Chinese Scholar Yang Jian liang Putting Wrongs to Rights in Astrophysics

[NotEinstein]

your understanding is wrong, confined to surface phenomena.

What 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

Yes, and thus, under the low speed condition, according to you $$-8=4$$.

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

(Irrelevant to the discussion at hand.)

。You're not in a good mood.

Says the person bravely doding a whopping 5 direct questions.

You should ask why it was Einstein who discovered relativity, and why Newton didn't find relativity.

No, I really don't, because I already know the answer to that question. Also, I don't see how that's relevant at all to the discussion at hand.

Wimberger's mistake I've made it clear many times,

Point me to the exact post where you've done this. I expect this post to contain page numbers and equation numbers to Weinberg's book, as well as a clear statement where the mistake happens, what the mistake is, and what the correction should be.

And will you please learn to spell his name correctly? It's extremely disrespectful to misspell his name, even after this has been explicitly pointed out to you.

is it your forgetfulness or not want listening to me.

I'm listening, but you're not telling.

Again , his mistake was to ignore the high - speed situation , and Einstein also so.Wimberger copied Einstein,

Wait, you think you waving your hand about like that is a proper pointing out of a mistake?

Please learn how to do science.

Einstein was wrong, and so did he.

Why is it that it's possible that Einstein was wrong, but it's impossible that Yang is wrong?

I lack understanding, do you really understand?

That sentence appears broken; please rephrase it.

In fact, if the space is finite, the whole mathematics collapses because the axis is infinitely long.

Erm...

What?!

This has got to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read. I am hoping this is another thing lost in translation... Can you please rephrase what you just tried to say?

Moreover, the finite space must have a center,

Imagine a space shaped like a doughnut. A doughnut has a center, but the center isn't part of the doughnut. Do you think that's a problem or not?

which is directly opposed to the cosmological principle,

I don't think it is? Please explain.

and do you want cosmological principles or do you insist on limited space?

I do not insist on limited space, so I have no idea why you would ask me that?

 

[NotEinstein]

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.

But that means you'll have periods where the space is expanding/contracting faster than the speed of light. I though you didn't like the idea of inflation, because that's exactly what that is?

 

[heyuhua]

(Irrelevant to the discussion at hand.)

Is not only relevant, but also very relevan

 

[NotEinstein]

Is not only relevant, but also very relevan

Please explain how the determination of the elements of the metric, which is done after the EFE has been determined (even Yang does this afterwards), has any bearing on the derivation of said EFE.

 

[heyuhua]

But that means you'll have periods where the space is expanding/contracting faster than the speed of light. I though you didn't like the idea of inflation, because that's exactly what that is?

You answer my words too quickly, these words I say enough to you think a few days, I can see that you are too frivolous. This is a new scale factor, how to use it to calculate the horizon, you understand?

 

[NotEinstein]

You answer my words too quickly, these words I say enough to you think a few days, I can see that you are too frivolous.

That you need to ponder difficult questions, like what 8 divided by 4 is, doesn't mean everybody else is that slow.

This is a new scale factor, how to use it to calculate the horizon, you understand?

And for an infinite space to collapse into a point, the distance-change between two separate point will have to exceed the speed of light. (Otherwise it would take infinitely long, and then you wouldn't have a cyclical universe.) You have simply replace inflation with a more complicated form of inflation.

And thus, I say to you: "You answer my words too quickly, these words I say enough to you think a few days, I can see that you are too frivolous."

 

[heyuhua]

If you don't repeat Yang's calculations, I don't think our discussion makes any sense. As long as you repeat Yang's calculations, your questions will open up。 If you don't repeat Yang's calculations, you will have endless questions. You can't repeat Yang's calculation, You can't really understand many problems, too. The beauty of the new theory is contained in the calculation

 

[heyuhua]

If you don't repeat Yang's calculations, I don't think our discussion makes any sense. As long as you repeat Yang's calculations, your questions will automatically open up . If you don't repeat Yang's calculations, you will have endless questions, I will have endless questions to answer. You can't repeat Yang's calculation, You can't really understand many problems, too. The beauty of the new theory is contained in the calculation.

