Chinese Scholar Yang Jian liang Putting Wrongs to Rights in Astrophysics

heyuhua said:
all of you who are employed by the mainstream are always thinking of trying to demonize new findings, are always attacking new things in many ways and by many means.
Click to expand...
Either supply evidence of your claim that there are members of this forum that are paid to suppress new ideas, or withdraw the claim.
 
origin said:
Either supply evidence of your claim that there are members of this forum that are paid to suppress new ideas, or withdraw the claim.[
Aren't you attacking Yang's theory? You didn't read Yang's article, or even read it at all. What qualifications do you have to blame Yang?
Click to expand...
 
origin said:
Either supply evidence of your claim that there are members of this forum that are paid to suppress new ideas, or withdraw the claim
Click to expand...
Aren't you attacking Yang's theory? You didn't understand Yang's article, or even didn't read it at all. What qualifications do you have to blame Yang？You're weird.，What reptiles? Yang's work will be carried forward in the attack。
 
Last edited:
heyuhua said:
Aren't you attacking Yang's theory?
Click to expand...
I am saying much of your OP is pseudoscience.
You didn't understand Yang's article, or even didn't read it at all.
Click to expand...
I read what you wrote.
What qualifications do you have to blame Yang？
Click to expand...
I am not blaming Yang, I am simply say much of what you wrote is pseudoscience.
You're weird.
Click to expand...
Uh OK, you're funny looking [shrug]
What reptiles?
Click to expand...
It was kinda a joke.
Yang's work will be carried forward in the attack。
Click to expand...
If the OP is a fair representation of Yang, then Yang's work will fade into obscurity.

So did you withdraw your claim that some members of the this forum are paid to object to new ideas?
 
Accusing someone of being a paid attacker/shill, especially without evidence, is something we take a dim view of here.
origin said:
I am saying much of your OP is pseudoscience
Click to expand...
do you know what pseudoscience is? do you know what nonsense is? I didn't indeed expect you who are hired by mainstream to be so shameless, you can say any nonsense and slander others for dinner, aren't you a bunch of hooligans? Do you go deep into Yang's work? Attack others without knowing what other people are doing, aren't you hooligans? You every day are on the Internet, isn't for the purpose of attacking new discoveries? Who pays you, isn't a vested interest group? You are opposed to any new theory or new idea that appears on the Internet. You've never supported anything new. Your mind gets sick for dinner, and severe distortion of your soul
 
Last edited:
If you were hired to sabotage the spread of new theories, you 'd be pathetic.， because, objectively, you're hindering human progress.
 
origin said:
Reported for unfounded and unsupported accusations.
Click to expand...
It is most inappropriate behavior for you to stigmatize Yang's new great discovery as pseudoscience. I have found that you're all very hostile to new ideas.
 
A few matters:

I have moved this thread to Pseudoscience, out of our mainstream science forums. If heyuhua ever manages to explain why this isn't pseudoscience, then it can be moved back. I have decided not to close it, although I can't see heyuhua adding anything useful to what has already been said. It seems that he is reduced to insulting his readers.

heyuhua claims to be a close collaborator of this Yang person. However, he apparently is unable to explain the justification for changing that -8 to a +4 in Einstein's equation. Since this is presumably a fundamental modification to general relativity, it sounds like a central part of Yang's theory. heyuhua or Yang should be able to explain to their readers the theoretical justification for making this modification.

In general, my impression is that heyuhua is not equipped to have this discussion on Yang's behalf. I suggest that Yang himself should explain his work, because heyuhua cannot do so.

As further evidence that this thread is in the correct subforum, heyuhua has adopted the typical cry of the crank, claiming that everybody who questions the Great Work is a paid propagandist or a conspirator on behalf of the Grand Scientific Conspiracy to protect the status quo. In contrast, real scientists are able to put a cogent argument up for peer review by their colleagues.

I would end by saying that the argument that "They all laughed at Galileo, too" isn't particularly persuasive when you're promoting an "Alternative" theory. So what if they laughed at Galileo?* They laughed at Bozo the Clown, too.

---
* As a matter of historical fact, the "establishment" never laughed at Galileo's work. On the contrary, they took him very seriously indeed.
 
