Chinese Scholar Yang Jian liang Putting Wrongs to Rights in Astrophysics

[heyuhua]

Thousands of students do this every year.

You're lying， who did you see talking about the reasonableness of the coupling coefficient? except Yang no one

 

[heyuhua]

No no no, you're wrong. As heyuhua pointed out: this cannot be measured on the scale of the solar system, therefore it's not real.

The distance -redshift relation is a basic formula derived from field equation, different field equations deduce different the relations, of course, wrong field equations deduce wrong the relations. In turn, this relation is also a powerful tool for measuring the equation is right or wrong. So far, the correct relation is derived from Yang's modified field equation, which are completely consistent with current observational data, namely the distances and redshifts of the measured supernova. And the old relation derived from old field equation is not consistent with the data, thus the old equation need modify, and Yang is the first one who succeeds in modifying the old field equation with flaw.
and again, the distance-reshift relation is the generalized Hubble law, which is suitable for celestial bodies or galaxies at any distance. In the solar system, redshift near zero, the relation degenerates into the usual Hubble law, describing the expansion of the solar system.
It must be noted that this old distance-redshift relationship can also degenerate into Hubble's law at low redshift, and its mistake is that it cannot describe the high redshift.

 

[heyuhua]

0

 

[heyuhua]

False; as I said before, the cosmological constant is a degree of freedom present in the EFE. That you don't understand the mathematics and logic involved doesn't make it unreasonable.

if you think you know what the Ia stars' data are, please you tell several special data, and if you know where the data can be used, please tell several examples. I feel you are a parrot, you understand no things

 

[heyuhua]

According to heyuhua, he completely skipped a crucial part in one of this articles (the FAAC-article doesn't refer to any supernova data when Yang derives this EFE). That's a massive oversight, and calls for the article to be retracted. Such sloppiness is the exact opposite of "highly rigorous scientific attitude".

You're making up the truth. No one's withdrawing the paper

 

[heyuhua]

No no no, you're wrong. As heyuhua pointed out: this cannot be measured on the scale of the solar system, therefore it's not real.

Ignorant guy, unexpectedly don't know what the redshift-relation is for, Ridiculous!

 

[heyuhua]

The fact is: Yang didn't use the supernova data to derive his EFE, as I just demonstrated. It is you who's disregarding facts.

Also, you're doing Yang a disservice, by misrepresenting his work.

The significance of this supernova data is to test the correctness of cosmological theory, and it is a very rigorous test, the theory in which there is a flaw can never pass the test. The relation between redshift and distance derived from old field equation didn't pass the testone .
In order to solve this problem, one introduced the term "cosmological constant" , which was equivalent to adding a new parameter, so is the origin of cosmological constant. Adding a new parameter is the first modification to field equation, the most direct and vulgar modification, due to the term field equation cann't return to Newton theory in very weak gravitational field because it gradually plays a dominant role and is no longer ignored in distance, therefore we say that no matter in theory or in practice, cosmic constant must be removed

 

[heyuhua]

1

 

[heyuhua]

1

 

[NotEinstein]

You're lying，

Newsflash: Students do this every year in universities around the globe. Some of those sources even you brought up: they are textbooks; books used in courses on GR to teach students GR.

I'm surprised you aren't aware of what happening in university GR courses?

who did you see talking about the reasonableness of the coupling coefficient?

Every single source you and I brought up derived it in all reasonableness, so every single one has talked about it.

except Yang no one

And where is his discussion about the reasonableness of introducing a type of matter so exotic, it doesn't match anything we have ever seen before?

The distance -redshift relation is a basic formula derived from field equation, different field equations deduce different the relations, of course, wrong field equations deduce wrong the relations. In turn, this relation is also a powerful tool for measuring the equation is right or wrong. So far, the correct relation is derived from Yang's modified field equation, which are completely consistent with current observational data,

Which, as I pointed out before, he uses as input, so that's circular reasoning.

namely the distances and redshifts of the measured supernova. And the old relation derived from old field equation is not consistent with the data,

Something you have yet to demonstrate.

thus the old equation need modify, and Yang is the first one who succeeds in modifying the old field equation with flaw.
and again, the distance-reshift relation is the generalized Hubble law, which is suitable for celestial bodies or galaxies at any distance. In the solar system, redshift near zero,

And so, according to your own argumentation, it isn't real. No model should have it, because it cannot be measured at solar system scales.

the relation degenerates into the usual Hubble law, describing the expansion of the solar system.

