It's his own nonsense, I'm pretty well sure. He linked to a female cosmologists the other day, saying she supported his nonsense, and contrary to what delusional claims he was making, it most certainly did not support his claims.
Chinese Scholar Yang Jian liang Putting Wrongs to Rights in Astrophysics
- Thread starter heyuhua
- Start date
heyuhua
Registered Senior Member
I'm not slandering one little bit. Your continued ignoring of facts and your continual repeated childish claims are your own doing. Yang's hypothesis will like your hypothesis, simply be lost in cyber space somewhere.
Yeah that's what most trolls and others with unscientific agendas always say.
In the meantime, science progresses as dictated by the scientific methodology, and that includes the many many mergings of galaxies as per the many links that I and others have given you, and which you in your childishness continue to ignore.
It's not me who doesn't care about the facts of observation, it are you these employed who don't care about the basic facts of observation. You wish Yang's theory to be lost in cyber space, but it's just your delusion Yang's theory will replace the current mainstream theory, because truth is invincible and science always develops.
Yang's theory holds that not only does the space between galaxies expand according to Hubble's law, but also the galaxy itself is expanding according to Hubble's Law, and new matter is continuously formed in the celestial body.
In Yang's theory, galaxies grow and new matter continues to form in celestial bodies. Today is the initial condition or origin for understanding the past and the future, and the past or the future can be inferred from today.
And again,why do not you base the theory of galaxy formation on the expansion of the universe that galaxies are separating from each other? Why do you recognize only the continuous creation of space and not the continuous creation of matter? isn't the continuous expansion of space the continuous creation of space? Why can space be created continuously while matter cannot be created continuously and only was created at the moment of The big bang ? Can you answer these?
Last edited:
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Hi Pad
I personally doubt they laughted at Galileo (what evidence does matey have to that effect ) ...I have never heard about "them" laughing ....they would have been terrified that he would bring down the whole church empire and he would have if not leaned on to hide the truth...and unlike many with new ideas Galileo was able to demonstrate his position with his new scientific equipment.
Have a look at the vid I posted earlier...largest gallaxy ...interesting stuff.
Alex
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Lets say he is 100% correct I fail to see why his approach prevents gallaxies merging in fact in his senerio they would be getting bigger and therefore more likely to be gravitationally moved to other gallaxies and as you say there are no gallaxy mergers which must prove Lang is wrong.
Seriously how does his idea prevent merger????
And the evidence against your positions is huge ...you can still believe Lang is right if you must but get real on gallaxy merger....it happens.
Your grasp of things moving is lacking ... stuff that is heading our way does so at extraordinary speeds covering millions of kilometers a year...much more than your centermeter Moon movement.
Please stop being silly I am starting to feel sorry for you and others like you to the point where I think we should start a charity to look after special folk like you who are allergic to facts...do facts give you a rash or just cause frothing around the mouth...sorry I should be totally compassionate about your unfortunate condition.
Also how do you explain the many globular clusters ( millions of stars of old age) orbiting in various gallaxies including our own...the most likey explanation of these curious tight cores composed of old stars is they are the remains of smaller gallaxies consumed by the host gallaxy...the stars within are very old often older than the host gallaxy I believe...
I hope you looked at the vid..its real short but it shows one huge gallaxy as big as from here to M31...
Mass generation gone crazy no doubt.
Alex
Last edited:
NotEinstein
Valued Senior Member
Many, many pages back, I pointed out one particular shortcoming in Yang's work. heyuhua immediately linked to a file upload website, containing a Word document with Yang's work, where he claimed this issue was addressed. It was not. For several posts pretty much in a row, I would point that out, and he would immediately post a new version (still containing the shortcoming, but with some other modifications).
If heyuhua isn't Yang, then he's his slave.
heyuhua
Registered Senior Member
Don't be paranoid. I'm just Yang's assistant. I introduce Yang's theory to you.Many, many pages back, I pointed out one particular shortcoming in Yang's work. heyuhua immediately linked to a file upload website, containing a Word document with Yang's work, where he claimed this issue was addressed. It was not. For several posts pretty much in a row, I would point that out, and he would immediately post a new version (still containing the shortcoming, but with some other modifications).
If heyuhua isn't Yang, then he's his slave.
Yang's theory holds that not only does the space between galaxies expand according to Hubble's law, but also the galaxy itself is expanding according to Hubble's Law, and new matter is continuously formed in the celestial body.
In Yang's theory, galaxies grow and new matter continues to form in celestial bodies. Today is the initial condition or origin for understanding the past and the future, and the past or the future can be inferred from today.
And again,why do not you base the theory of galaxy formation on the expansion of the universe that galaxies are separating from each other? Why do you recognize only the continuous creation of space and not the continuous creation of matter? isn't the continuous expansion of space the continuous creation of space? Why can space be created continuously while matter cannot be created continuously and only was created at the moment of The big bang ? Can you answer these?
NotEinstein
Valued Senior Member
Says the person seeing a global conspiracy against the progress of science.
Call it whatever you want.
And you're not doing that too well.
But the mainstream cosmological theory is. That you don't know or understand that, doesn't mean it's not the case.
