Chinese Scholar Yang Jian liang Putting Wrongs to Rights in Astrophysics

[NotEinstein]

you say so indicates you still have a lot of misunderstandings,

Yes, I must be misunderstanding Weinberg when he derives the EFE to have a coefficient of -8, as you yourself have already confirmed...

it is inpossible that I proved Yang wrong, this is ridiculous

No, it's that you are unwilling to accept it: it's impossible only in your mind. You are the definition of close-minded; the opposite of a scientist.

4 and -8 are different, where the 4 should appear the -8 appears, isn't that a mistake?

You have yet to prove Weinberg et al. are the ones making the mistake.

Please don't widen problem， I didn't say Wimberger was wrong， I just said he was wrong about the coefficient.

You didn't say he was wrong, but you said he was wrong.

I guess this is another language thing: I never meant that you say that Weinberg was wrong about everything. But, as you just stated explicitly, you claim he was wrong about this one particular thing.

A series of problems that followed were caused by this false coefficient, such as the problem of horizon, the limited space and time, the difficulty of flatness, the difficulty of galaxy formation, and so on.

You have yet to demonstrate that this coefficient that Weinberg, Einstein, Adler, Carroll, Mesner, etc. reached is "false".

I can't reach him.

Why not?

But I'm afraid it's harder to convince him than you.

So where did the confidence you just had go? You in this thread have been utterly convinced that Einstein would immediately agree with Yang. You said that Weinberg would too. But now when addressing the only living person on our list of experts, you are suddenly not so sure... Why is it that only dead people in your fantasies agree with Yang?

Planck seemed to have said that it is a waste of effort to let an expert accept new ideas unless they die.

Yep, a slight language issue here too. Here's the (translated) quote:
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." (Source: https://todayinsci.com/P/Planck_Max/PlanckMax-Quotations.htm )

I guess that means you'll just have to wait until all the current students learning GR are dead. Everything you do in the meantime is, as you say, a "waste of effort".

It was this false coefficient that led to a series of difficulties that followed，such as the problem of horizon,

Which was resolved with inflation.

the limited space or time,

What is the difficulty here?

the difficulty of flatness,

Which was resolved with inflation.

the difficulty of galaxy or celestial body's formation,

What is the difficulty here?

Big Bang Singularity,

This is not a difficulty of modern cosmology, because it's not part of the established part of modern cosmology.

mass missing and so on.

Which was resolved when dark matter was discovered, as was predicted by GR.

It is in order to solve these difficulties that many absurd proposals have been put forward,

I currently count two: inflation, and dark matter, the latter even being proven real with all the evidence I referenced earlier in this thread.

That they are difficult for you to understand, doesn't mean they are issues in modern cosmology.

such as assuming that there is dark matter,

Which has been proven to exist.

dark energy,

Which Yang surpasses in absurdness with his exotic matter.

adding cosmological constants and so on,

Which is pretty much the same as dark energy; why are you repeating yourself?

so far no one found the two dark though a lot of measure are finished.

Except for all the evidence for dark matter I referenced earlier in this thread. Why must you be so intellectually dishonest?

The coefficient of correcting the error is the most important, obviously if the error is not corrected，people must go further and further along the wrong path，and there can be no real progress

*BOOM*

Another irony-meter bites the dust!

No real progress, except for the discovery of gravitational waves, the explanation of the Cl's of the CMB, the definitive prove that Newton was wrong (through Gravity Probe B) in favor of GR, etc. All scientific discoveries explained perfectly by the current theories, and thus evidence you must ignore for your complaints about it to hold. How intellectually honest of you...

Correction of errors in time is the basis for continuing progress.

Agreed. So perhaps it is time for you to accept the errors in Yang's theory, and make progress.

If the geocentric theory had not been corrected in those days, it was sure that astronomy could not develop normally.

I'd argue you'd have nothing we'd call astronomy without the rejection of the geocentric model. But sure, bad models (such as Yang's) must be rejected.

It is bound to fall into an increasingly confused and endless debate,

I'm looking at this thread, and see you causing that "increasingly confused and endless debate" through your intellectually dishonest tactics.

So yes, I agree with you on this.

and even the simplest problems would not have been solved.

Such as the problem of normal matter in Yang's model.

Today , this wrong coupling coefficient is constraining the development of cosmology,

Haven't you heard, gravity waves were recently discovered! And not even that many decades ago, the anisotropies in the CMB were measured, and they match the predictions of the model! So no, the development of cosmology is doing fine.

and the degree of hindrance is exactly the same as that of geocentric theory to astronomy.

Please point out the moral equivalent of epicycles then.

