Chinese Scholar Yang Jian liang Putting Wrongs to Rights in Astrophysics

[NotEinstein]

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.

Sure, needing a parameter set to some a priori unknown value in order to get it to work is unsatisfactory, but we do that all the time. What about all the other constants, such as the speed of light? Yang needs to set this to some a priori unknown value to make his model work too.

And if one removes the exotic matter from Yang's model, his entire model is gone. Instead of just one parameter needing some non-zero value, Yang needs a much, much bigger assumption: an entirely new and unknown type of matter. Obviously, Yang is a worse offender.​

this is also the cause to add cosmological constant to field equation.

As I said before: no. The cosmological constant is already there, just like an integration constant. It's a degree of freedom in the equation.

about why to add a cosmological constant you may see any paper of discussing dark energy

Evidence. I asked for evidence, not a "go find any paper yourself" cop-out.

If Yang's article is good or bad, don't depend on your view

True, but when I point out simple mistakes in it, it's obviously bad, no matter what your view on it is either.

 

[heyuhua]

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

What you think is wrong is just the most outstanding place, and a despicable man must lack the eyes of wisdom

 

[heyuhua]

And if one removes the exotic matter from Yang's model, his entire model is gone. Instead of just one parameter needing some non-zero value, Yang needs a much, much bigger assumption: an entirely new and unknown type of matter. Obviously, Yang is a worse offender

the exotic matter exist only in old theory, such as dark energy, dark matter. In Yang's model there is on exotic matter, Yang call the negative pressure for dark energy, but he also may directly call it negative pressure and don't need another name at all. In a word, in Yang's model there is no uncertain paremeter, more reliable calculation than old model

 

[heyuhua]

True, but when I point out simple mistakes in it, it's obviously bad, no matter what your

the mistake you pointed out belongs to your misunderstanding and Erroneous judgment, it isn't real Yang's mistake

 

[NotEinstein]

What you think is wrong is just the most outstanding place,

Yeah, like movement in a static universe. That is so outstanding...

and a despicable man must lack the eyes of wisdom

Oh, I couldn't agree more!

the exotic matter exist only in old theory,

That's a lie, and you know it. Stop being intellectually dishonest.

such as dark energy,

Dark energy is not matter, by definition. Perhaps you should brush up on your physics basics?

dark matter.

Yes, dark matter is quite exotic. However, not as exotic as what Yang introduces.

In Yang's model there is on exotic matter, Yang call the negative pressure for dark energy,

Ah, so Yang introduces dark energy, and with it, the cosmological constant. Then why are you complaining so much that the current theory does that too, if Yang does exactly the same thing? How incredibly hypocritical of you!

but he also may directly call it negative pressure and don't need another name at all.

Just because he doesn't call it dark energy, doesn't mean it's not the same as dark energy. Stop being intellectually dishonest.

In a word, in Yang's model there is no uncertain paremeter, more reliable calculation than old model

By introducing dark energy, just as the current theory does.

the mistake you pointed out belongs to your misunderstanding and Erroneous judgment,

First of all: plural. Mistakes.

You keep claiming what I point out aren't mistakes, but you keep being unable to back that claim up. Perhaps you should stop stamping your foot like a little child, and actually get working on that?

it isn't real Yang's mistake

Demonstrate it.

 

[heyuhua]

Demonstrate it

don't need demonstrate, beceuse it is you who put forward something you shouldn't,

 

[heyuhua]

By introducing dark energy, just as the current theory does.

but this is a serious question, it can give we any result we want. Before, a scientist said that if give his two parameters in a practical equation he can model stone say, if give his three parameters he can model stone fly up. In a word, in the middle of the road, adding parameters is a logical taboo, it can make calculation lose any value

 

[arfa brane]

Why hasn't it occurred to anyone until now that you can do what Yang does in his "solution"? Why didn't Einstein, or Hilbert, see it?

Oh right, Yang is the kind of genius who only pops up once every 100 years or so.

 

[heyuhua]

Why hasn't it occurred to anyone until now that you can do what Yang does in his "solution"? Why didn't Einstein, or Hilbert, see it?

Oh right, Yang is the kind of genius who only pops up once every 100 years or so.

Science always develops, and there is always unfinished business before us

 

[NotEinstein]

don't need demonstrate, beceuse it is you who put forward something you shouldn't,

Erm, you started this thread? You brought up Yang's work? I'm asking how Yang reaches certain conclusions, and you can't defend them. What else am I to do, but to conclude those are mistakes? The burden of proof is on you (and Yang) to demonstrate that his work is good; failure to do so will lead to dismissal.

but this is a serious question, it can give we any result we want.

And the same is true for Yang's work. Put in any other value of the Hubble parameter, and you get a different result.

Before, a scientist said that if give his two parameters in a practical equation he can model stone say, if give his three parameters he can model stone fly up.

This is only true under certain circumstances. In this case, it's not. Before the introduction of a non-zero cosmological constant, there was nothing to generate negative pressure in cosmology. Observations however demonstrated that this was needed. In other words, the observational data forces a non-zero cosmological constant, leading to the introduction of dark energy.

In a word, in the middle of the road, adding parameters is a logical taboo,

The parameter was always present. It was simply set to zero for convenience, until it turned out that wasn't correct. The model always allowed this.

You can just as easily say this about Yang's model. The amount of stuff causing negative pressure could be zero. However, observational data demands it not to be. It's exactly the same case. So if one is a logical taboo, the other is as well.

Finally, adding parameters is not a logical taboo, so you're wrong there anyway. Every degree of freedom allowed in a model is automatically a parameter, and the cosmological constant (just like an integration constant) was always allowed. This, in fact, is why it can be introduced so easily.

it can make calculation lose any value

It can, but in this case, it does not.​

 

[NotEinstein]

Science always develops, and there is always unfinished business before us

You've missed an important point: science must always develop forward, toward better things and understanding. Yang appears to be going backwards, looking at the large amount of unaddressed issues in his article.

