Chinese Scholar Yang Jian liang Putting Wrongs to Rights in Astrophysics

[NotEinstein]

yes, it is because Yang's work completely consists essentially with observations that I say that there are many evidences to support Yang.

Yes, you keep saying that. Demonstrate it. If Yang is such a great scientist, he knows exactly how to do that. Hint: It doesn't involve only posting words.

the most important observations are the distances and reshifts of remote celestial bodies, the new relation between distance and reshift calculated using the modified field equation completely satisfies the data.

Evidence please.

Such consistency strongly indicates Yang's modification is successful. Before, the distance redshift relation derived from the old field equation was in serious contradiction with the observational data.

Source please.

In order to eliminate the contradiction, cosmologists artificially added the cosmological constant,

Sort of false: the EFE allows that degree of freedom. It's like the constant you can add when you integrate.

which is actually adding new assumptions, and not really solving the contradicition.

Actually, no. No adding the cosmological constant is an assumption (namely, that the cosmological constant is zero). You got it the wrong way around!

the cause to say cosmological constant is new assumption is that in solar system don't need cosmological constant, that is to say, cosmological constant is not verified in solar system, no reason used in whole universe.

What kind of broken logic is that?! There is also no evidence for universal expansion in our solar system. There is no evidence for other galaxies in our solar system. There is no evidence for black holes in our solar system. There is no evidence for other stars in our solar system. I guess you think all of those don't exist either?
​

Moreover, cosmological const cann't make geodesic equations back to Newton law in the spherical symmetric weak gravitational field,

False; the effect of the cosmological constant is so small (for realistic values) that it can safely be ignored on smaller scales. You said it yourself: it basically cannot be measured even on solar system scales.

indeed it makes serious logic crisis, therefor cosmological constant must be thrown away.

Well, given the quality of your reasoning, there is indeed a "serious logic crisis" going on here, but not with the cosmological constant...

Besides, Yang's modification fully qualifies to explain this CMB, and more natural. See Yang's discussion

Link please. Let's see how well he derives the Cl's for the CMB.

Cosmologists often say that standard models explain a lot of observations, but most of them are far-fetched, or like a patchwork catered to observational data.

I guess you still don't know how science is done.

No prophecy is a corollary of the standard model because there are too many uncertain parameters in the standard model, such as dark matter, dark energy, cosmic pressure, cosmological constant, and so on,

Yes, the universe is a complex place, and thus it needs a complex model to describe it. The model you've described here is only so simple, because it gets a lot of details wrong. As an example, go a couple of posts back to where you just waved away the acceleration of universal expansion, and further back where you just ignored all the evidence for dark matter.

This is (partially) what I meant when I said that Yang's model cannot describe our universe. You've done a great job demonstrating that it indeed can't.

besides, there are some odd artificial assumptions, such as unflation that is impossible to verify.

Impossible to verify, except through observational data. Why is it you don't know how science works?

Only Yang's new model is solid and really faces the world.

Faces some world, sure, but clearly not ours.

again, the old theory cann't explain the earth's expansion,

The earth isn't expanding, so that's easy.

the solar system's expansion,

The solar system isn't expanding, so that's easy.

as well as why the sun is bright and bright.

Nuclear fission is perfectly well explained, so that's easy.

It is Yang's work that links the observed rule for mass-luminosity ratio to the growth of celestial bodies,

Celestial bodies grow when matter falls into them, which is perfectly well explained by current theories, so that's easy.

how profound this is!

Profound? Two of the things you named don't happend, and the other two are perfectly explained in the current theories.

Also, profoundness is no reason why something must be true. Please learn how science is done.

how powerful this logical system is!

Powerful in that it cannot make any predictions the current theories can't also, that it contains things that don't happen (earth expansion, matter with negative pressure), and that it doesn't contain things that are real (dark matter).

It is powerful in one thing, though: showing off your intelligence.

 

[NotEinstein]

On the very large cosmological scale considered, pressure (assuming DE as a physical uniform negative pressure is true) and (matter + radiation) density average out to both being effectively uniform.

No no no, Q-reeus, you got it all wrong. You see, according to heyuhua, matter has negative pressure, and DE doesn't exist.