 

[NotEinstein]

If you don't repeat Yang's calculations, I don't think our discussion makes any sense.

And if you don't repeat Weinberg's calculations, you'll never find the mistake in it.

As long as you repeat Yang's calculations, your questions will open up

As long as you repeat Yang's calculations, your questions will automatically open up .

Why don't you actually answer questions instead? Why must I waste my time, when you are right here to directly and concisely answer questions?

。 If you don't repeat Yang's calculations, you will have endless questions.

The questions only seem endless because you don't answer them. Haven't you noticed it's the same questions over and over again? That's because you fail to address them every time.

You can't repeat Yang's calculation,

Says the person that took days to calculate 8 divided by 4, to the person that clearly knew enough about the calculations to find differences in definitions of terms.

You can't really understand many problems, too.

Says the person that is unable to understand how he multiple times has advocated that $$-8=4$$, even though it's been explained to him.

The beauty of the new theory is contained in the calculation

Yes, so if the calculation is ugly (i.e. wrong), so is the theory.

And can you please explain what you meant when you said: "In fact, if the space is finite, the whole mathematics collapses because the axis is infinitely long." ? Because that's one heck of a stupid statement as currently written.

 

[heyuhua]

If you can't repeat Yang's calculations, you can't go deep into the new theory. If you don't repeat Yang's calculations, I don't think our further discussion makes any sense，and being confined to the surface is of no value. As long as you repeat Yang's calculations, your questions will automatically open up . If you don't repeat Yang's calculations, you will have endless questions, I will have endless questions to answer. You can't repeat Yang's calculation, You can't really understand many problems, too. The beauty of the new theory is contained in the calculation.

 

[heyuhua]

And if you don't repeat Weinberg's calculations, you'll never find the mistake in it.

We have checked them many times and have come to the conclusion that they are wrong. Without these numerous repetitions, we would not have easily said that they were wrong

 

[heyuhua]

Yes, so if the calculation is ugly (i.e. wrong), so is the theory.

And can you please explain what you meant when you said: "In fact, if the space is finite, the whole mathematics collapses because the axis is infinitely long." ? Because that's one heck of a stupid statement as currently written

You have to repeat Yang's calculations in order to see whether Yang's calculations are ugly or not. If you are only here to make trouble, lest others accept Yang's new theory, let it be your nonsense and poop. I'm sure some wise people will understand me.

 

[NotEinstein]

If you can't repeat Yang's calculations, you can't go deep into the new theory.

If you don't answer questions, we'll never get to the deeper parts of the theory.

If you don't repeat Yang's calculations, I don't think our further discussion makes any sense，

If you don't answer questions, further discussion is basically impossible.

and being confined to the surface is of no value.

It's you that's keeping us there.

As long as you repeat Yang's calculations, your questions will automatically open up . If you don't repeat Yang's calculations, you will have endless questions, I will have endless questions to answer.

Only because you refuse to answer them; it's the same questions, over and over again.

You can't repeat Yang's calculation,

I've already demonstrated I'm more capable to do so than you.

You can't really understand many problems, too.

Most of the things you bring up as problems, are only problems in your head.

The beauty of the new theory is contained in the calculation.

Mistakes aren't beautiful.

We have checked them many times and have come to the conclusion that they are wrong.

Where is the mistake then? If you and Yang have checked them many times, you must know!

Why are you keeping this knowledge secret?

Why is it as if this knowledge doesn't exist, and you're just claiming things that aren't true?

Without these numerous repetitions, we would not have easily said that they were wrong

Then post the proof!

You have to repeat Yang's calculations in order to see whether Yang's calculations are ugly or not.

I have done so, and I found them flawed. If you want to call that ugly, that's your prerogative.

If you are only here to make trouble, lest others accept Yang's new theory, let it be your nonsense and poop.

I find it interesting that you are constantly thinking about "poop", and calling other people('s ideas) that. I'm sure it's a very mature and intellectual argument that's going completely over my head, because to me it just seems to be immature behavior.

