Chinese Scholar Yang Jian liang Putting Wrongs to Rights in Astrophysics

[heyuhua]

Ok, I have read few critical bits of this thread, mostly it is avoidable nonsense from either side.

The key point is that 8pi factor in Einstein Field Equations cannot be offered from the first principle, it is derived by considering the limiting v<<c and weak field scenario to get the Newtonian. So offering any other constant must be explained mathematically by deriving Newtonian from it. Can Yang do that?

obviously, Yang's considerations are more comprehensive，consider not only the case of v < c, but also v is close to c. Newton ' s limit is not a velocity limit , but rather a weak field limit，that is, the geodesic equation is required to return to Newton's law of gravity in the weak field. In the past, the geodesic equation was only required to return to Newton's law of gravity in the case of weak field at low speed，and the geodesic equation is now required to return to Newton's law of gravity rather than others in weak fields, whether at high or low speeds.
namely require geodesic equations return to
d(mv)/dt=-GMm/rr, m is relativistic mass of moving particle, there was no guarantee of high speed in the past

 

[Hayden]

obviously, Yang's considerations are more comprehensive，consider not only the case of v < c, but also v is close to c. Newton ' s limit is not a velocity limit , but rather a weak field limit，that is, the geodesic equation is required to return to Newton's law of gravity in the weak field. In the past, the geodesic equation was only required to return to Newton's law of gravity in the case of weak field at low speed，and the geodesic equation is now required to return to Newton's law of gravity rather than others in weak fields, whether at high or low speeds.
namely require geodesic equations return to
d(mv)/dt=-GMm/rr, m is relativistic mass of moving particle, there was no guarantee of high speed in the past

If that is what Yang has done then it appears good, let us leave it aside for a moment.

Please give a link where the Yang's modified equations are shown to reduce to Newtonian in weak field scenario. Not a big thing to ask, you would agree?

 

[heyuhua]

In waek field when geodesic equations are required to return to d(mv)/dt=-GMm/rr, m is relativistic mass of moving particle, the spatial diagonal component of the metric must be g_11=g_22=g_33=1-2GM/r, it used to be g_11=g_22=g_33=1+2GM/r, but g—00 doesn't change. If this requirement is met, the coupling coefficient needs to be modified to 4paiG insteady of -8paiG, s imultaneous pressure is negative insteady of provious insteady of 0

 

[heyuhua]

In waek field when geodesic equations are required to return to d(mv)/dt=-GMm/rr, m is relativistic mass of moving particle, the spatial diagonal component of the metric must be g_11=g_22=g_33=1-2GM/r, it used to be g_11=g_22=g_33=1+2GM/r, but g—00 doesn't change. If this requirement is met, the coupling coefficient needs to be modified to 4paiG insteady of -8paiG, simultaneous pressure is negative insteady of the provious 0
see: http://pubs.sciepub.com/faac/3/2/1/index.html

 

[wangchaoqing]

my point of view, Yang is a outstanding scienist, Yang's considerations are more comprehensive，consider not only the case of v < c, but also v is close to c. Newton ' s limit is not a velocity limit , but rather a weak field limit，that is, the geodesic equation is required to return to Newton's law of gravity in the weak field. In the past, the geodesic equation was only required to return to Newton's law of gravity in the case of weak field at low speed，and the geodesic equation is now required to return to Newton's law of gravity rather than others in weak fields, whether at high or low speeds.
namely require geodesic equations return to
d(mv)/dt=-GMm/rr, m is relativistic mass of moving particle, there was no guarantee of high speed in the past, which is great

 

[wangchaoqing]

I believe that Yang's work will be writen into textbook before long, which has greatly developped GR and gravitational theory, and is a milestone

 

[wangchaoqing]

So now you're backpeddling on your comment in post #534? Typical.

I feel you don't have the ability to comment on Yang's work

 

[Hayden]

Yang's considerations are more comprehensive，consider not only the case of v < c, but also v is close to c. Newton ' s limit is not a velocity limit , but rather a weak field limit，that is, the geodesic equation is required to return to Newton's law of gravity in the weak field. In the past, the geodesic equation was only required to return to Newton's law of gravity in the case of weak field at low speed，and the geodesic equation is now required to return to Newton's law of gravity rather than others in weak fields, whether at high or low speeds.
namely require geodesic equations return to
d(mv)/dt=-GMm/rr, m is relativistic mass of moving particle, there was no guarantee of high speed in the past, which is great

If, so then it makes sense. Present calculations explicitly require v<<c to reduce to newtonian. If Yang is able to do with v~c without any consistency issues then it is a good improvisation.

 

[NotEinstein]

my point of view, Yang is a outstanding scienist, Yang's considerations are more comprehensive，consider not only the case of v < c, but also v is close to c. Newton ' s limit is not a velocity limit , but rather a weak field limit，that is, the geodesic equation is required to return to Newton's law of gravity in the weak field. In the past, the geodesic equation was only required to return to Newton's law of gravity in the case of weak field at low speed，and the geodesic equation is now required to return to Newton's law of gravity rather than others in weak fields, whether at high or low speeds.
namely require geodesic equations return to
d(mv)/dt=-GMm/rr, m is relativistic mass of moving particle, there was no guarantee of high speed in the past, which is great

Any chance of you addressing how $$-8=4$$ in this case of $$v<c$$ then?

I believe that Yang's work will be writen into textbook before long, which has greatly developped GR and gravitational theory, and is a milestone

As heyuhua would say: "fantasy". It seems like you are afflicted with exactly the same inadequacies as heyuhua. Very suspicious...