 

[Q-reeus]

No no no, Q-reeus, you got it all wrong. You see, according to heyuhua, matter has negative pressure, and DE doesn't exist.

Ah ok. A fundamental point of Yang-heyuhua theory I must have forgotten or never noticed. Elsewhere I posted links to a vector theory that does away with DE but I imagine on a very different basis to what's been argued over ad nauseum here. Only came back in to deal with a specific incidental claim by 'a third party'. Do carry on with The Never Ending Thread.

 

[NotEinstein]

Ah ok. A fundamental point of Yang-heyuhua theory I must have forgotten or never noticed. Elsewhere I posted links to a vector theory that does away with DE but I imagine on a very different basis to what's been argued over ad nauseum here. Only came back in to deal with a specific incidental claim by 'a third party'. Do carry on with The Never Ending Thread.

Perhaps I should consider changing my nickname to Sisyphus?

 

[heyuhua]

Evidence please

please see Yang's papers thoroughly. and notice formula 1.14 and Fig.2
https://www.arcjournals.org/pdfs/ijarps/v3-i8/2.pdf

 

[NotEinstein]

please see Yang's papers thoroughly. and notice formula 1.14 and Fig.2
https://www.arcjournals.org/pdfs/ijarps/v3-i8/2.pdf

No, that's not how one uses observational data. Yang is using the measured Hubble parameter to calculate the expansion. Of course that works: if I use the measured Hubble parameter in my model, then I am able to get out the Hubble parameter, duh. At best it's a consistency check, nothing more. Do you have any actual evidence for your claim?

 

[heyuhua]

No, that's not how one uses observational data. Yang is using the measured Hubble parameter to calculate the expansion. Of course that works: if I use the measured Hubble parameter in my model, then I am able to get out the Hubble parameter, duh. At best it's a consistency check, nothing more. Do you have any actual evidence for your claim?

You are so ignorant. The points in figure 2 represent distant galaxies, and the transverse coordinates represent the redshift (Ia supernova's measured data), and the vertical coordinates represent the distance-model . This curve is an image of formula 1.14, which fits this data very well, which indicates strongly the modified field equation is right. And note that today's hubble paremeter is known, and the density of the universe of today is also an observation known.

 

[heyuhua]

that image of the old relation between distance and reshift derived from the old field equation cann't fit the measured data of Ia supernova, in order to eliminate the contradictions, scientists artificially introduce cosmic constants, which is really a logical disaster, destroyed the spirit of Science

 

[NotEinstein]

You are so ignorant.

Says the person barely able to calculate 8 divided by 4...

The points in figure 2 represent distant galaxies, and the transverse coordinates represent the redshift (Ia supernova's measured data), and the vertical coordinates represent the distance-model . This curve is an image of formula 1.14, which fits this data very well,

Yes, and that's because, as I said, the answer is used as input. Yang uses the measured Hubble parameter as input to draw this graph. He's using observational data to match observational data. Don't you understand that's not how science works? And you call me ignorant...

which indicates strongly the modified field equation is right.

No, even if this was a valid check against observational data, it only shows it's not wrong. You do understand the non-modified EFE matches the data-points as well, right?

And note that today's hubble paremeter is known,

Yes, so?

and the density of the universe of today is also an observation known.

Well, not really; there's the mystery of dark energy.

that image of the old relation between distance and reshift derived from the old field equation cann't fit the measured data of Ia supernova,

What image?

in order to eliminate the contradictions, scientists artificially introduce cosmic constants,

Stop lying; I've already explained that's not how the cosmological constant works.

which is really a logical disaster,

There indeed is one "logical disaster" in this thread, yes...

destroyed the spirit of Science

Hahaha, really? Well, I guess you're right: one person in this thread is "destroying the spirit of Science"!

 

[heyuhua]

No, even if this was a valid check against observational data, it only shows it's not wrong. You do understand the non-modified EFE matches the data-points as well, right?