Unfortunately, due to people's blind worship of authority,

Says the person so blindly worshipping Yang, that he calls Yang a greater scientist than Einstein, and says it's impossible that Yang is wrong.

Yes, it's totally other people that are worshipping authority, not you.

No, not you.

Never.

dare not admit that the coupling coefficient is a mistake,

*BOOM*

Wow, dude, what do you have against irony-meters?

so that circulate erroneous reports or incorrectly relay an erroneous message.

That got lost in translation. Can you please rephrase that?

In view of the current situation, Yang's work is obviously a kind of enlightenment or appeal,

Can you please read the start of your own previous sentence?

Do you have no shame?

and there is no time to pay attention to whether or not to follow up

There is no time for what? I don't understand what you are trying to say.

 

[arfa brane]

Why does Einsteins equation have a constant of 8π in it? Why does the Einstein-Hilbert action have 1/16π in it? How do you derive these constants when you study GR at a university (and get the same result everyone else does), and why does Yang, a "university professor", get a different value for this constant in the EFE?

Interestingly, the derivation on Wikipedia starts with the assumption the universe is in a steady state; matter is being continuously generated so density is constant, due to expansion. Sounds familiar. Any hoo, they still get the familiar 8πG/c^4. This 'expression' relates the two physical constants G and c. (why is it c^4?)

 

[heyuhua]

Yes, I must be misunderstanding Weinberg when he derives the EFE to have a coefficient of -8, as you yourself have already confirmed...

The root cause of the error in this coefficient is that they only consider the low speed approximation and ignore the high speed condition when they derive the coefficient. If we take into account the problem of high-speed approximation,the spatial component of the metric must be changed，and further, the coefficient must change with it. So is the outling of Yang's modification.
To say that Wimberger made the mistake is a bit of an injustice to him, because he copied Einstein, and then people including Carroll plagiarized it from Wimberger, The descendants continued until today. And the primary blame was Einstein, and Wimberger as well as Carroll and so on should bear the responsibility for passing on the wrong things.

 

[heyuhua]

Why does Einsteins equation have a constant of 8π in it? Why does the Einstein-Hilbert action have 1/16π in it? How do you derive these constants when you study GR at a university (and get the same result everyone else does), and why does Yang, a "university professor", get a different value for this constant in the EFE?

These questions you offer are really too low, which means you haven't entered the calculation's details yet. I tell you that this 1/16π is a requirement of 8 π, that is to say, in order to turn out 8 π in the field equation, the coefficient of Einstein-Hibert action must be 1 / 16 π, which is the result of the variational operation. note that though the variational principle can deduce the field equation, it cannot determine the coefficient, which is obtained via compareing with Newton's theory.

 

[heyuhua]

What is the difficulty here?

If time and space are limited, there must be some logical difficulties. For example, if time has a starting point, it is necessary to ask the situation before that, if space is limited, then we must answer what is outside this limited space, and in addition, the limited space necessarily leads to the limited time. The existence of space without time or time without space is contrary to the concept of relativistic four-dimensional space-time

 

[arfa brane]

I tell you that this 1/16π is a requirement of 8 π, that is to say, in order to turn out 8 π in the field equation, the coefficient of Einstein-Hibert action must be 1 / 16 π, which is the result of the variational operation. note that though the variational principle can deduce the field equation, it cannot determine the coefficient, which is obtained via compareing with Newton's theory.

So by the same logic, 4π in Yang's version of GR compares with Newton's, because they have the same constant in units where G = c = 1? Namely the constant 4π (in Poisson's eqn for Newtonian potential). Gauss and all that?

 

[NotEinstein]

The root cause of the error in this coefficient is that they only consider the low speed approximation and ignore the high speed condition when they derive the coefficient.

Because the coefficient can be determined by looking at the low velocity limit, and making it match Newtonian predictions. If both the standard EFE and Yang's EFE do that, then both coefficients must be valid, and since clearly only one value can be correct, you must be arguing that -8 equals 4.

Perhaps you should brush up on your math-skills?

If we take into account the problem of high-speed approximation,the spatial component of the metric must be changed

This is another weird thing that we haven't yet started discussing. How can the metric need changes due to the velocity of objects?

I guess you're arguing that Schwarzschild was wrong as well. Another expert to add to the list!

and further, the coefficient must change with it. So is the outling of Yang's modification.

You do know that none of this is a response to what you quoted, right? You're just repeating your unsubstantiated claims. You are wasting time. I thought you strongly objected to doing that?