Just to make sure: you (and heyuhua) are aware that sockpuppets are against forum rules, right?

I feel you don't have the ability to comment on Yang's work

Sorry, but it's you (and heyuhua) that are demonstrating an inability to comment. You (and heyuhua) have been dodging questions and issues throughout this thread. I wonder why you (and heyuhua) continually fail to address questions and issues...

 

[NotEinstein]

If, so then it makes sense. Present calculations explicitly require v<<c to reduce to newtonian. If Yang is able to do with v~c without any consistency issues then it is a good improvisation.

I highly doubt you're going to get a satisfactory answer... I've asked that (and similar) questions multiple times. At best you're going to get a link. Not even a page or section number, just a link with some text that basically re-states the post you just quoted.

heyuhua can't do maths very well (it took him days to calculate $$8/4$$), and wangchaoqing seems to be exactly the same.

 

[heyuhua]

I highly doubt you're going to get a satisfactory answer... I've asked that (and similar) questions multiple times. At best you're going to get a link. Not even a page or section number, just a link with some text that basically re-states the post you just quoted.

heyuhua can't do maths very well (it took him days to calculate \(8/4\)), and wangchaoqing seems to be exactly the same.

Do you have any masterpieces? Take it out and take a look at your level. You don't seem to know how to calculate 8 / 4, are you a primary school student or are you deliberately disgusting here?

 

[heyuhua]

I believe that Yang's work will be writen into textbook before long, which has greatly developped GR and gravitational theory, and is a milestone

yes, Yang is a great scientist，his contribution to general relativity is enormous,

 

[NotEinstein]

Do you have any masterpieces?

What would it matter if I do or don't? I know you think Yang has, but what about you? And does wangchaoqing? If not, what would that change?

Take it out and take a look at your level.

What do you mean? Are you asking me to posit some new theory myself? I don't see how that's necessary in order to evaluate Yang's work.

You don't seem to know how to calculate 8 / 4,

Erm, you were the one taking days to calculate that, not me.

are you a primary school student or are you deliberately disgusting here?

Look, if you want to call somebody having severe difficulty calculating $$8/4$$ "disgusting", perhaps you should first realize who fits that description in this thread...

 

[origin]

yes, Yang is a great scientist，his contribution to general relativity is enormous,

He has no contribution to general relativity. For there to be a contribution his ideas would have to be incorporated into relativity.
The best you can say is you believe his ideas someday will be a contribution to relativity. Based on this thread I think his contributions will be limited stimulating discussions in internet forum.

 

[heyuhua]

Look, if you want to call somebody having severe difficulty calculating \(8/4\) "disgusting", perhaps you should first realize who fits that description in this thread...

The more you say that I think you are more ignorant, you do not understand 1/100 of Yang's work, it seems to be your ability problem. obviously,it's a bit funny for a people who can't do calculations to talk about general relativity

 

[heyuhua]

He has no contribution to general relativity. For there to be a contribution his ideas would have to be incorporated into relativity.
The best you can say is you believe his ideas someday will be a contribution to relativity. Based on this thread I think his contributions will be limited stimulating discussions in internet forum

You don't seem to have read Yang's paper. Yang's idea is completely in line with relativity. Yang has not broken the basic principles of relativity. Yang modified the details of the calculation

 

[NotEinstein]

The more you say that I think you are more ignorant,

That's fine; you can think whatever you want. The reality of the situation doesn't change though.

you do not understand 1/100 of Yang's work,

I understand enough to point out severe issues that have gone unaddressed in this thread.

it seems to be your ability problem.

Says the person that took days to calculate $$8/4$$.

obviously,it's a bit funny for a people who can't do calculations to talk about general relativity

I fully agree!

 

[heyuhua]

I only accept the comments of registered users, those who spend all day on the Internet, seem to know everything, these people who want to comment everything must be troublemakers, and does who give them pay? Why pay such people? I really doubt they are members of the Fifth column, hired to thwart the spread of new theories. It is suggested that the departments concerned take a look at the details of the thugs who have been on the Internet all day to see who is funding them

 

[wangchaoqing]

I only accept the comments of registered users, those who spend all day on the Internet, seem to know everything, these people who want to comment everything must be troublemakers, and does who give them pay? Why pay such people? I really doubt they are members of the Fifth column, hired to thwart the spread of new theories. It is suggested that the departments concerned take a look at the details of the thugs who have been on the Internet all day to see who is funding them

yes, should be vigilant to the outsider evaluation, no matter how they slander, Yang's success is affirmative

 

[NotEinstein]

I only accept the comments of registered users, those who spend all day on the Internet, seem to know everything, these people who want to comment everything must be troublemakers, and does who give them pay? Why pay such people? I really doubt they are members of the Fifth column, hired to thwart the spread of new theories. It is suggested that the departments concerned take a look at the details of the thugs who have been on the Internet all day to see who is funding them

Yes, because obviously there must be a global conspiracy against people like Yang, instead of him being simply, you know, wrong.

Talking about conspiracies, I find it interesting that you and wangchaoqing make the same typo's...

yes, should be vigilant to the outsider evaluation,

You mean that you should be vigilant against peer-review? Might I suggest you learn how science works?

no matter how they slander,

Oh, that's what you mean! Yes, I indeed remain vigilant against the slandering of my character that heyuhua has done in this thread multiple times. I'm glad to have you on my side!

Yang's success is affirmative

If that's the case, could you please address the many questions and issues raised in this thread? Thanks.