But we've measured the solar system; it isn't expanding. Certainly not in accordance with Hubble's law.

It must be noted that this old distance-redshift relationship can also degenerate into Hubble's law at low redshift, and its mistake is that it cannot describe the high redshift.

Source please.

if you think you know what the Ia stars' data are, please you tell several special data,

Not sure why you're bringing this up, because it's irrelevant? But sure, here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_Ia_supernova

and if you know where the data can be used, please tell several examples.

Erm, you are the one claiming it's being used, not me. So why don't you provide examples?

I feel you are a parrot, you understand no things

I agree that at least one of us fits that description quite well, yes.

You're making up the truth. No one's withdrawing the paper

You have made a very strong claim in this thread that an important section is missing in that paper, a section that's critical to the contents of the paper. Such an omission should at least be rectified, but seeing how crucial the omission is, usually such papers are retracted.

I know Yang isn't going to do that, because either you are wrong, or Yang isn't a great scientist after all.

Ignorant guy, unexpectedly don't know what the redshift-relation is for, Ridiculous!

You are indeed ridiculous, with that strawman.

But sure, backpedel all you want: your argumentation that anything in cosmology that can't be measured on a solar system scale is invalid, is public for everyone to see.

Pathetic.

The significance of this supernova data is to test the correctness of cosmological theory, and it is a very rigorous test, the theory in which there is a flaw can never pass the test. The relation between redshift and distance derived from old field equation didn't pass the testone .

So now you are claiming that Yang didn't use the supernova data to derive the EFE... Which is it? Why are you flipflopping and backpedaling all the time?

In order to solve this problem, one introduced the term "cosmological constant" , which was equivalent to adding a new parameter, so is the origin of cosmological constant.

And as I've already explained multiple times now, the way the EFE is derived allows for this parameter to be added without compromising the derivation, because it's a free parameter, just like an integration constant. Your lack of understanding doesn't change this fact.

Adding a new parameter is the first modification to field equation,

False; the parameter was always there: it's a free parameter.

the most direct and vulgar modification, due to the term field equation cann't return to Newton theory in very weak gravitational field because it gradually plays a dominant role and is no longer ignored in distance,

Yes, and on such distances, Newtonian mechanics is wrong, because it indeed can't model the universal expansion properly. So GR not reducing to Newtonian mechanics is a good sign: if it did, it'd be wrong.

How can you not understand this?

therefore we say that no matter in theory or in practice, cosmic constant must be removed

Which is exactly why the concept of dark energy was introduced. Once again, you are many, many years behind the times. Could you please learn some modern cosmology?

 

[heyuhua]

Newsflash: Students do this every year in universities around the globe. Some of those sources even you brought up: they are textbooks; books used in courses on GR to teach students GR.

well, here can you recommend some papers on the rationality and uniqueness of coupling coefficient of field equations? which textbook discussed or mentioned the rationality and uniqueness of the coefficient? who proved there must not be any alternative treatment? I dare say that so far, except Yang no one has thought about the issue, all students accepted it without doubt or inability to doubt, and mostly all textbooks are cribbed, all in the same key, all of the same pattern, a thousand pieces of the same tune, aren't they?

 

[heyuhua]

Which is exactly why the concept of dark energy was introduced. Once again, you are many, many years behind the times. Could you please learn some modern cosmology?

If this heart error isn't removed, it doesn't make any sense to talk about anything else, that is to say, if the foundation is not strong, the building certainly collapses. Modern cosmologists, for personal gain, frivolous, overambitious, unwilling to work hard on basic issues, it's hard to make a real discovery.

 

[heyuhua]

it's a free parameter

Like any change, adding a free parameter belongs to modifications to the original equation, no doubt

 

[heyuhua]

False; the parameter was always there: it's a free parameter.

