Chinese Scholar Yang Jian liang Putting Wrongs to Rights in Astrophysics

[heyuhua]

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

Please publicize Yang's achievements and strike at the shameless insults。 It is the responsibility of every scientist to develop science， and the traditional guard must be hit,

 

[origin]

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

I am going to request the mods move this to the fringe sections, for several reasons but here are 2.
Part of your conjectures have some extremely non-mainstream ideas such as:

For the current earth, the quality increases by 1.2 billion tons a year and the radius expands by 0.5 millimeter. Coal and oil are generated on an equal footing with earth and stone, and they are constantly generated and increasing energy can be used in the center of the earth.

You are now moving into the conspiracy arena which has nothing to do with the math and science section.

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

 

[NotEinstein]

Please publicize Yang's achievements

Please demonstrate that they are actual achievements, and not just wrong.

and strike at the shameless insults。

Says the person that has resorted to shameless insults multiple times in this thread.

It is the responsibility of every scientist to develop science，

Exactly, so why don't you get started on that?

and the traditional guard must be hit,

I hope that's a translation issue, because calling for the application of violence is wholly unnecessary.

 

[arfa brane]

Please publicize Yang's achievements and strike at the shameless insults。

Yes, please do. And while you do that, please explain why and how Yang derives a constant which is half the value everyone else gets.

Yang simply introduces this "result" in his papers, without really explaining or justifying it other than some vague reference to cosmic expansion and the continuous creation of new matter. If it's a revolutionary new idea, why not spend time explaining why he derives that result? Or is there nothing up his other sleeve?

 

[heyuhua]

Yes, please do. And while you do that, please explain why and how Yang derives a constant which is half the value everyone else gets.

Yang simply introduces this "result" in his papers, without really explaining or justifying it other than some vague reference to cosmic expansion and the continuous creation of new matter. If it's a revolutionary new idea, why not spend time explaining why he derives that result? Or is there nothing up his other sleeve?

What you said Yang has fully explained in his paper, but you didn't read Yang's paper seriously.

 

[heyuhua]

please explain why and how Yang derives a constant which is half the value everyone else gets.

It's true that Yang's constant is half of others, and that's the key. If you know how other people's constants are derived, you can easily understand the half of Yang's constant, and the idea is the same. Do you know how people come up with this constant? Can you derive it independently without looking at a textbook? if you can, you will have ability to understand Yang，because Yang's improved derivation was based on a profound understanding of previous derivations. Notice that Yang's new constant is not only half the original, but also changing the sign, that is, -8 changes into 4

 

[heyuhua]

Please demonstrate that they are actual achievements, and not just wrong.

If you don't repeat Yang's calculations yourself, you'll never understand Yang's achievements. Because you're still at the gate of Yang's new palace, you can't know the layout without walking in. Like a student who doesn ' t do homework , he can ' t learn mathematics

 

[heyuhua]

You are now moving into the conspiracy arena which has nothing to do with the math and science section.

Don't insult me

 

[arfa brane]

What you said Yang has fully explained in his paper, but you didn't read Yang's paper seriously.

And you can't explain the result without referring back to Yang's "miraculous" paper.

Eisntein wrote a book explaining his ideas and his new theory, why can't Yang do the same? Why are you, as a co-author (I've seen more than one of Yang's papers), unable or unwilling to explain, with rigorous mathematical arguments, why the constant is 4π, not -8π?

This behaviour of yours suggests you don't have any really rigorous argument, all you have is polemics.

 

[James R]

This thread is now about three months old.

It appears that NotEinstein has pointed out some basic errors in Yang's work.

heyuhua has blustered around, but has consistently failed to justify the errors.

The opening post of the thread makes grandiose claims, but no observational evidence has been provided in favour of the ideas expressed there.

heyuhua claims to be a close collaborator with Yang, but Yang has not seen fit to come here to correct his own errors.

It seems that heyuhua is not equipped to address the errors in Yang's work, as pointed out by NotEinstein, so unless Yang can come to explain himself, it's looking a lot like further discussion will be a waste of time.

Since NotEinstein has been patiently trying to get some answers for 3 months now, and none have been coming, I think the best thing would be to close this thread. It looks like unproductive pseudoscience, anyway.

However, in deference to NotEinstein, who has been putting in the hard yards here, I will only close it if and when NotEinstein agrees that it should be closed.

Please contact me by private messaging when you're done with it, NotEinstein.

 

[heyuhua]

why the constant is 4π, not -8π?