And I'm not making trouble; you are, by refusing to answer simple questions.

I'm sure some wise people will understand me.

Wise people like Einstein? Oh, wait, he was wrong according to you.
Wise people like Adler? Oh, wait, he was wrong according to you.
Wise people like Mesner? Oh, wait, he was wrong according to you.
Wise people like Weinberg? Oh, wait, he was wrong according to you.
Wise people like Carroll? Oh, wait, he is wrong according to you. Which reminds me: why haven't you been able to contact him?

And can you now please explain what you meant when you said: "In fact, if the space is finite, the whole mathematics collapses because the axis is infinitely long." ? Because that's one heck of a stupid statement as currently written.

 

[heyuhua]

You've lost your reason, you're so scared of new things, you hate them to death. But the wheel of history must always move forward, the truth is invincible, no matter how winding the road。The more revolutionary the theory, the more the reactionaries hate， and the more valuable it is.

 

[NotEinstein]

You've lost your reason,

Says the person still dodging questions, and calling out tens of thousands of GR-experts.

you're so scared of new things, you hate them to death.

Says the person still dodging questions.
​

And not really, but I do dislike untrue things.

But the wheel of history must always move forward, the truth is invincible, no matter how winding the road

And forward is opposite the direction you are moving in.

 

[heyuhua]

You've lost your reason, you're so scared of new things, you hate them to death. But the wheel of history must always move forward, the truth is invincible, no matter how winding the road。The more revolutionary the theory, the more the reactionaries hate， and the more valuable it is.

 

[heyuhua]

Has modern cosmology advanced? It seems that progress has been made, but there are very few real discoveries. The theory is getting more and more complicated, but it has nothing to do with the nature of reality. Even the most basic facts can not be explained, the so-called prophecy is basically to cater to the experiment, because it is not inevitable prophecy, but far-fetched patchwork， For example, when microwave background radiation is claimed to be a relic of the Big Bang, there are other better explanations for microwave background radiation.
However, Yang's revised theory completely changed the post-event pandering approach, and was closely combined with real nature, and the explanation of phenomena is clear and natural, and the description of the evolution of the universe is detailed and precise，completely sweep away the ambiguity of description of the past theory. So it can be said that Yang's revised theory truly reveals the laws of nature's movement and is a milestone contribution to cosmology.
But the more progressive the theory, the easier it is to be attacked because it challenges the old theoretical system severely, and I hope that those who seek truth will stand by the side of the new theory and fight back vigorously against the vilification of the reactionary guard.
At the same time, I hope that those who are willing to make their due contribution to scientific progress will proactively spread Yang's new theoretical system, let it rapidly occupy the mainstream position of cosmology as soon as possible, and let the reactionary theory withdraw from the historical stage.

 

[Michael 345]

I hope that those who are willing to make their due contribution to scientific progress will proactively spread Yang's new theoretical system

You seem to have a misunderstanding about how the understanding of the world progresses

If this new theory is as outstanding as you claim have it peer (yes by those nasty Scientists who want to cling to the old theory) reviewed and published

Another way is by the pop Science method. Go on as many TV shows as you can and explain your theory against the others and why yours is better

There are enough smart people out there who will understand what you are explaining and have contacts who will seriously examine your theory

If you are whining you are not being taken seriously - YOU HAVE A DUD THEORY WHICH DOES NOT WORK

 

[heyuhua]

Yang's papers about the modification published via peer reviewed, if you still think that there is no peer review, I will not be ready to argue with you, because that is your freedom. However, a paper reviewed by individual reviewers is not necessarily accepted by most people, that is to say, for original articles even after peer review there will still be a heated debate, and just as Einstein published relativistic articles, he was fiercely attacked after his papers were published, and a paper would never be all right because of the affirmation of individual experts. Of course, some arguments because of the academic, some of the argument is because the personal interests of the damage, in a word, new things replace the old things, it is inevitable that the old things counter attack

 

[arfa brane]

Einstein was wrong

About everything, including a Newtonian limit? Or just about cosmology and the size of a certain constant?