If this heart error isn't removed, it doesn't make any sense to talk about anything else, that is to say, if the foundation is not strong, the building certainly collapses. Modern cosmologists, for personal gain, frivolous, overambitious, unwilling to work hard on basic issues, it's hard to make a real discovery. They including you, in the name of innovation, hunt for some new nouns, it's just to get the eyeballs and get more income, no good for the cause of science. Those who shout that science is soaring are playing to the gallery. Technology is indeed improving every day, but science is not so, science is even retrogressive.

 

[NotEinstein]

well, here can you recommend some papers on the rationality and uniqueness of coupling coefficient of field equations? which textbook discussed or mentioned the rationality and uniqueness of the coefficient? who proved there must not be any alternative treatment? I dare say that so far, except Yang no one has thought about the issue, all students accepted it without doubt or inability to doubt, and mostly all textbooks are cribbed, all in the same key, all of the same pattern, a thousand pieces of the same tune, aren't they?

I invite you to do exactly what these hundreds of students do each year: do the math, following what the textbooks state, and see if there's any room for a different value of the coefficient. (I know you won't, because you can't. If you could, you would've answer me when I asked you to point out where the textbooks were wrong.)

If this heart error isn't removed, it doesn't make any sense to talk about anything else, that is to say, if the foundation is not strong, the building certainly collapses.

Except the foundation is quite strong, because the cosmological constant is a free parameter. That you don't understand what that means, doesn't mean it can be dismissed.

Modern cosmologists, for personal gain, frivolous, overambitious, unwilling to work hard on basic issues, it's hard to make a real discovery.

Careful now, I just bought a new irony-meter!

Like any change, adding a free parameter belongs to modifications to the original equation, no doubt

See, this is why I know you don't understand it. It's not adding a parameter; the parameter was always there. No equation is being changed; the parameter was always there. Leaving it out would be an additional assumption. That your math skills are too poor to understand this, doesn't mean it's wrong.

They including you,

*BOOM*

And there it exploded again.

in the name of innovation,

First you accuse me of sticking with the old, and now you accuse me of innovation. Which is it?

hunt for some new nouns,

What does that mean?

it's just to get the eyeballs

Says the person that started a thread on an online discussion forum about a fringe idea.

and get more income,

Oh yes, I'm earning so much money, debating crackpots on the internet...

no good for the cause of science.

You've demonstrated a strong disregard for what science is and its integrity in this thread. Projecting much?

Those who shout that science is soaring are playing to the gallery.

I have not shouting any such thing, to the best of my knowledge. Care to point it out?

Technology is indeed improving every day, but science is not so, science is even retrogressive.

Your science may be, but the rest of the world is doing fine, thank you.

 

[heyuhua]

[QUOT不E="NotEinstein, post: 3526001, member: 286668"]I invite you to do exactly what these hundreds of students do each year: do the math, following what the textbooks state, and see if there's any room for a different value of the coefficient. (I know you won't, because you can't. If you could, you would've answer me when I asked you to point out where the textbooks were wrong.)[/QUOTE]


Don't change the subject. Please recommend the paper I asked for. since you say that a lot of students are talking about the coupling coefficient，is it difficult to recommend a few articles on discussing the coefficient?

 

[heyuhua]

Except the foundation is quite strong, because the cosmological constant is a free parameter. That you don't understand what that means, doesn't mean it can be dismissed

don't I understand cosmic constant? you understand, oh, do you know shame? What else can you do besides sophistry?

 

[heyuhua]

First you accuse me of sticking with the old, and now you accuse me of innovation. Which is it?

You don't have any innovation, you just insist in old theory in the name of innovation.

 

[heyuhua]

You've demonstrated a strong disregard for what science is and its integrity in this thread. Projecting much?

Yang's modifid theory is the improvement on the shoulders of his predecessors, so it is the most powerful innovation and the real progress.

 

[Hayden]

I am not able to figure out who of the two has better patience. Both seem to relish this ongoing word mumbo jumbo.