Not only your No represents your flippancy but also implies brazen you, I don't think you don't understand the content in Fig.2 but intentionally confuse right and wrong, deliberately avoid the key. It is well known that Hubble's chart with high reshift is the harshest test of cosmological theory, and the old theory could not stand such a test, or say they could not pass such test, and must be added a so-called cosmological constant to the field equation artificially , in order to solve theoretical dilemma. It is obviously a destruction to scientific spirit that in order to get the desired results to add items to equation casually. You should also know that today's value of Hubble parameter was confirmed according to low reshift and small distance and is independent of high reshift, if cosmological theory is wrong the relation between and reshift derived using the theory could not satisfy high reshift and low reshift at the same time, this is the meaning of the harshest test. Note that the relation between reshift and distance is actual a function between reshift and distance, namely d_L=f (z), z change from 0 to infinite, and both H_0 and q_0 are known, subscript 0 repersents today. For low reshift, namely z is approaching zero, the relation between and distance and reshift degenerates into usual Hubble law, H_0 d_L =Z, subscript L represents luminosity distance , omit subscript, it is Hd=z, which today's Hubble parameter is confirmed to use

 

[arfa brane]

If Yang's theory is so brilliant, why did it get published in a journal nobody has heard of? I googled ARCjournals and found out it's on Beall's list of predatory journals. Apparently such journals promise peer-review and promotion, but it's all about getting papers and publishing them. After some time, enough good papers and citations lend the air of scientific legitimacy.

Strike two is that heyuhua has assumed the role of Yang's promoter, and here we are. But where is that exactly?
Surely a paper that gets the constant wrong by a factor of two hasn't really been peer-reviewed. The idea that mass is generated continuously by negative pressure needs some serious experimental evidence. Wait, what's that you say? There isn't any?

 

[heyuhua]

f Yang's theory is so brilliant, why did it get published in a journal nobody has heard of? I googled ARCjournals and found out it's on Beall's list of predatory journals. Apparently such journals promise peer-review and promotion, but it's all about getting papers and publishing them. After some time, enough good papers and citations lend the air of scientific legitimacy.

all Yang's paper are published completely free, met no predatory journal. Moreover, their peer-reviewed comments are pertinent, point out both shortcomings and merits simultaneously。Yang think journals are used to publish results, so long as it is a good journal to publish achievements in a timely manner, fixed initiative is the most important for author, a valuable article is always fascinating to read , wherever it is published

 

[heyuhua]

1

 

[heyuhua]

measured distance of a star is independent of its reshift. For a distant star, we determine its distance based on its brightness, the distance is called luminosity distance, writen as d_L, here index L refers to luminosity. And what is actually determined is its distance mode, and the relationship between distance mode and distance is m-M=25+5logd_L， the unit of d_L is Mpc, and m and M are visual magnitude and absolute magnitude of the star, respectively，their difference calls distance mode. The redshift is determined by the difference in the frequency of the luminescence of the same atom on Earth from that of a distant star. In a word, redshift and distance are independent of each other, and this independence can be used to test cosmological theory because so measured distance and reshift are also indedentent of cosmological theory

 

[heyuhua]

No, even if this was a valid check against observational data, it only shows it's not wrong. You do understand the non-modified EFE matches the data-points as well, right?

Not only your No represents your flippancy but also implies you brazen, I don't think you don't understand the content in Fig.2 but intentionally confuse right and wrong, deliberately avoid the key. It is well known that Hubble's chart with high reshift is the harshest test of field equation, and the old equation could not stand such a test, or say it could not pass such test, and must add a so-called cosmological constant to the field equation artificially , in order to solve theoretical dilemma. It is obviously a destruction to scientific spirit that in order to get the desired results to add items to equation casually. You should also know that today's value of Hubble parameter was confirmed according to low reshift and small distance, and is independent of high reshift, if cosmological theory is wrong the relation between and reshift derived using the theory could not satisfy both high reshift and low reshift at the same time, this is the meaning of the harshest test I say above. Note that the relation between reshift and distance is actual a function between reshift and distance, namely d_L=f (z), z change from 0 to infinite, and both H_0 and q_0 in formula 1.14 are known, subscript 0 repersents today's value. For low reshift, namely z is approaching zero, the relation between and distance and reshift degenerates into usual Hubble law, H_0 d_L =Z, subscript L represents luminosity distance , omit subscript, it is Hd=z, which today's Hubble parameter is confirmed to use, its value is H_0=72km/s.Mpc
see again, https://www.arcjournals.org/pdfs/ijarps/v3-i8/2.pdf

 

[NotEinstein]

Not only your No represents your flippancy but also implies brazen you, I don't think you don't understand the content in Fig.2 but intentionally confuse right and wrong, deliberately avoid the key. It is well known that Hubble's chart with high reshift is the harshest test of cosmological theory,

This is plainly false. Accurately modelling the Cl's of the CMB is a much, much harder test.

and the old theory could not stand such a test, or say they could not pass such test, and must be added a so-called cosmological constant to the field equation artificially , in order to solve theoretical dilemma.

