Chinese Scholar Yang Jian liang Putting Wrongs to Rights in Astrophysics

You're trying to attack the new theory, a standard die-hards , a saboteur and obstructionist of the revolutionary theory who has a dark mind and cann't tolerate new things , and there's no point in telling you the truth,

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ooh, getting insulty again?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

See, this is how I know you have no experience with scientific peer-review. If Yang's theory crumbles under my 'attacks', it certainly will never stand when it goes through scientific peer-review.

Also, it's quite telling that you must resort to ad hominems, instead of actually addressing my arguments.

If you started telling the truth, perhaps I would start listening? It's true that I have a low tolerance for lies. Which is why I have been pointed them out, every time I caught you uttering one.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You're farting. "holy grail of modern cosmology" is just another patch, all fantasy. like I say just now , the old theory cann't explain the uniformity of early universe at all, CMB just proves the old theory wrong

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So this thing that you don't know what it is, is fantasy? I think I'll just repeat one word in response: delusional.

As already explain, and acknowledged by you, yes it can. Why do you feel the need to knowingly lie? Not only is that intellectually dishonest, it's morally objectionable, and it betrays how pathetically weak your position really is.

If you're talking about the old theory pre-inflation, I can grant you that. But that's (obviously) not the current model, so why are you talking about outdated models?

I guess this explains why you think GR has been at a stand-still for the past 20 years: you are simply not up to speed on current (i.e. past 30 years) developments. Perhaps you should learn about the current state of cosmology? I would be the honest thing to do...

 

As long as this heart error is not corrected, that is, as long as the coupling coefficient of the field equation remains unchanged, all efforts are insignificant, there can be no meaningful progress in general relativity, even further and further progress on the wrong path

 

Wait, it's an error? I mean, you are actually calling Einstein, Weinberg, Adler, the Chinese author, the Wikipedia-author, Mesner, Carroll, etc. wrong?

I wonder how many crackpot points that's worth... Do these count individually?

You have yet to demonstrate it that Yang's theory is actually valid. For example, where's the factor 2 difference coming from?

Right, only the great works of Yang can save us now! Not the detailed measurements of the CMB, or the discovery of gravitational waves. No, those are all "insignificant". First, we must adopt a theory that introduces a matter so exotic, it surpasses dark energy in exoticness.

Yes, that makes total sense... if you are delusional.

So the experimental confirmation that Newton was most definitely wrong is "progress on the wrong path"? So the experimental discovery of gravitational waves is "progress on the wrong path"? If that's the case, let's stay on this "wrong" path!

 

Until now, the old theory has failed to clearly illustrate the entire process of evolution or formation of galaxies from the Big Bang to the present day. Even the most basic problems are not covered, such as the inability to explain the increasing brightness of the sun, the increase in the distance between the sun and the earth, and the variation of the length of the day, the expansion of the earth, etc. Is there a need for a theory that does not dare to face practical problems? where is progress ? It is sad to go farther and farther on the wrong road without knowing, so is your so-called progress, ist't it? Is it progress to replace the old hypothesis with a new hypothesis, and mask the old patch with a new patch ? Doesn't such a theory require a thorough transformation ?

 

Oh? Source please.

This is an argument from ignorance. All of these are explained; that you don't know that, doesn't mean they aren't.

You mean Yang's theory, that dodged the question about what this exotic matter is?

Are you blind? I've already mentioned gravitational waves multiple times!

*BOOM*

There went my irony-meter...

The discovery of gravitational waves isn't progress to you? The discovery and quite successful modelling of the anisotropies in the CMB isn't progress to you? What a weird kind of progress you must be talking about.

Only if the new one is better.

Only if the new one is better.

Not necessarily. And better yet, that's not what Yang has done. You yourself called Yang's work a modification of the existing theory; that is not a "thorough transformation".

 

yes, indeed so, not only they, all people are wrong at the issue. But they did what they could, because in their time, there were no Ia supernova observations, no exact data on the moon's retreat, and they couldn't know if their equations were really reliable

 

yes, indeed so, not only they, all people are wrong at the issue. But they did what they could, because in their time, there were no Ia supernova observations, no exact data on the moon's retreat, and they couldn't know if their equations were really reliable

 

"All of these are explained", you'd been farting. Are their explains reasonable, systematic, coherent?

 

And there we go. Literally everybody else is wrong. Lots of points on the crackpot index were earned today.

But you see, that's irrelevant. Yang doesn't use Ia supernova observations or data thereof in his derivation of the modification of the EFE, nor exact data on the moon's retreat. His entire modification hinges on a mathematical derivation. So if everybody else is wrong, it cannot be due to observational data conflicting or resulting in new insights. You must claim its due to everybody else making a mathematical mistake. If you don't, you are implicating that the mathematical derivation of Yang is unfounded, and thus that Yang's derivation is bad.

Tell me, which is more likely: that all the aforementioned people, and another ten thousands plus GR-experts all made the same (or similar) mathematical mistake, or that only Yang is wrong?

Perhaps you should look up what "farting" means; it doesn't mean what you think it means.

Well, yes. But you'd know that, if you had any knowledge of the current state of astronomy, physics, cosmology, or astrophysics. Perhaps you should read a textbook or two on these subjects?

 

I believe that if Einstein had seen Ia supernova observational data, he would have set out to modify his equation

 

I'm sorry, but didn't you a few posts ago accuse me of fantasies?

 

"Yang doesn't use Ia supernova observations or data", are you a blind? the data are just in Fig. 2 in Yang's paper. You so disregard the facts, I can't talk any more,

 

I think you're looking at the wrong paper. I was talking about the FAAC paper; the only one I've been talking about (so far) when dealing with Yang's derivation of the EFE. The first mention of supernovae is in an appendix, and then only to justify the historic introduction of the cosmological constant (which is, historically, not accurate). Yang derives his EFE without it. So I was in fact correct when I said: "Yang doesn't use Ia supernova observations or data thereof in his derivation of the modification of the EFE, ...", and I am, in fact, not blind. But what does that make you?

