Chinese Scholar Yang Jian liang Putting Wrongs to Rights in Astrophysics

NotEinstein said:
So somebody inverting gravity on paper is perfectly harmless.:wink:
Click to expand...

I don't know

heyuhua said:
you didn't go deep into calculating details
Click to expand...

and

heyuhua said:
you should know field equation is the equation that decides metric components
Click to expand...

and

heyuhua said:
doesn't represent attraction or repulsive
Click to expand...

and

heyuhua said:
it is the geodesic equation that give expression to attraction or repulsive
Click to expand...

and you have been sharply told to be humble and learn

heyuhua said:
I sharply tell you that Yang's new theory matches well reality, hope you be humble enough to learn from Yang's theory
Click to expand...

I'm humble enough to say I has no idea what you both are talking about :)

I'll leave you big boys to get on with your whatever it is. As long as I can safely go outside I'm happy

:)
 
heyuhua said:
It is obviously wrong to think the sign to decide attraction or repulsive ,
Click to expand...
You are missing the point: the contribution of the stress-energy tensor is being inverted. Sure, that probably doesn't express itself as a sign-flip when written out as Newtonian gravity, but it sure as heck completely changes the behavior of the gravity.

heyuhua said:
your perspective indicates you didn't go deep into calculating details,
Click to expand...
Erm, you didn't even post a single calculation yourself, so it's just as much you that's not doing any of the calculations here.

heyuhua said:
you should know field equation is the equation that decides metric components
Click to expand...
I do know that. And that metric determines how gravity behaves. I just skipped that step for simplicity.

heyuhua said:
and doesn't represent attraction or repulsive,
Click to expand...
Not directly, no. But you are effectively putting a minus sign in front of all rest-masses (among others), so that is where my statement came from.

heyuhua said:
it is the geodesic equation that give expression to attraction or repulsive.
Click to expand...
Cool, let's see it! Please post it here.

heyuhua said:
I sharply tell you that Yang's new theory matches well reality,
Click to expand...
Evidence please.

heyuhua said:
hope you be humble enough to learn from Yang's theory
Click to expand...
I'm learning lots of things from it; but perhaps not the things you are referring to.
 
NotEinstein said:
You are missing the point: the contribution of the stress-energy tensor is being inverted. Sure, that probably doesn't express itself as a sign-flip when written out as Newtonian gravity, but it sure as heck completely changes the behavior of the gravity.


Erm, you didn't even post a single calculation yourself, so it's just as much you that's not doing any of the calculations here.


I do know that. And that metric determines how gravity behaves. I just skipped that step for simplicity.


Not directly, no. But you are effectively putting a minus sign in front of all rest-masses (among others), so that is where my statement came from.


Cool, let's see it! Please post it here.


Evidence please.


I'm learning lots of things from it; but perhaps not the things you are referring to.
Click to expand...
If you can check Yang's calculation step by step your confusions will disappear and you will keep up with Yang's ideas
 
NotEinstein said:
Why don't you post the clarifications here? Or is this entire thread just an advertisement for Yang's work?
Click to expand...
Obviously, here mathematical equations are not supported and thus you can only read Yang's article recommended in the head post, not reading mathematical equation step by step you cann't get into Yang's work. The head post is only a brief introduction to Yang's work
 
Last edited:
NotEinstein said:
If that's true, heyuhua should have no difficulties answering my question.:)
Click to expand...
your questions don't require special answer because they had already been answered in Yang's articles, if you once grasp Yang's work your questions will automatically be removed, you don't read Yang's articles hard, I'm sorry to say
 
Last edited:
heyuhua said:
Obviously, here mathematical equations are not supported and thus you can only read Yang's article recommended in the head post, not reading mathematical equation step by step you cann't get into Yang's work. The head post is only a brief introduction to Yang's work
Click to expand...
Obviously, you haven't done your homework: $$y=x^2$$ Use the tex-tag. So please post the clarifications here.

heyuhua said:
your questions don't require special answer because they had already been answered in Yang's articles, if you once grasp Yang's work your questions will automatically be removed, you don't read Yang's articles hard, I'm sorry to say
Click to expand...
Then please point me to the specific part of Yang's article that answers my question. Better yet, post that part here.
 
your questions had been answered in Yang's articles via mathematical calculation, I can not post them here because mathematical equations cann't be writed on the forum
 
in Yang's article, for example, "Correction of Standard Model in View of Improved Gravity Equation" , the equation (1.15) treats your euqations
 
heyuhua said:
in Yang's article, for example, "Correction of Standard Model in View of Improved Gravity Equation" , the equation (1.15) treats your euqations
Click to expand...
Are you sure that's the right equation number? That one is about Hubble constant, not about the sign of the force of gravity.
 
Yes, it indeed is about Hubble law, but it matches well the observational data (reshifts and distances) with the conclusion of decelerated expansion, see the data in Fig. 1 recommended by you in the article :"
In Defense of an Accelerating Universe: Model Insensitivity of the Hubble Diagram".
as for to the sign of the force of gravity, see the equation (1.5) in Yang's article, which reflects attraction or repulsive
 
Last edited:
heyuhua said:
Yes, it indeed is about Hubble law, but it matches well the observational data (reshifts and distances) with the conclusion of decelerated expansion.
Click to expand...
Where is the value of $$q_0$$ coming from? It's being set without justification, which pretty much looks like it was set after the fact in order to fit the data.

heyuhua said:
as for to the sign of the force of gravity, see the equation (1.5) which reflects attraction or repulsive
Click to expand...
Except not really. That equation is derived for a static universe, where all forces cancel. So a sign-flip wouldn't show up in a equation of motion, because there literally is no motion.
 
Let's focus on one step that's missing from the article. How does:
$$h_{00}=-\frac{\gamma}{4\pi}\int\frac{\rho+3p}{\xi}dx'dy'dz'$$
where $$\xi=\sqrt{(x-x')^2+(y-y')^2+(z-z')^2}$$

Get you to:
$$h_{00}=\frac{2GM}{r}$$
with $$\gamma=4\pi G$$?

Edit: (The given equation for $$g_{jj}$$ is obviously wrong in this article; a typo, I suspect.)
 
Last edited:
Or how to go from:
$$\nabla^2 h_{\lambda\lambda}-\frac{\partial^2 h_{\lambda\lambda}}{\partial t^2}=\gamma[(\rho+p)U_{\lambda}^2+(\rho-p)\eta_{\lambda\lambda}]$$

to:
$$h_{00}=-\frac{\gamma}{4\pi}\int\frac{\rho+3p}{\xi}dx'dy'dz'$$
where $$\xi=\sqrt{(x-x')^2+(y-y')^2+(z-z')^2}$$
 
But more interesting is the missing minus sign in the partially contracted Ricci tensor. Right under "Omitting the terms $$o(h^2)$$ we can infer that:" there's a formula that seems to be a minus-sign off from what it should be. Look at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_formulas_in_Riemannian_geometry#Ricci_and_scalar_curvatures The term with the derivative on the RHS where the indices match those on the LHS doesn't carry a minus-sign, yet in Yang's article it does. Could this be where Yang makes a mistake, that carries through to mess with the determination of $$\gamma$$? (Also, the last two terms are missing too.)
 
q_0 is obtaind from calculation according to observational cosmic density and Hubble parameter value of today. (1.15) is geodesic equation which is equivalent to the standard geodesic equation, don't means to be applied to static universe, about its derivation you may see the following Yang's article page 142,or arbitrary standard textbook of post Newton's mechanics
Yang's crticle:
http://www.journalrepository.org/media/journals/BJMCS_6/2011/May/1306478...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top