Chinese Scholar Yang Jian liang Putting Wrongs to Rights in Astrophysics

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

  1. heyuhua Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    432
    the more detailed derivation in the addree
    http://prep.istic.ac.cn/preprint/inte.html?action=getFile&id=2c928282510e4d7301630bd90e712128
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Michael 345 Bali tonight Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,513
    I can almost see heyuhua index finger wagging " you must read hard with open mind"

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,576
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. heyuhua Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    432
    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. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,576
    And the most ironic thing is: it's heyuhua that's not doing any 'hard' reading.
     
  9. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,576
    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. heyuhua Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    432
    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. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,576
    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. heyuhua Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    432
    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. heyuhua Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    432
    whether the defination of Ricci tensor is different in different textbook? at least I don't see
     
  14. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,576
    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...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. Michael 345 Bali tonight Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,513
    Then it must be (mandatory Asian accent) you not have open mind

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,576
    I admit it: my skull is closed! There is no way for my brain to escape!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. heyuhua Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    432
    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. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,576
    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. heyuhua Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    432
    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. heyuhua Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    432
    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. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,576
    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. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,576
    No, the question should be: if all charges are static (= stationary), can you have a moving charge?
     
  23. heyuhua Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    432
    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

Share This Page