heyuhua
Registered Senior Member
your statement is absurd, so-called minus-sign mistake that you think is nonexistent at all, it is your misidentification
Chinese Scholar Yang Jian liang Putting Wrongs to Rights in Astrophysics
- Thread starter heyuhua
- Start date
NotEinstein
Valued Senior Member
Evidence please.
I've proven that Yang has a minus sign difference with both Wikipedia and Carroll in a straightforward calculation, a difference that Yang (and you) cannot explain. You keep claiming I'm wrong, without being able to demonstrate it. Why? Why do you keep repeating that already proven wrong calculation, while you try to pin Yang's mistake on me? Why is it so important to you that Yang has to be right, when (s)he clearly isn't?
This really has nothing to do with "Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology" anymore; can this thread be moved to someplace more appropriate?
heyuhua
Registered Senior Member
You need know there are different sign conventions about 4-speed and Minkowski metric in different books as such Wikipedia and Carroll, it is because different conventions that leads to the minus sign difference, but they are all correct on logic. Besides, you need grasp the details of calculation of GR, so you shall not have the confusion
NotEinstein
Valued Senior Member
Not only do I think the sign convention doesn't actually change those Ricci equations, in post #76 I've already stated that Carroll uses the same sign-convention. You were proven wrong about a hundred posts ago. Why do you continue to have to lie about such things?
And you need to grasp how to handle minus-signs, because it's quite clear you haven't mastered that just yet. Oh, and intellectual honestly.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
NotEinstein
Valued Senior Member
I agree; it seems you are unable to address the issues raised.
How can I, in good conscience, recommend an article containing such a blatant mistake?
heyuhua
Registered Senior Member
"such a blatant mistake" only are thought by you, other people don't think there is the mistake, your so-called minus-sign difference belongs just to the definition of Ricci tensor, a stipulation, it isn't a mistake at all. In a word, we really don't have to fight any more, you should recommend this article to another top expert to judge.
Last edited:
NotEinstein
Valued Senior Member
As I have already pointed out, Carroll thinks so too. And the author of that Wikipedia page too.
If Yang is using a different definition of the Ricci tensor, then comparing Yang's EFE with the usual EFE is wrong. If you merely change a definition of a mathematical term, the outcome will be the same. In other words, if true, Yang is misleading people by being obtuse.
So Yang is purposefully misleading people? OK.
Indeed. I turns out that (according to you) Yang is dishonest, and the article is purposefully misleading. I have no place in my life for morally bankrupt people like that.
No, I will not willingly propagate misleading information and lies. And neither should you. You are a bad person, and I have no interest in your attempts to mislead. Have a wonderful life.
heyuhua
Registered Senior Member
Please don't slander others' achievements, your foundation is too poor to be able to read Yang's papers, it is immoral to comment others' work indiscriminately, please don't mislead people who have interest in improving science and don't be a stumbling block to scientific progress
NotEinstein
Valued Senior Member
Achievements? How is not understanding how minus-signs work an achievement?
I read it well enough to spot an obvious mistake.
Please explain why that is the case?
I'm not trying to mislead people by telling them to read an article with a known minus-sign mistake.
If you yourself have such an interest, why don't you learn how minus-signs work?
May I suggest that the person pushing an article with an obvious minus-sign mistake is more of a stumbling block to scientific progress than I am?
wangchaoqing
Registered Member
Yang's article is indeed good, revolutionary,
Last edited:
NotEinstein
Valued Senior Member
Who are these other people you are speaking of? Because, as I've demonstrated, it at the very least doesn't include Carroll and that Wikipedia-author.
I'm not pooping on Yang's article: I've merely pointed out a mistake in it. If anyone is pooping in this thread, it's you that pooping on basic mathematics.
NotEinstein
Valued Senior Member
Great, if you can judge Yang's article like that, then please resolve the mystery of the minus-sign for us (see post #59, and take note of post #76).
(There's various other problems with the article that are raised throughout this thread, but let's start with this one.)
NotEinstein
Valued Senior Member
Please don't insult people; it's against the forum rules.
A "hallucination" shared by Carroll, that Wikipedia-author, and everyone on the planet that paid attention in primary school math classes. When everybody else seems to share a hallucination, doesn't it make you think it might just be you?
Anyway, if it's so obviously wrong, you'd have no problem pointing out where I made a mistake. You have failed to do so, and we're now over a hundred(!) posts further. Even if I'm wrong, your inability to correct such a simple mistake is impressive.
heyuhua
Registered Senior Member
I am sure you don't understand Carroll, so-called mistake you point out is actually your own imperfect or half understanding, a little learning is a dangerous thing, I advise you to study modestly
Last edited:
NotEinstein
Valued Senior Member
Prove it. If you are so sure, you shouldn't have any problem demonstrating that I don't understand Carroll.
You have now repeatedly claimed, but you have so far being unable to provide even the slightest shred of evidence. You are sounding like a broken record, a child stamping its foot in anger; it's quite an embarrassing display, to be honest.
I agree that it can be, yes. Funny thing is, we both think the other is a perfect demonstration of this.
And I advise anybody to study at least high school mathematics before delving into GR.