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:
    564
    your statement is absurd, so-called minus-sign mistake that you think is nonexistent at all, it is your misidentification
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    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?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. heyuhua Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    564
    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
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    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.
     
  8. heyuhua Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    564
    It doesn't make any sense for us to continue quarrelling. I think you should recommend this article to another reader for comment.
     
  9. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,453
    Recommend?

    Are you serious?
     
  10. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    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?
     
  11. heyuhua Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    564
    "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: Jun 6, 2018
  12. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    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.
     
  13. heyuhua Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    564
    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
     
  14. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    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?
     
  15. heyuhua Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    564
    other people don't think it is a mistake that you think "an obvious minus-sign mistake" , please don't poop on Yang's glorious article
     
  16. wangchaoqing Registered Member

    Messages:
    10
    Yang's article is indeed good, revolutionary,
     
    Last edited: Jun 8, 2018
  17. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    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.
     
  18. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    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.)
     
  19. heyuhua Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    564
    “ the mystery of the minus-sign" is merely your hallucination, it was your ignorance that caused the misunderstanding, a hardened fool
     
  20. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    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.
     
  21. heyuhua Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    564
    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: Jun 9, 2018
  22. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    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.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    And I advise anybody to study at least high school mathematics before delving into GR.
     
  23. heyuhua Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    564
    I recommend you a few of basic textbooks to help you study: R.J. Adler, M. Schuffer " Introduction to General Relativity" 1965, New York,
     

Share This Page