 

[heyuhua]

This old theory can not really explain CMB, it is obvious that the most essential characteristic of CMB is its uniformity, which symbolizes the earlier the universe is, the more uniform it is. However, the old theory exists the horizon's difficulty, that is, can't explain early uniformity after big bang. In oder to solve the difficulty one put forward the inflationary universe,namely, in early universe there was a sharp expansion process, in which cosmic uniformity rapidly largen. But the reasonableness of this inflation is more difficult, no one is sure that it must happened, let alone be tested experimentally. It is Yang's modification that connects current cosmic uniformity in large scale with the early uniformity in small scale, and Yang proved that today's uniformity in large scale is the magnifying of the early uniformity, that is to say, in Yang's framework the early uniformity is an inevitable conclusion derived from today's uniformity of large scale.In Yang's theory, universal expansion means: all are synchronously growing , space is creating , matter is generating, celestial bodies are growing, galaxies are growing, and so on. and in Yang's modified theory expansion and contraction are cyclic, big bangs happened countless times, spacetime is infinite

 

[heyuhua]

In short, there has been no real progress in general relativity in the last 20 years. it is Yang who is setting things right

 

[NotEinstein]

This old theory can not really explain CMB,

Even if that were true: can Yang's model even come that close? I've asked you about the Cl's of the CMB before multiple times, and you've chosen to ignore that. Can I interpret that silence as a defeat?

it is obvious that the most essential characteristic of CMB is its uniformity, which symbolizes the earlier the universe is, the more uniform it is.

It's debatable if that's the most essential characteristic. I think the anisotropies are actually even more important.

However, the old theory exists the horizon's difficulty, that is, can't explain early uniformity after big bang.

Even heard of inflation? A perfectly viable solution to this problem was resolved years ago.

In oder to solve the difficulty one put forward the inflationary universe,namely, in early universe there was a sharp expansion process, in which cosmic uniformity rapidly largen.

Ah, so you have heard of it! Then why do you say it can't explain it, when even you are aware that it can? Are you being intellectually dishonest yet again?

But the reasonableness of this inflation is more difficult, no one is sure that it must happened, let alone be tested experimentally.

No one is sure the big bang happened. The big bang is also not experimentally tested. Universal expansion isn't experimentally tested. Black holes aren't experimentally tested.​

None of these are reasons to dismiss the idea.

It is Yang's modification that connects current cosmic uniformity in large scale with the early uniformity in small scale, and Yang proved that today's uniformity in large scale is the magnifying of the early uniformity, that is to say, in Yang's framework the early uniformity is an inevitable conclusion derived from today's uniformity of large scale.

In the same way that the current cosmological model does. Again, what's the difference? If you are claiming that Yang's model can derive this from first principles, cool. Now demonstrate it, and demonstrate that it can model things like the Cl's of the CMB correctly, and we might be getting somewhere.

Why do I have a strong feeling you're not going to be able to do that, though?

In Yang's theory, universal expansion means: all are synchronously growing , space is creating ,

Just as with the current model...

matter is generating,

I assume you mean: is being generate?

Well, that's possible in the current model as well. Look into particle pair creation. But I know: that's not what you're talking about. So then, let's see the evidence you have for claiming the creation of matter out of nothing.

celestial bodies are growing,

Evidence please.

galaxies are growing, and so on.

Evidence please.

and in Yang's modified theory expansion and contraction are cyclic, big bangs happened countless times,

Which, currently, is unfalsifiable, so that's useless to discuss at the moment.

spacetime is infinite

This is also possible in the current model in cosmology, so I don't see how that matters for this discussion?

In short, there has been no real progress in general relativity in the last 20 years

I think the discovery of gravitational waves is quite big. And the final confirmation of GR above Newton with Probe B. Clearly, you (once again) have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[heyuhua]

In short, there has been no real progress in general relativity in the last 20 years, even there has exist directional error, for example, for a long time to fall into the quagmire of dark matter and dark energy ，and it is Yang who is setting things right

 

[heyuhua]

In short, there has been no real progress in general relativity in the last 20 years, even there has been existing directional error, for example, for a long time to fall into the quagmire of dark matter and dark energy ，and it is Yang who is setting things right

 

[heyuhua]

Why do I have a strong feeling you're not going to be able to do that, though?

Please read Yang's article carefully, enough for you to study in half a year. Now you have only grasped Yang's theory less than 1% , even there exist many misunderstandings

 

[NotEinstein]

Please read Yang's article carefully,

Which exact article, what exact page(s), what exact section(s)? Please be more specific.​

enough for you to study in half a year.

That it takes you several days to calculate 8 divided by 4 doesn't mean I'm that slow.

Now you have only grasped Yang's theory less than 1% ,

If only understanding 1% is already enough to prove it wrong, why should I study the other 99%? Why waste my time?

even there exist many misunderstandings

Indeed, you have many misunderstandings, and I'm glad I am helping you figure them out.

 

[heyuhua]

what is the Cl's of the CMB?

 

[NotEinstein]

what is the Cl's of the CMB?

You recollection is letting you down once again. I've already given a link to Wikipedia about it earlier in this thread; look it up.

But even better: you don't know that they are? How can you not know what they are? It's pretty much the holy grail of modern cosmology! You are woefully underequipped intellectually to be pushing an alternative model; your ignorance is seemingly limitless; at ever turn you demonstrate that you have no clue about many of the basics of science, physics, and cosmology. And yet you think you know better than all the experts.

Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic.

I'm genuinely feeling sorry for you, how badly you have deluded yourself.