“why the constant is 4π, not -8π？” is clearly explained in Yang ' s paper , and I doubt whether you actually read Yang ' s paper，for example: https://www.arcjournals.org/pdfs/ijarps/v3-i8/2.pdf, or http://pubs.sciepub.com/faac/3/2/1/index.html

 

[heyuhua]

It appears that NotEinstein has pointed out some basic errors in Yang's work.

heyuhua has blustered around, but has consistently failed to justify the errors.

The opening post of the thread makes grandiose claims, but no observational evidence has been provided in favour of the ideas expressed there.

heyuhua claims to be a close collaborator with Yang, but Yang has not seen fit to come here to correct his own errors.

It seems that heyuhua is not equipped to address the errors in Yang's work, as pointed out by NotEinstein, so unless Yang can come to explain himself, it's looking a lot like further discussion will be a waste of time.

Since NotEinstein has been patiently trying to get some answers for 3 months now, and none have been coming, I think the best thing would be to close this thread. It looks like unproductive pseudoscience, anyway.

However, in deference to NotEinstein, who has been putting in the hard yards here, I will only close it if and when NotEinstein agrees that it should be closed.

Please contact me by private messaging when you're done with it, NotEinstein.

You are insulting us. What makes you believe that Yang is wrong, and it is obviously the ignorance and misjudgment of NotEinstein but not our mistake. Are you unreasonable? I know that blocking progressive truth is the nature of conservatives, you can block it

 

[NotEinstein]

Let me answer this one...

It's true that Yang's constant is half of others, and that's the key. If you know how other people's constants are derived, you can easily understand the half of Yang's constant, and the idea is the same.

Yes, exactly, it's the same idea, which is why it's doubly surprising Yang gets a different answer. If tens of thousands of experts in the field say -8, and one person says 4, which scenario is more likely to be true? That ten of thousands of experts in the field are wrong, or that one person is wrong?

Do you know how people come up with this constant? Can you derive it independently without looking at a textbook?

Why "without looking at a textbook"? You've been pointing to textbooks throughout this thread yourself.

And the answer is yes: Einstein did just that. Because there literally wasn't a textbook at that point in time.

if you can, you will have ability to understand Yang，because Yang's improved derivation was based on a profound understanding of previous derivations.

Can you derive Yang's EFE without looking at his articles? (See what a useless argument that is to make?)

Notice that Yang's new constant is not only half the original, but also changing the sign, that is, -8 changes into 4

Both differences you've failed to explain.

Don't insult me

And I would prefer it if you did the same.

You are insulting us. What makes you believe that Yang is wrong, and it is obviously the ignorance and misjudgment of NotEinstein but not our mistake.

Right there. That last part. Isn't that an insult, or at least insulting?

Are you unreasonable? I know that blocking progressive truth is the nature of conservatives, you can block it

So... the ten of thousands of GR-experts, are they all conservatives too, trying to block progress? While, you know, launching rockets into space and discovering new particles...

 

[NotEinstein]

Since NotEinstein has been patiently trying to get some answers for 3 months now, and none have been coming, I think the best thing would be to close this thread. It looks like unproductive pseudoscience, anyway.

However, in deference to NotEinstein, who has been putting in the hard yards here, I will only close it if and when NotEinstein agrees that it should be closed.

Please contact me by private messaging when you're done with it, NotEinstein.

Lest we be accused of being part of the global conspiracy, I think it's better to do this out in the open.

I'm OK with it being closed and locked, but I'm also OK with it just being moved into the fringe subsections. However, I'll most likely abandon the thread at that point, because you're right: I don't get the feeling I'm going to get anywhere with either heyuhua or wangchaoqing. Ironically, they are too set in their ways ("conservative").

Additionally, I think my work here is done anyway: I've raised multiple questions and issues about Yang's work that both heyuhua and wangchaoqing are dodging and failing to address quite consistently. On top of that, every once in a while heyuhua throws around insults while complaining about the same when else somebody talks negatively about his attitude or Yang's work. It's (in my opinion) quite sad to see somebody take enough of an interest in science to dive into this amount of detail, only to not actually care enough about science to learn it properly, and get indignant when others try to teach them.

James R, I'll leave it up to you (and the rest of the moderation staff) to choose whether to lock the thread, or move it: either is fine with me.

 

[heyuhua]

Yes, exactly, it's the same idea, which is why it's doubly surprising Yang gets a different answer. If tens of thousands of experts in the field say -8, and one person says 4, which scenario is more likely to be true? That ten of thousands of experts in the field are wrong, or that one person is wrong?

of course, Yang is correct, the truth is often in the minority.Why some of the difficulties in cosmology have not yet been solved are because people are unwilling to modify the defects of the basic theory，and don't even dare to face such a mistake. In order to cover up the errors of the basic theory, the dark matter dark energy hypothesis was put forward so that cosmology go further and further on the wrong road, and now it was indeed time to look back.