1) I have seen no evidence of this;
2) Conservation of energy.
These two situations are not analogous; matter and space are completely different things.
I never made that claim.
Yes, and I just did.
heyuhua
Registered Senior Member
“1) I have seen no evidence of this; 2) Conservation of energy.”
well, you should realize that the continuous expansion of space is essentially the continuous creation of space. If you admit the expansion of space, there is no reason to reject the continuous creation of matter, because matter and space are unified, and since the universe is able to make space, it is able to make matte，and isn't the constant creation of space in the universe to offer place for new matter?
Besides, the common law of conservation of energy is established without considering the expansion of space.，and once the expansion of space is considered, it is also natural that some modification of the law of conservation is necessary. Yang's theory does not violate the law of conservation of energy, even though matter is created continuously. The increase in the mass of objects or galaxies meets dm + pdv=0, which is exactly the first law of thermodynamics after neglecting heat exchange，namely conservation of energy, and obviously, when p is negative, an increase in the volume of a celestial body means an increase in mass. To be exact, Yang's theory extends the original law of conservation of energy to a higher level, including the effect of space-time expansion.
Last edited:
I don't wish anything on yang's paper....facts are facts and it is doing nothing but lingering in cyber space and will eventually and thankfully be lost, despite your continued childish antics and trolling.
Yang's hypothesis and your own nonsense aredead and will never be ressurrected, as observational evidence, have shown it to be invalid. The universe, space expands over large scales, and gravity over smaller denser scales prevents expansion...The Moon is moving away from earth, due to tidal gravitational effects...In fact while the Moon recedes, the spin of the Earth on its axis is also slowing....this will continue until around 3 billion years when the Earth and Moon will be in a captured scenario, with one side of the Earth facing the Moon, just as one side of the Moon is now facing the Earth. A day on Earth will be equal to a lunar month. This is evident in many planets/moons in our solar system, most notably being the Pluto/Charon pair.
Cosmologists do not know it all yet...But they certainly know a hell of a lot more then you and yang....space and time evolved at the BB, why? we can only at this time guess...a fluctuation in the quantum foam most likely.
And again our very first fundamentals were created when the superforce at around t+10-35 seconds started to decouple, which created phase transitions and false vaccums, the excesses of energy going into creating those first fundamentals...at three minutes we had our first atomic nuclei, then 380,000 years our first atoms of the lighter elements...Those days of tremendous pressures and temperatures are gone....matter and energy are not created anymore.
And again instead of continually repeating yourself, and ignoring all the facts put to you, the very slight variations in temperatures [1 part in a million] were the seeds of galactic/stellar formation throughout the then universe.
If you chose to promote fairy tales instead of evidenced based theoretical models, and continue on with your paranoid claims re incalcitrant science and the other excuses you have to resort to, instead of facing the facts that you are entirely wrong,then that's OK....check out the papers in the morning...check out the science mags and professional scientific academia, you'll find no changes in what science accepts based on observation...do it again in a year, there still wont be any change...try 10 years, and things will still be as is....
In a few billion years M31, the LMC, the SMC, will all have merged with the Milky Way, and many of the present distant observable galaxies, will have moved beyond the observable universe, and we will in time reach a stage where there will be no galaxies within our observable universe, except the huge conglomeration of stars from the MW and M31 merger.
In fact my dear friend, in a few trillion years time, we will actually have no evidence of any expansion, as the distant galaxies move beyond the observable horizon and the CMBR has faded to near zero...the only evidence will be that recorded from past ages.
The following reputable article tells it far better then I can......
https://futurism.com/the-future-of-the-universe
Billion Years – Milkdromeda Is Born
Soon afterwards, the Andromeda galaxy will collide with our Milky Way, forming a large elliptical galaxy. Some have suggested we name it Milkdromeda. (We really need to start working on a better name — time is running out after all!)
Our solar system can currently be found in the Orion spur of one of our galaxy’s spiral arms, situated some 25,000 light-years back from the central core, but after the merger, it is expected to be pushed back to about 100,000 light-years from the center of the galaxy.
The central region of the newly-formed Milkdromeda will go through a drastic phase change of its own. The merger will inevitably result in the supermassive black holes from both galaxies combining to form an ultra-massive black hole with the combined mass of billions of Suns.
10 Billion Years – The Dust Settles
After the merger is complete, the dust will finish settling, leaving behind scant evidence to suggest an epic merger took place at all. However, by observing white dwarfs and calculating their age (and their concentration of heavy metals), astronomers may be able to deduce the existence of an event that triggered furious star formation within the galaxy. Such an event could only be one thing: a galaxy merger.
100 Billion Years – The Light Starts To Dim
100 billion years from now, the ever-accelerating expansion of the universe — most commonly called dark energy— will cause all but 1,000 members of the Virgo Supercluster — where our galaxy, along with other members of our local group, reside— to red-shift into oblivion, never to be seen again by astronomers in our galaxy or any nearby.