To say that Wimberger made the mistake is a bit of an injustice to him,

You know what's an injustice to him? Misspelling his name as badly as you do.

because he copied Einstein, and then people including Carroll plagiarized it from Wimberger,

Oh, so Yang is plagiarizing as well? Because he is copying a lot of work from others too.

I guess he's not so great a scientist after all, because plagiarism is pretty much a capital offense in science (and should result in the retraction of the paper). But you wouldn't be aware of that...

The descendants continued until today.

No. It's not copying. Sure, some people may be copying, but all students for example do not: they have to do the derivations themselves.

You would be aware of this, if you had followed a university course. I wonder why you don't know how those are taught... Or, perhaps, the universities around your area teach you through copying instead of understanding. In that case, please go to a good university instead.

And the primary blame was Einstein,

Yes, we know you think Einstein was wrong. But you still haven't demonstrated that.

Actually, now that I think about it... If Einstein was wrong about the coefficient in the EFE, but you agree that in the low velocity limit it matches Newtonian predictions, then you must agree that a coefficient of -8 matches Newtonian predictions in this limit. Since the coefficient (in some derivations) is determined through the matching with the Newtonian predictions, you thus argue that -8 is the right coefficient in this limit, but also that it's wrong. How can it be both correct and wrong? You are contradiction yourself.

and Wimberger as well as Carroll and so on should bear the responsibility for passing on the wrong things.

And Yang should bear his, and so should you. Why do I have a feeling you will not do that?

These questions you offer are really too low, which means you haven't entered the calculation's details yet.

(I'd just like to point out that you haven't done so either: I've asked you to point to the mistake in Weinberg's derivation, and you've repeatedly refused to do that. It's clear you "haven't entered the calculation's details yet" yourself.)

If time and space are limited, there must be some logical difficulties.

But current cosmology doesn't say that time or space are limited, so I guess the logical difficulties that you are seeing are not relevant.

For example, if time has a starting point, it is necessary to ask the situation before that,

Perhaps you should learn what time is. How is it coherent to ask about a moment before time? The word "before" refers to a relation in time; a "moment before time" is a contradiction.

And why is it necessary to ask about it? And why would it be a problem?

That you have trouble understanding something, doesn't mean it's a problem with the theory.

if space is limited, then we must answer what is outside this limited space,

This is similarly incoherent. If space is limited, there is, per definition, no space outside of it. There are no positions/locations outside of it. The only problem I see here is your lack of understanding.

and in addition, the limited space necessarily leads to the limited time.

This is simply false, and you yourself have already mentioned a reason why in this very thread. Take a universe limited in space, but big bang-ing, expanding, contracting, and collapsing, only to big bang again. A cyclical universe. Infinite time, but limited space. You brought this model up yourself.

Why are you contradicting yourself again?

The existence of space without time or time without space is contrary to the concept of relativistic four-dimensional space-time

I agree, so why bring this up at all?

 

[heyuhua]

Because the coefficient can be determined by looking at the low velocity limit, and making it match Newtonian predictions. If both the standard EFE and Yang's EFE do that, then both coefficients must be valid, and since clearly only one value can be correct, you must be arguing that -8 equals 4.

the field equation with coefficient -8 is wrong, because it provides the wrong metric, which cann't make geodesic equations return to Newton mechanics at high speed appoximation, see Yang's calculation http://pubs.sciepub.com/faac/3/2/1/index.html

 

[NotEinstein]

the field equation with coefficient -8 is wrong, because it provides the wrong metric, which cann't make geodesic equations return to Netween law it high speed, see Yang's calculation http://pubs.sciepub.com/faac/3/2/1/index.html

You have clearly not understood my point. If the coefficient is determined by making GR (even just in the low velocity limit) match Newtonian predications, how can both -8 and 4 be right? Answer: they can't be. Yet you claim they are; a contradiction.

 

[heyuhua]

I agree, so why bring this up at all?

because the original equation must lead to space or time limited

 

[NotEinstein]

because the original equation must lead to space or time limited

But what does limited space or time have to do with one of them not existing? How are those related at all?

 

[heyuhua]

You have clearly not understood my point. If the coefficient is determined by making GR (even just in the low velocity limit) match Newtonian predications, how can both -8 and 4 be right? Answer: they can't be. Yet you claim they are; a contradiction.

All of the questions you mention involve the details of the calculation. As long as you calculate, you will know why. Why do you refuse to give you a pen to caluculate it yourself? 4 can guarantee both low speed and high speed with negative pressure but -8 unable

 

[NotEinstein]

All of the questions you mention involve the details of the calculation. As long as you calculate, you will know why.

