It is? Test: $$G^\mu_\nu$$
Are you suggesting the forum software is conspiring against you?
Erm, it's you that's unable to answer the most basic questions. It's you that's shown zero understanding so far.
How many people have shown such interest in Yang's articles over the past 8 years?
I wasn't playing, but if you are unable to answer even the most basic questions, then yeah, there's no sense in continuing, I agree.
Answering the most basic questions is too taxing? Then why did you post this here in the first place?
in fact, your the most basic question isn't a question at all if you can follow Yang to calculate . unfortunately, here I cann't give detailed calculation since mathematics equations are not supported, you can only go to chew hard the original articles of Yang
about the derivation of coupling constant see here:
about the derivation of coupling constant and pressure p as well as the solution to waek field metrics you may see:
You keep claiming that, but you keep refusing to back up that claim. It appears you also aren't able to follow Yang.
This has already been demonstrated to be false. Please stop lying.
No, it's you that needs to do that. You posted this here, it's up to you to defend it.
That document contains the same problems, and doesn't go into further depth. You are repeating yourself. Why are you unable to answer this simple question?
I don'y know what your questions are, what are you saying? what questions cann't I answer? indeed I cann't understand what these symbols
Just scrolling through this thread, I've found at least the following things you haven't adequately addressed yet:
Those symbols mean that you have your excuse that sub- and superscript doesn't work on this forum has been disproven.
I cann't understand you accurately, please you type in doc format, then put a place to give a link
What do you mean?
The other questions will not be discussed for the time being , I ask you, do you understand the short discussion in the address http://prep.nstl.gov.cn/preprint/inte.html?action=getFile&id=2c928282510e4d7301630a2d22c2211a ?
That document contains the minus-sign difference in the Ricci tensor calculation, without addressing it at all, right above equation (1). So everything derived from that is suspicious. It also contains the double mistake where it is talking about a moving particle in a static universe with only a perfect fluid. So what short discussion were you talking about specifically?
If you can't understand why there's that minus-sign difference in the Ricci tensor calculation, or why talking about a moving particle in a static universe with only a perfect fluid is nonsense, there indeed is no value to continue.
the equation (1) is just the harmonic condition which is often used, can be see in any a textbook , don't you know? and again, in the short discussion we only deal with the static gravitational field of spherical symmetry and how a free particle moves in the static gravitational field of spherical symmetry, obviously don't come down to universal question, why must you talk about universe here?
Please re-read my post; I wasn't talking about equation (1), I was talking about the (unlabeled) equation right above that.
You really don't have a clue about how the stress-energy tensor works, do you? In all Yang's articles, there is only one contribution to the stress-energy tensor: a perfect fluid. In the derivation, this fluid is made static. In other words, the only thing existing in Yang's universe is a static perfect fluid. A moving particle thus cannot exist, because:
Sure, and when you make it static, there can be no moving particles. That's also well known.
in static gravitational field there is the motion of free particle, for example, the earth moves round the sun, obviously the earth is in the static gravitational field of the sun, the matter that forms the sun is the source of the gravitational field, of course, its stress-energy tensor becomes to perfect fluid, in a word, you cann't say there isn't motion in static field
Only if you ignore the gravitational contribution of the earth, which might be a fine approximation in some situations.
Have you even read Yang's articles yourself? We're not talking about a static gravitational field. Yang's explicitly sets the velocity of the perfect fluid to zero. In other words, we're talking about a static perfect fluid. And yes, that leads to a static gravitational field, but it also means that there can be no moving particles, because there can be no movement.