Chinese Scholar Yang Jian liang Putting Wrongs to Rights in Astrophysics

[origin]

Yang's theory is a scientific truth, which has been confirmed by the latest observations and will certainly replace the old doctrine.

No, it has not been confirmed.

 

[NotEinstein]

You are wrong. "models of galaxy formation predict that the new stars will slowly increase the size of the galaxy they reside in.", this is about galaxies absorbing foreign matter and galaxies grow slightly. But by absorbing foreign matter, it's impossible to expand the radius of the galaxy by 500 meters per second, which is the velocity of a bullet, and it's only the result of a global expansion.In fact, if foreign material accumulates at this rate on the edge, then the rest of the disk should pile up at that rate, galaxies can only be spherical，real galaxies are obviously not the case. In short, the expansion of the galaxy radius at a speed of 500 metres per second can only be explained as the result of the expansion of the galaxy as a whole, and any other explanation is unreasonable.

Well, I eagerly await the publishing of your rebuttal in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

 

[NotEinstein]

Yang's theory is a scientific truth, which has been confirmed by the latest observations and will certainly replace the old doctrine. No matter how insulting you may be, the truth is invincible

Note the usage of the term "scientific truth": this betrays either a language barrier, or a profound misunderstanding of how science works. I'll leave it up to the reader to decide which.

 

[paddoboy]

You are extremely wrong, don't talk nonsense. Yang's theory is a scientific truth, which has been confirmed by the latest observations and will certainly replace the old doctrine. No matter how insulting you may be, the truth is invincible

I'm not insulting, just telling it as it is. And you need to stop making false claims, as your theory most certainly not been confirmed by any observational evidence, and I doubt if it ever will. Rather it will simply fade away and die, lost in cyber space when you decide to stop peppering this forum with your nonsense.

 

[heyuhua]

I'm not insulting, just telling it as it is. And you need to stop making false claims, as your theory most certainly not been confirmed by any observational evidence, and I doubt if it ever will. Rather it will simply fade away and die, lost in cyber space when you decide to stop peppering this forum with your nonsense.

Yang's theory has been confirmed by Cristina Martínez-Lombilla's observation，and will continue to be confirmed by subsequent observations.It's no use hating it, don't get yourself mad

 

[paddoboy]

Yang's theory has been confirmed by Cristina Martínez-Lombilla's observation，and will continue to be confirmed by subsequent observations.It's no use hating it, don't get yourself mad

Can we please have a citation supporting that claim?
Otherwise, sweet dreams!

But anyway just to assist you....The galaxies may be getting bigger, but that in no way invalidates either the BB or GR which compliment each other.eg: The MW and M31 along with other members of the local group will have merged...viola! a larger galaxy will be the result. Obviously the methodology of Cristina will not matter very much due to these mergings.
Any more assistance you require?

 

[heyuhua]

Can we please have a citation supporting that claim?
Otherwise, sweet dreams!

But anyway just to assist you....The galaxies may be getting bigger, but that in no way invalidates either the BB or GR which compliment each other.eg: The MW and M31 along with other members of the local group will have merged...viola! a larger galaxy will be the result. Obviously the methodology of Cristina will not matter very much due to these mergings.
Any more assistance you require?

Ok, give you a citation
https://www.researchgate.net/public..._of_disc_truncations_above_the_galaxies'_mid-

https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...l-growing-surprising-scientists/#5d6cca6c5f95

"but that in no way invalidates either the BB or GR which compliment each other.eg: The MW and M31 along with other members of the local group will have merged...viola! a larger galaxy will be the result. Obviously the methodology of Cristina will not matter very much due to these mergings."

。
You are extremely wrong. You have to understand that the merging of galaxies is a direct violation of the fact that the universe is expanding，the so-called merger is just an imagination and it can't be true. Another recent observation shows that in galaxies like the Milky way, the x-shaped structure is common, and the discoverers of this structure say that the combination of galaxies will destroy the x-shaped structure, which means that the galaxy comes from gradually growing but not other way

 

[DaveC426913]

...the merging of galaxies is a direct violation of the fact that the universe is expanding...

No it isn't. As you would know if you'd done just a little bit of reading on the subject. Such misconception dynamites your credibility.

 

[heyuhua]

No it isn't. As you would know if you'd done just a little bit of reading on the subject. Such misconception dynamites your credibility.