You would have a point if Yang's theory could also accurately model all the rest of the things the current theory models correctly.

It is obviously a destruction to scientific spirit that in order to get the desired results to add items to equation casually.

What about that exotic type of matter, different from anything we've ever seen before in science? In fact, it's so exotic, it's weirder than dark energy! So, according to you, you are the one "destroying the scientific spirit".

You should also know that today's value of Hubble parameter was confirmed according to low reshift and small distance and is independent of high reshift, if cosmological theory is wrong the relation between and reshift derived using the theory could not satisfy high reshift and low reshift at the same time, this is the meaning of the harshest test.

Again, where's the evidence that the current theory cannot model this accurately?

Note that the relation between reshift and distance is actual a function between reshift and distance, namely d_L=f (z), z change from 0 to infinite, and both H_0 and q_0 are known, subscript 0 repersents today. For low reshift, namely z is approaching zero, the relation between and distance and reshift degenerates into usual Hubble law, H_0 d_L =Z, subscript L represents luminosity distance , omit subscript, it is Hd=z, which today's Hubble parameter is confirmed to use

Yes, and Yang inputs the Hubble parameter to tune his model, just like the current cosmological model is tuned. So it's not surprising it fits: it was (literally) made to fit.

 

[NotEinstein]

If Yang's theory is so brilliant, why did it get published in a journal nobody has heard of? I googled ARCjournals and found out it's on Beall's list of predatory journals.

Yep, I found that out earlier too. But heyuhua didn't understand what this meant; goes to show how familiar (s)he is with the scientific process.

Apparently such journals promise peer-review and promotion, but it's all about getting papers and publishing them. After some time, enough good papers and citations lend the air of scientific legitimacy.

And money! Don't forget the money, because it's all about the money.

Strike two is that heyuhua has assumed the role of Yang's promoter, and here we are. But where is that exactly?

Weirdly enough, not the fringe section.

Surely a paper that gets the constant wrong by a factor of two hasn't really been peer-reviewed. The idea that mass is generated continuously by negative pressure needs some serious experimental evidence. Wait, what's that you say? There isn't any?

But you see, it models the measured redshift right, even though it uses that as an input... That's the hardest test, like, ever!

 

[NotEinstein]

all Yang's paper are published completely free,

That wasn't the point.

met no predatory journal.

Except two people have pointed out the contrary to you now. It seems you have a problem accepting reality?

But no matter; it should be easy for Yang to get his work published in something like Nature. That is, if his work is really as good as you ascribe it to be.

Moreover, their peer-reviewed comments are pertinent, point out both shortcomings and merits simultaneously.

Interesting that they missed so many flaws. Kinda makes you wonder as to the quality of the peer-review, no?

Yang think journals are used to publish results, so long as it is a good journal to publish achievements in a timely manner,

Predatory journals are not good journals, by definition.

fixed initiative is the most important for author,

I have no idea what you mean by this? "Fixed initiative"?

a valuable article is always fascinating to read , wherever it is published

This is true, but the chances of an article being published in a bad journal being good are rather slim. And as it turns out in this thread, Yang's article is indeed not so good.

 

[heyuhua]

Again, where's the evidence that the current theory cannot model this accurately?

If this imposed cosmological constant is removed, the relation between distance and redshift derived from the old field equation is in serious contradiction with the observed Ia supernova data. this is also the cause to add cosmological constant to field equation. about why to add a cosmological constant you may see any paper of discussing dark energy

 

[heyuhua]

This is true, but the chances of an article being published in a bad journal being good are rather slim. And as it turns out in this thread, Yang's article is indeed not so good.

If Yang's article is good or bad, don't depend on your view, and I believe the people will eventually give Yang ' s article high praise owe to its Outstanding contribution