James R said:
In general, my impression is that heyuhua is not equipped to have this discussion on Yang's behalf. I suggest that Yang himself should explain his work, because heyuhua cannot do so.
Click to expand...
Do you believe in NotEinstein? His knowledge is very shallow, He said himself that he could not repeat Yang's calculations, can a person who doesn't understand other people's calculations be fair enough to comment on other people's work? Besides, Yang's theory, which is closely combined with practice, has exact and verifiable prophecy,that is to say, Yang's theory is falsifiable, such a theory cannot in any way be said to be pseudoscience. What is pseudoscience, pseudoscience is science that can't be disproved in principle, obviously not related to Yang's theory.
 
heyuhua said:
Do you believe in NotEinstein? His knowledge is very shallow, He said himself that he could not repeat Yang's calculations, can a person who doesn't understand other people's calculations be fair enough to comment on other people's work? Besides, Yang's theory, which is closely combined with practice, has exact and verifiable prophecy,that is to say, Yang's theory is falsifiable, such a theory cannot in any way be said to be pseudoscience. What is pseudoscience, pseudoscience is science that can't be disproved in principle, obviously not related to Yang's theory.
Click to expand...

I supported you a bit on that negative sign, so I feel it's my duty towards other participants to be fair.

If you read, I am sure you have, Yang's paper, then he makes a statement that "obviously......Einstein constant is 4pi instead of -8pi......"

I do not understand how Yang claims.."obviously.......". I see nothing obvious.

I get a nudge feeling that with modified equation terms (1+2GM/rc2) etc, it could happen but it is not obvious.

He also claims that this modified constant reduces the EFEs to Newtonian even when v~c. (The original GR requires v<<c), here also he makes a statement without proof.

So there is a clear cut work for you or for Yang, that is..

1. Give calculations with 4pi as Einstein Constant showing reduction of these equations to Newtonian under v~c and weak field.

[Pl note that these calculations are available for standard GR, infact -8pi is derived based on reduction to Newtonian in limiting case of v<<c and weak field.]
 
Yes, you do, let me see. Complex maths and I don't pretend to know it full. So I may take some time.

But I think I was right in my feeling that change of matrix terms could lead to different constant, so it has to be seen how the terms itself could be changed.
 
Hayden said:
But I think I was right in my feeling that change of matrix terms could lead to different constant, so it has to be seen how the terms itself could be changed
Click to expand...
in the PDF , on page 1, line 14 , the absolute value l huv l should be much less than 1, that is to say l huv l<<1, not l huv l=1. But your reador may wrongly read as l huv l=1
 
Which peer-reviewed journals have Yang's papers been published in? If I am going to read just one of them, for starters, which one should I read?
 
Thanks for that. My GR is a bit rusty, so let' see what NotEinstein (and maybe some of our other experts) make of it.

Also, you didn't answer my question about which peer-reviewed journals Yang's work has been published in. Are you expecting your readers to search for the papers themselves?
 
James R said:
Also, you didn't answer my question about which peer-reviewed journals Yang's work has been published in. Are you expecting your readers to search for the papers themselves?
Click to expand...
You want to know the magazine that publishes Yang's thesis. Okay, I'll tell you.
international journal of the physical science ISSN:1992-1950. Modification of Gravitational field equation and rational solution to cosmological Puzzles. http://www.academicjournals.org/journal/IJPS/article-abstract/E45ED6023633
also, International Journal of Advanced Research in Physical Science (IJARPS) ISSN 2349-7874, www.arcjournals.org.
https://www.arcjournals.org/pdfs/ijarps/v3-i8/2.pdf
also, British Journal of Mathematics & Computer Science 1(3): 141-164, 2011.
http://www.journalrepository.org/me...ay/1306478330-Published_Yang_2011BJMCS294.pdf
 
It is worth noting that although Yang's articles have been published in international journals, it is difficult to understand them. The introductions aren't simple and are too inadequate, the jumping steps in mathematical calculation are also large. So far, it hasn't caused a sensation, too bad. we hope you'll take care of the achievement, and since Yang's discovery is a substantial contribution to science, your positive communication is also a contribution to scientific progress
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top