You are wrong, and the merger of galaxies is false. The fact of the observation is that the universe is expanding. What is the expansion of the universe? the expansion of the universe is the spread of galaxies. Some people ignore the fact that the universe is expanding, and fabricate the fallacy of galaxy merger, and mislead people and hinder people's real understanding of the world, they are committing a crime . If galaxies can merge, then they were merged at the Big Bang, why do they get together again after spreading out?

 

[NotEinstein]

So the observational fact that the Andromeda galaxy is moving towards us, not away from us, is enough evidence to completely trash your theory. Well, that was easy...

 

[DaveC426913]

the expansion of the universe is the spread of galaxies.

No it isn't.

Something you'd learn if you read a little.

why do they get together again after spreading out?

Well, at least you're asking questions now. That's progress.

The short answer is that expansion occurs on scales larger than whole galaxy clusters. Galaxies within clusters are gravitationally bound, and interact just like other gravitationally bound objects do - they rotate around each other (or more like around common centres of mass) and occasionally collide.

Andromeda and The Milky Way are in the grip of gravity that is orders of magnitude larger than the expansion of the universe.

You might as well ask why asteroids in the asteroid belt occasionally collide. Did you think they were all just sitting at-rest with respect to each other?

How do you hope to explain galaxies that are observed to be in collision?

Seriously, you don't know enough about cosmology to refute it. Asking questions (and reading more) is your best hope.

 

[heyuhua]

No it isn't.

Something you'd learn if you read a little.



Well, at least you're asking questions now. That's progress.

The short answer is that expansion occurs on scales larger than whole galaxy clusters. Galaxies within clusters are gravitationally bound, and interact just like other gravitationally bound objects do - they rotate around each other (or more like around common centres of mass) and occasionally collide.

Andromeda and The Milky Way are in the grip of gravity that is orders of magnitude larger than the expansion of the universe.

You might as well ask why asteroids in the asteroid belt occasionally collide. Did you think they were all just sitting at-rest with respect to each other?

How do you hope to explain galaxies that are observed to be in collision?

Seriously, you don't know enough about cosmology to refute it. Asking questions (and reading more) is your best hope.

Don't be ridiculous. Galaxies don't collide, not only galaxies don't collide, neither do celestial bodies in galaxies, the celestial bodies move methodically in their respective orbits. If they were able to collide, they would have collided long time ago, not today. Galaxies are actually expanding, and the expansion of the Milky way's radius at 500 meters per second is a powerful evidence of galaxy expansion. Recent observations show that even the small solar system is expanding, the planets are moving away from the sun, for example, after considering the tides, the moon has extra retrograde motion, which can only be explained by the expansion of galaxies. You have to accept the reality and stop being obstinate

 

[heyuhua]

So the observational fact that the Andromeda galaxy is moving towards us, not away from us, is enough evidence to completely trash your theory. Well, that was easy...

Stop messing around，even if some celestial bodies look coming towards us, it does not mean that they will fall on the earth, they will deviate away. In short, the collision of celestial bodies is a false proposition，and it is the general rule that celestial bodies are systematically far away from each other

 

[DaveC426913]

Don't be ridiculous. Galaxies don't collide,

If you're going to simply flat out deny observational fact, then there is no further discussion to be had.

the celestial bodies move methodically in their respective orbits.

Heh. I guess that puts an upper limit on your age of ... 24?

You clearly were not around for Comet Schumaker Levy when it plunged into Jupiter in '94.

 

[paddoboy]

Ok, give you a citation
https://www.researchgate.net/public..._of_disc_truncations_above_the_galaxies'_mid-

https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...l-growing-surprising-scientists/#5d6cca6c5f95

Neither of those papers support your childish interpretation of what is happening.

You are extremely wrong. You have to understand that the merging of galaxies is a direct violation of the fact that the universe is expanding，the so-called merger is just an imagination and it can't be true. Another recent observation shows that in galaxies like the Milky way, the x-shaped structure is common, and the discoverers of this structure say that the combination of galaxies will destroy the x-shaped structure, which means that the galaxy comes from gradually growing but not other way

Then I suggest that you or Yang or whoever write up a professional scientific paper, for a professional publishing company, for professional peer review and see how far you get. As others have told you, you are plain and simply totally wrong, whether or not you are man enough to admit that is another matter.
In actual fact, and putting it as basically as possible for your sake, the universe is actually in a tug of war between the expansion observed over the large scales, and gravity from local denser regions, over smaller scales. The smaller scales such as our local group, are actually decoupled from the overall large scale expansion where the density is less...much as a fish swimming at 5 kph against a current of 10kph, will not make any headway.
That's the way it is my friend, and no matter how much you kick and scream and deny those observational facts, they remain as detailed by myself and others.

