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

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

1. ### heyuhuaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
564
the more detailed derivation in the addree
http://prep.istic.ac.cn/preprint/inte.html?action=getFile&id=2c928282510e4d7301630bd90e712128

3. ### Michael 345New year. PRESENT is 69 years oldValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,862
I can almost see heyuhua index finger wagging " you must read hard with open mind"

Messages:
1,708

7. ### heyuhuaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
564
the static gravitational field's sour is regarded as perfect fluid, or say that its energy-stress tenor equals the one of perfect fluid, thus the metrics of the static gravitational field can be solved in use of field equation with the energy-stress tenor as gravitational source, there is no difficult to understand

8. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,708
And the most ironic thing is: it's heyuhua that's not doing any 'hard' reading.

9. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,708
You keep missing the point: Yang takes the perfect fluid to be static as well. All subsequent discussion about moving particles thus become nonsense, because in Yang's universe there can be no motion.

10. ### heyuhuaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
564
the minus-sign difference is entirely correct and it comes from the defination of Ricci tensor, you may see any textbook and no exception about this

11. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,708
I've already pointed out it's in direct conflict with both Wikipedia and Carroll, so your claim that it's in all textbooks is false. Why do you continue to lie about this?

12. ### heyuhuaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
564
this implies that you don't know, at all, what general relativity is to do, isn't the sun's gravitational field the static gravitational field? isn't the earth moving in the gravitational field? if object cann't move in static field it has no value to study the static gravitational field, now you need learn basic conceptions of general relativity

13. ### heyuhuaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
564
whether the defination of Ricci tensor is different in different textbook? at least I don't see

14. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,708
Not really; the sun is moving too, due to the planets. Look up the term "barycenter". But under the approximation that the gravity of the planets can be ignored, then yes, the sun's gravitational field is static.

Yes, and that's where the difference is. In Yang's universe, nothing can move per construction. You keep missing this point. Re-read Yang's articles where it discusses the values of $U^\mu$.

I never claimed that.

Erm, it's you that is completely misunderstanding Yang's work due to your misconceptions about what is static. Perhaps you should re-read Yang's work more carefully?

If that's the case, then Yang is thus proven wrong. This difference in minus-sign trickles down into the EFE, so that fully explains where Yang's sign-swap is coming from: it's a simple mathematical mistake. A mistake Yang's been propagating for almost ten years. What a waste of time...

15. ### Michael 345New year. PRESENT is 69 years oldValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,862
Then it must be (mandatory Asian accent) you not have open mind

16. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,708
I admit it: my skull is closed! There is no way for my brain to escape!

17. ### heyuhuaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
564
yes, the earth doesn't indeed contribute to the sun's gravitational field, in which the earth runs, like a charge moving in electric field of the other charge, the moving charge doesn't contribute to the electric field, we often discuss the equation a charge moves in the electric field formed by another change , so is gravitation

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

Messages:
1,708
Perhaps "contribute" wasn't the right word. "Affect"? "Change"? Again, look up barycenters; the gravitation of earth does affect the position of the sun, and thus it affects the gravitational field of the sun.

19. ### heyuhuaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
564
indeed the earth has a contribution to the gravitational field of the sun-earth system, but the earth's contribution to the gravitational field often is neglected, the earth moves in the gravitational field is similar to that a test charge moves in the electric field of other charges

20. ### heyuhuaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
564
a charge can moves in the static electric field formed by other change, why cann't an object move in the static gravitational field?

21. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,708
Can the contribution of Jupiter also be neglected?

Sure, but when you do this approximation, you are effectively setting the mass of earth to zero. Yang's article clearly doesn't do that, as the moving particle is explicitly given a mass $m$ that's non-zero, but without any other restrictions. (It by the way also uses the relativistic mass, which is another mistake.)

22. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,708
No, the question should be: if all charges are static (= stationary), can you have a moving charge?

23. ### heyuhuaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
564
how do you deal with the motion of a charge in a static electric field? do you think the charge cann't have electricity? similarly, why cann't the particle moving in static gravitational field have mass? the subject we are talking here is indeed too low level, your confusions is simply similar to a student, your foundation of physics is too poor , I don't expect you have such confusions that shouldn't take on at all. I suggest you learn a bit of electrostatics, know the method to deal with the motion of a charge in static electric field

Last edited: Apr 29, 2018