The fact is: Yang didn't use the supernova data to derive his EFE, as I just demonstrated. It is you who's disregarding facts.

Also, you're doing Yang a disservice, by misrepresenting his work.

I can imagine. Here you were, just a few posts ago, ranting that the current model is wrong because it needed experimental data as input in order to have a cosmological constant. But yet, here you are, claiming (falsely) that Yang uses supernova data as input for his model. Why is it wrong according to you when mainstream science does it, but not when Yang does it? Could it be that you're a hypocrite?

And if you don't want to talk any further; that's fine with me. It's not that you're listening anyway...

 

You don't understand what the data of Ia supernova observations refer to. I tell you this data is the distances and redshifts of these stars measured, for each Ia supernovas scientists measured its two parameters: distance and redshift. And put this data in a Cartesian coordinate system that the horizontal coordinate is the redshift, the vertical coordinate is the distance, and these Ia supernovaes are basically arranged around a curve regularly . Note that the function image of the relation between distance and redshift derived using the modified field equation exactly overlaps with the curve, and obviously, prove strongly that Yang's modification is correct and perfectly consistent observation, so is Yang's application to the data

 

It's this curve that negates the old theory, because the function image of the relation between distance and redshift derived using the old field equation is quite off the curve. In order to save the old equation, scientists had to add a term of cosmic constant to the equation, which was actually a modification, but such a modification was unreasonable, because the equation with cosmological constant could not bring the geodesic equation back to Newton's law in the spherical symmetric waek gravitational field, and it makes no sense to have one with out another. Besides,the field equation with cosmological constants is not verified in the solar system, so it is not very serious to apply it directly to the universe. In order to justify the emergence of a cosmic constant, scientists have proposed the exotic dark energy, which is to go further and further on the wrong path. Again, In order to solve the motion anomalies in galaxies, scientists proposed so-called dark matter, which is not a rigorous scientific attitude, no one doubts that the field equation can go wrong, no one goes back to check if the basic theory has a shortage, and it is Yang who made up for the lesson.

 

My point of view, Yang is a outstanding scientist who is not a parrot, respecting authority but not superstitious authority, and has a highly rigorous scientific attitude, his theory is profound and very practical. The relation between distance and redshift derived out by Yang will be writen into textbooks, conpared with the provious one it is concise and graceful

 

False. As I already explained, that's not how science works. It can at most prove Yang's modified equation consistent with data, as is the current theory (or at least, you haven't proven otherwise).

But, as I pointed out, Yang uses similar data as input, so I'm not surprised he gets the right answer out.

Exactly. It's consistent with data, not necessarily correct.

Read the FAAC-article. There is no mention of any supernova data in the EFE derivation. So you're wrong: Yang didn't use the supernova data in his derivation. Well, unless he left that bit out, which would mean this article would have to be retracted, because it's missing a crucial part. I wonder how it made it past peer-review then...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You haven't shown the curve of the old theory; I've asked you to show it multiple times now.

False; as I said before, the cosmological constant is a degree of freedom present in the EFE. That you don't understand the mathematics and logic involved doesn't make it unreasonable.

(Except that it does in the low-velocity limit.)

Something that you claimed, but haven't demonstrated.

You are being intellectually dishonest again. I've already explained why the cosmological constant hasn't been measured on solar system scales: because the effect is too small. Worse, the solar system is gravitationally locked, meaning you can't measure the universal expansion in it as well. So according to your own argument, Yang is wrong, because the universal expansion has not been verified in the solar system!

Perhaps you should contact Yang, and let him know you've just destroyed this theory with your arguments?

Just like universal expansion.

Please look up what dark energy exactly is; it's just a placeholder name for this energy until we figure out what is really is.

More intellectual dishonesty. I've already linked you to the Wikipedia page containing many examples of dark matter evidences. You are simply wrong.

As Yang demonstrates.

Thousands of students do this every year.

By introducing mistakes? That's a weird way to try and fix things...

Yes, he's so great, that even heyuhua (who took days to work through a simple integer division problem) has destroyed Yang's work several times now. Look above in my post; he does it there! heyuhua claims that if things cannot be measured on the scale of the solar system, any model that uses it is wrong. Well, universal expansion cannot be measured on the scale of the solar system, Yang's model contains universal expansion, therefore heyuhua has just argued that Yang is wrong.

Perhaps you want to address that?

I'm getting the feeling however there is a parrot in this thread...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

According to heyuhua, Yang claims that Einstein was wrong, that Adler was wrong, that Mesner was wrong, that Carroll is wrong, and that tens of thousands of GR-experts are all wrong. Yang is the only one, in over a hundred years, that's right.

According to heyuhua, he completely skipped a crucial part in one of this articles (the FAAC-article doesn't refer to any supernova data when Yang derives this EFE). That's a massive oversight, and calls for the article to be retracted. Such sloppiness is the exact opposite of "highly rigorous scientific attitude".

Profoundly wrong, yes. Practical to show who's a crackpot, yes.

No no no, you're wrong. As heyuhua pointed out: this cannot be measured on the scale of the solar system, therefore it's not real.

Sure it's concise: it doesn't even attempt to explain half of the observations that GR does. For example, the anisotropies in the CMB.

Graceful: if introducing mathematical mistakes is graceful, then yes, sure. But as I pointed out to heyuhua earlier: the gracefulness (beauty) of a theory has no bearing on its correctness.

Counter-example: a static universe is an extremely concise and graceful theory. It even passes heyuhua's "solar system scale tests"! Doesn't make it correct, though.