I also would suggest that you try to promote your fairy tale on other science forums that have stricter guidelines and protocol then this one and see how far you get. IN general, you will get to put your idea, you will be asked to support it with evidence and then obviously in your case, being unable to do this, your subject will be closed and discarded just as should be done here.

 

[NotEinstein]

Stop messing around，even if some celestial bodies look coming towards us, it does not mean that they will fall on the earth,

Erm, I never claimed that they would "fall on the earth"; that's your fabrication. It appears that you are the one that needs to "stop messing around".

they will deviate away.

And what magical force, pray tell, will make the Andromeda galaxy deviate?

In short, the collision of celestial bodies is a false proposition，and it is the general rule that celestial bodies are systematically far away from each other

You can't claim a specific instance to be wrong based purely on a general rule. Perhaps you should look up what "general rule" means.

 

[heyuhua]

If you're going to simply flat out deny observational fact, then there is no further discussion to be had.


Heh. I guess that puts an upper limit on your age of ... 24?

You clearly were not around for Comet Schumaker Levy when it plunged into Jupiter in '94.

 

[heyuhua]

If you're going to simply flat out deny observational fact, then there is no further discussion to be had.


Heh. I guess that puts an upper limit on your age of ... 24?

You clearly were not around for Comet Schumaker Levy when it plunged into Jupiter in '94.

I don't deny that some small asterisks or dust fall into celestial bpodies by chance, but this doesn't mean celestial bodies can collide, let alone suggest that galaxies come from merger, because the effect of accidental factors on celestial bodies, especially on large ones, is negligible. Obviously, if galaxies come from merger, galaxy amalgamation will be a common phenomenon, and the conclusion of cosmic expansion will lose its foundation.Thus, the theory of galaxy merger contradicts the most basic observational facts and is only an imagination. The view of galaxy merger may have a market before the fact of the expansion of the universe is discovered, and it would be lame to sell it after the expansion of the universe has been discovered.

 

[heyuhua]

If you're going to simply flat out deny observational fact, then there is no further discussion to be had.


Heh. I guess that puts an upper limit on your age of ... 24?

You clearly were not around for Comet Schumaker Levy when it plunged into Jupiter in '94.

I don't deny that some small asterisks or dust fall into celestial bodies by chance due to accidental factors such as burst of bodies or other perturbations, but this doesn't mean celestial bodies can collide, let alone suggest that galaxies come from merger, because the effect of accidental factors on celestial bodies, especially on large ones, is negligible. Obviously, if galaxies come from merger, galaxy amalgamation will be a common phenomenon, and the conclusion of cosmic expansion will lose its foundation.Thus, the theory of galaxy merger contradicts the most basic observational facts and is only an imagination. The view of galaxy merger may have a market before the fact of the expansion of the universe is discovered, and it would be lame to sell it after the expansion of the universe has been discovered.

 

[heyuhua]

Neither of those papers support your childish interpretation of what is happening.


Then I suggest that you or Yang or whoever write up a professional scientific paper, for a professional publishing company, for professional peer review and see how far you get. As others have told you, you are plain and simply totally wrong, whether or not you are man enough to admit that is another matter.
In actual fact, and putting it as basically as possible for your sake, the universe is actually in a tug of war between the expansion observed over the large scales, and gravity from local denser regions, over smaller scales. The smaller scales such as our local group, are actually decoupled from the overall large scale expansion where the density is less...much as a fish swimming at 5 kph against a current of 10kph, will not make any headway.
That's the way it is my friend, and no matter how much you kick and scream and deny those observational facts, they remain as detailed by myself and others.

I also would suggest that you try to promote your fairy tale on other science forums that have stricter guidelines and protocol then this one and see how far you get. IN general, you will get to put your idea, you will be asked to support it with evidence and then obviously in your case, being unable to do this, your subject will be closed and discarded just as should be done here.

You are extremely wrong. Yang's theory has been published, and is introduced on the first pages of this post, but you do not want to read it. If you are a real scholar, please read Yang's thesis with an open mind，it will open your eyes. Stubbornness is worthless，and truth must replace fallacy