn't put all the required calculations in his article?
You can figure it out yourself
I probably could, but let's stick to the topic at hand: the EFE.
do you see this change? when p=-d, the scalar T=3p-d=-4d, which is 4 times of the old T=-d for p=0 in weak field. Here d stands for density, and in usual files density is represented using rou. fromT=-d to T=3p-d=-4d, this is an important change, which you are ignoring.
I'm not ignoring it; it simple hasn't become relevant (yet). First we need to establish that Yang's EFE is proper; without that, it makes no sense to dive deeper into his work.
The change is actually a balance to the change the old coeifficient -8 is modified for new 4.
See? There's no sense talking about stuff needed to balance the modification (that this is apparently necessary sounds suspicious in itself), if we don't talk about the modification first.
Despite the existence of an offsetting element, the significance of the modification remains significant,
Which is still up for debate, because we still first need to establish that the modification is fine first.
which can be seen as long as you seriously calculate
Maybe we'd get to that stage, if you actually answered questions. And I still find it funny (and a bit sad) that you keep telling me to seriously calculate stuff, while you took days to calculate what 8 divided by 4 is.
a well - known magazine also makes an erroneous point of view ,
Irrelevant. That somebody else makes mistakes doesn't give credence to lesser magazines. In fact, it takes it away further.
and some of the unremarkable magazines also deliver outstanding ideas .
"some"? Nice weasel word. But your sentence is worse: "unremarkable" strongly suggests that they more often than not don't. If this is your defense of the publishing channel Yang has used, you're doing a horrible job!
It is important to first determine the initiative right of true original results,
What is "the initiative right of true original results"?
and compared, it is less important where to publish
No; modern science uses the peer-review to weed out mistakes, just like the one Yang has made with his EFE. That's why he hasn't gone through the same peer-review process that articles in Nature etc. go through: because his work can't. You seem to have a very bad understanding of how modern science works in practice. That's a typical crackpot thing, something that characterizes people who have never gone through the peer-review process. That suggests that you're not really a scientist...
