# Chinese Scholar Yang Jian liang Putting Wrongs to Rights in Astrophysics

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by heyuhua, Apr 22, 2018.

1. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,708
It is? Test: $G^\mu_\nu$

Then post them elsewhere and link them, or post them as images.

Edit: Not so bad... Let's try this: ${G^\mu}_\nu$
Edit 2: Seems to work just fine for me? What problems are you having?

3. ### heyuhuaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
564
All right for you! though you cann't understand the new theory I believe the other are sure to be able get into the new results, I'm not playing with you any more! this is too taxing

5. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,708
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?

7. ### heyuhuaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
564
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

8. ### heyuhuaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
564
about the derivation of coupling constant see here:
http://prep.nstl.gov.cn/preprint/inte.html?action=getFile&id=2c928282510e4d7301630a0a73c62114

Messages:
564
10. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,708
You keep claiming that, but you keep refusing to back up that claim. It appears you also aren't able to follow Yang.

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?

That document also contains the same problems, and also doesn't go into further depth. You are repeating yourself once again. Why are you so unable to answer this simple question?

Why do you refuse to answer questions? Why do you refuse to address criticism? Why do you refuse to post calculations? I starting think this thread belongs in the fringe-section of this forum.

11. ### heyuhuaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
564
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
" $G^\mu_\nu$: ${G^\mu}_\nu$" mean.

Last edited: Apr 28, 2018
12. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,708
Just scrolling through this thread, I've found at least the following things you haven't adequately addressed yet:
There is the refutation in post #12 that you couldn't address properly.
There is the rejection of GR pointed at in post #21.
There is the counter to your "but the metric counteracts it" argument in post #32.
There is your failure to understand the type of universe Yang is using, in posts #38, #65, #67, #69.
There is your failure to explain what the flipping of the sign in the EFE means, in post #38.
There is your continuous failure to post any equations, and your debunked excuses as to why you are unable to do so.
There is your continuous failure to post any evidence confirming Yang's work.
There is your continuous failure to refer to relevant sections of Yang's work, in posts #25, #49, #51, #53, #65.
There is the failure to explain where $q_0$ came from in post #63.
There is your failure to address the sign of the force of gravity in post #63.
There is your failure to understand what the equations of motion look like in a static universe in post #67.

Those symbols mean that you have your excuse that sub- and superscript doesn't work on this forum has been disproven.

13. ### heyuhuaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
564
I cann't understand you accurately, please you type in doc format, then put a place to give a link

Last edited: Apr 28, 2018
14. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,708
What do you mean?

15. ### heyuhuaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
564
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 ?

16. ### heyuhuaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
564
if you cann't understand the short discussion it is no value to continue the other questions

17. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,708
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.

18. ### heyuhuaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
564
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?

19. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,708

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:
1) there can be no particles, only perfect fluids;
2) there can be no movement, because everything is static.

20. ### heyuhuaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
564
and for spherically symmetric gravitational source, namely celestial body, its energy-momentum tensor belongs to the one of perfect fluid, the gravitational field's metrics can be worked out from field equation, this is well known

21. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,708
Sure, and when you make it static, there can be no moving particles. That's also well known.

22. ### heyuhuaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
564
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

23. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,708
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.