Why do you think I stand any chance of reaching the right answer, if Einstein didn't?
Why do you think I stand any chance of reaching the right answer, if Weinberg didn't?​

Why do you think I stand any chance of reaching the right answer, if Adler didn't?

Why do you think I stand any chance of reaching the right answer, if Mesner didn't?
Why do you think I stand any chance of reaching the right answer, if Carroll didn't?​

Why do you refuse to give you a pen to caluculate it yourself?

Why do you refuse to point out the mistake in Weinberg's derivation? You can prevent me wasting a lot of time just by doing that! I thought you were so big on the "let's not waste time" thing?

4 can guarantee both low speed and high speed

And -8 can guarantee low speed, meaning that at low speed, you are claiming that $$-8=4$$. Please brush up on your math skills.

 

[heyuhua]

And -8 can guarantee low speed, meaning that at low speed, you are claiming that \(-8=4\). Please brush up on your math skills

your understanding is wrong, confined to surface phenomena. The fact is that, the field equation with coefficient 4 provides the correct metric components that make sure geodisic equations return to Newton mechanics in waek approximation no matter low speed or high, see Yang's paper introduced above. but the field equation with coefficient -8 doesn't so, it only satisfy low speed condition
In spherically symmetric weak field，the field equation with coefficient 4 provides the correct metric components， g_00=-1+2GM/r, g_11=g2_2=g_33 =1-2GM/r, -1<<g_ij<<1 for i doesn't equal j, and simultaneously pressure P=- density's average inside gravitational source (celestial body). But the field equation with coefficient -8 provides the metric components g_00=-1+2GM/r, g_11=g2_2=g_33 =1+2GM/r, g_ij=0 for i doesn't equal j, and pressure P=0 inside gravitational source (celestial body) . Only space component are different, the spatial components of the latter are wrong, and cann't make geodesic equations return to Newton mechanics for high-speed object

 

[heyuhua]

Why do you think I stand any chance of reaching the right answer, if Einstein didn't?
Why do you think I stand any chance of reaching the right answer, if Weinberg didn't?​

Why do you think I stand any chance of reaching the right answer, if Adler didn't?

Why do you think I stand any chance of reaching the right answer, if Mesner didn't?
Why do you think I stand any chance of reaching the right answer, if Carroll didn't?​

。You're not in a good mood. You should ask why it was Einstein who discovered relativity, and why Newton didn't find relativity.

 

[heyuhua]

So by the same logic, 4π in Yang's version of GR compares with Newton's, because they have the same constant in units where G = c = 1? Namely the constant 4π (in Poisson's eqn for Newtonian potential). Gauss and all that?

The conclusion of discussion is the same in any unit, and there will be no different physical content due to the use of different units。We're using the natural unit c=1. In the international system of units, the modified coefficient should be 4 π G/ c ^ 4.

 

[Michael 345]

I've finally finally worked it out

Had to buy a top notch refurbished Cray (couldn't afford a new one)

Asked it to scan in this thread

Pressed the WORK IT OUT button (found it next to the MAKE COFFEE button)

Output said see Jan

 

[heyuhua]

Why do you refuse to point out the mistake in Weinberg's derivation? You can prevent me wasting a lot of time just by doing that! I thought you were so big on the "let's not waste time" thing?

Wimberger's mistake I've made it clear many times, is it your forgetfulness or not want listening to me. Again , his mistake was to ignore the high - speed situation , and Einstein also so.Wimberger copied Einstein, Einstein was wrong, and so did he.

 

[heyuhua]

This is similarly incoherent. If space is limited, there is, per definition, no space outside of it. There are no positions/locations outside of it. The only problem I see here is your lack of understanding.

I lack understanding, do you really understand? In fact, if the space is finite, the whole mathematics collapses because the axis is infinitely long. Moreover, the finite space must have a center, which is directly opposed to the cosmological principle, and do you want cosmological principles or do you insist on limited space?

 

[heyuhua]

This is simply false, and you yourself have already mentioned a reason why in this very thread. Take a universe limited in space, but big bang-ing, expanding, contracting, and collapsing, only to big bang again. A cyclical universe. Infinite time, but limited space. You brought this model up yourself.Why are you contradicting yourself again?

No contradiction
In Yang's circular universe, time has no beginning or end，and space are infinite and no center, the universe's horizon is still infinite at the time of Big Bang, which are the result of the theory itself skillfully adjusted. The scale factor is now a simple sinusoidal function R(t)=Asinkt, which represents the cyclic universe. It can be calculated that even if R(t)=0, the horizon is infinite, and without the need to impose an unflation, the difficulty of horizon can be eliminated automatically. It might as well still be called big bang that the moment of R(t)=0 which has happened countless times.