In a trillion years, evidence of the Big Bang in the form of the cosmic microwave background radiation, which was created a mere 379,000 years after the birth of the universe, will grow dim to the point of invisibility. From there, it will then be lost forever, perhaps leading future astronomers to believe the universe is static and unchanging.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
The more you post denying such reputable predictions and validated claims heyuhua, the more sillier you are sounding. Your so called claims posted here are going nowhere, and I have not seen anyone yet fool enough to support your nonsense...Take note....the title of this thread is "putting wrongs to rights" yes you are doing that...and you are already in pseudoscience with only one more step to the cesspool.
Well he was put under house arrest.
A guard or two may have had a snigger!Incredible stuff! When you consider the MW is only 100,000 L/years across [only!] and then compare it to these giants! The mind truly boggles!
47 pages and as yet you havn't presented this evidence, as opposed to the many reputable photos and data invalidating your claims.
Yang's theory is totally contradicted by observational data from the many state of the art probes in orbit, and ground based 'scopes. The mainstream explanation and model is unchallenged in professional cosmological circles.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
heyuhua
Registered Senior Member
Whether Yang's theory is contrary to observation or the mainstream theory is contrary to observation, I believe the real scholars are aware. It's no use for you to puke shit on it, the only effect is that you are proved to be the servants hired by vested interests.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Yes but if we ignore the observations and wish real real hard it could come true...pleeeaze say it could be true☺
I like to think folk like our opening poster provides an opportunity for onlookers to pick up some good science (as I certainly do) with your excellent contributions and those of Not Einstein....
I do think however the creationists are becoming a grave problem...I dont feel those challenging mainstream wanting their theory to be mainstream are as much of a problem as creationists.
The reason I bang on that the universe is eternal is to annoy them no creation no need for a creator really annoys them...even if it means an eternal quantum foam so be it...but no start no starter if you see the logic☺
I just saw a vid that makes you want to slash your wrists..I could have turned it off afyer the first minute but whated it all the way to see what these dingbats tell each other...the Earth is the center of the universe dont you know...its stationary....and that alone is certainly evidence of a "grand watchmaker"...they did not say as much but I bet the Earth is flat as well.... anti science loons but they are doing real damage in my view.
I cant attack the fool who posted the vid on my astronomy site because we cant discuss religion but it has ruined my day...and he lives in Sydney...When back down there I wont feel like leaving the house knowing there are bingbats like that roaming the place.
Great posts.
Alex
No the mainstream interpretation is supported overwhelmingly and supported by observation.....yang's model and your nonsense is totally invalidated and will in time be thankfully lost in cyber space. As this forum is aware and as the scholars in science academia are aware, but I doubt if they are aware of yang!
And again the "vested interests" paranoia so often pushed by those harbouring agendas!
That's the state of the nation at this time and will be for a while yet.ps: Did you enjoy my lesson for you on the probable universe's history?
Have you tried posting your nonsense on any other forum as yet? Give it a go and see if you go past 2 pages of your nonsense before it is closed and scrapped.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
You are talking through your hat which clearly you are sitting on☺ but thats ok so long as you want to play science and are not going to say god provides the new matter.
Or is all this about trying to attack mainstream so you can attack evolution...what are your views on evolution..is it science or do you reject evolution??????
Where do you stand.
Alex
heyuhua
Registered Senior Member
In fact, there has been a serious confrontation between mainstream theory and observation.In order to overcome this contradiction, mainstream theory had to invent something that doesn't exist to solve its difficulties, for example, dark matter and dark energy were born in this context. In fact, what one should really do is to modify the existing theory, not to introduce something that doesn't exist at will to cover up the shortcomings or mistakes of the existing theory. To do so is to mislead further research and create directional errors. The main weakness or error of mainstream theory of galaxy formation is that it can't explain all the observational facts in a consistent way，new assumptions must be constantly introduced ，which seriously destroys the logic of the theory.
Yang's new theory does not have these drawbacks. Although there is negative pressure to raise in Yang's theory, it is the solution of the modified gravitational field equation rather than the random introduction.So the negative pressure doesn't break logic
Yang's new theory does not have these drawbacks. Although there is negative pressure to raise in Yang's theory, it is the solution of the modified gravitational field equation rather than the random introduction.So the negative pressure doesn't break logic
Last edited:
heyuhua
Registered Senior Member
You have to understand that the whole history of science is a history of error correction, and old theories must be replaced by new, more advanced ones. Of course, this kind of error correction is the process of identifying false things and retaining the real things, or the process of removing the dross from the essence, rather than completely negating or affirming.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
If it makes you happy I have days where I think that or similar because the notion of dark matter certainly does not appeal but the problem becomes that GR has proved correct all the time ...because as you must know it only takes one mistake and a model gets thrown in the bin.
So we need to trust GR until something better comes along... maybe your mate has something and if he does he will win...but not right away...getting a new model established could be seen like being a fighter who starts with small fights proves himself again and again until he can fight for the championship.
You do him some damage in so far as when something is pointed out as valid observational evidence it seems you reject it if it does not fit the plan.
Saying gallaxies dont merge is like coming inside wringing wet and saying its not raining... really...its these little things that not only errodes your credibility but that of the idea you are presenting.
I must read what the op actually says..I might agree☺ I only jumped in because you were making a claim that really does go against the observations...mergers are real it seems.
Alex