 

[heyuhua]

I've raised multiple questions and issues about Yang's work that both heyuhua and wangchaoqing are dodging and failing to address quite consistently. On top of that, every once in a whi

I've answered your questions countless times，but you won't have a look at all, and even less willing to accept it. the irritating thing is that you said I didn't answer you, I don't know what you're asking me to answer.
About the coefficient 4 replaces the coefficient -8 , it's the result of our calculations. If you think it's wrong， you must calculate for yourself, or you will not be qualified to object. if you think the works of our predecessors were all correct and perfect, then science will stop developing

 

[heyuhua]

James R, I'll leave it up to you (and the rest of the moderation staff) to choose whether to lock the thread, or move it: either is fine with me.

why lock or move the post, it is merely a post, are you scared?

 

[origin]

Don't insult me

What was insulting? You claimed that one of our members was being paid to disagree with your Yang's ideas. That is a conspiracy theory.
Perhaps you meant something else and it is just a translation issue.

 

[Hayden]

The wiki link on EFE states as flows about sign in the RHS,


Authors including Einstein have used a different sign in their definition for the Ricci tensor which results in the sign of the constant on the right side being negative

{\displaystyle R_{\mu \nu }-{\tfrac {1}{2}}Rg_{\mu \nu }-\Lambda g_{\mu \nu }=-{\frac {8\pi G}{c^{4}}}T_{\mu \nu }.}

Therefore I suggest NotEinstein should stop trolling them on this point. Will see about 8 and 4, if I could get that.

 

[NotEinstein]

of course, Yang is correct,

Of course, something you've repeatedly failed to demonstrate.

the truth is often in the minority.

And this is not one of those cases.

Why some of the difficulties in cosmology have not yet been solved are because people are unwilling to modify the defects of the basic theory，

The only person unwilling to correct defects here appears to be you.

and don't even dare to face such a mistake.

Says the person dodging questions and failing to address issues.

In order to cover up the errors of the basic theory, the dark matter dark energy hypothesis was put forward

Dark matter and dark energy are two completely different things. I'm surprised you haven't learned this yet, even though I pointed it out to you multiple times now. What was that about unwillingness to correct defects again?

so that cosmology go further and further on the wrong road, and now it was indeed time to look back.

Well, looking back at this thread, somebody is indeed going further and further on the wrong road.

Any chance of you actually answering some questions, or addressing some of the issues brought up?

I've answered your questions countless times，

Go back to the start of the thread, and read through it again. There's a whole bunch of questions you haven't addressed, like how there can be movement in a static universe. But more recently, you've failed to address the question why Yang gets a different coefficient to the EFE than tens of thousands of GR-experts.

but you won't have a look at all,

I've look at everything you've said and linked to, even the sources you provided that prove Yang wrong. Have you looked at them yourself?

and even less willing to accept it.

You've failed to adequately support your position so far, so why should I accept it? You clearly aren't aware of how science works.

the irritating thing is that you said I didn't answer you, I don't know what you're asking me to answer.

Well, let's focus on the most recent issue: how is it possible that everybody going through the EFE derivations gets -8, but Yang gets 4? You've said yourself: the approaches are quite similar. So the precise question (that I've posed before) is this: point out the exact location in the derivation (equation number or line of text, plus the page number) in Weinberg's textbook, where Weinberg makes the mistake that leads him to reach -8 instead of 4, and explain why Weinberg is wrong there, but Yang gets it right.

About the coefficient 4 replaces the coefficient -8 , it's the result of our calculations. If you think it's wrong， you must calculate for yourself,

Who says I haven't done so?

But better yet, I don't need to: it was already done by Einstein, Weinberg, Adler, Mesner, Carroll, and your own Chinese author. If you think they are wrong (and you do), why don't you show your calculations that demonstrate that?

or you will not be qualified to object.

Again, that's not how science works.

Also, you barely managed to calculate 8 divided by 4 in this very thread; according to your own criteria, that makes you unqualified to object to anything more mathematically advanced, such as GR. Congratulations, you just disqualified yourself (again)!

if you think the works of our predecessors were all correct and perfect, then science will stop developing

I don't think that, but it seems you think that the work of Yang is "all correct and perfect". It's you that's stopped developing (actually, you went backwards), not science.