A Wonderful Modification To Einstein’S Field Equation

[xps13579]

Jian liang Yang’s modification to Einstein’s field equation

Chinese scientist, Jian Liang Yang, has rationally modified Einstein’s gravitational field equation, and proved that celestial bodies and galaxies form from gradual growth instead of the gather of existent matter after big bang, and new matter unceasingly is creating near old matter. Celestial bodies including the earth look unchanged and in fact they are constantly expanding according to Hubble law with the expansion of universe. For example, the radius of the earth increases by 0.48mm one year at present and its mass increases 10^13 tons. The new modification to Einstein’s field equation can uniformly deal with the motion in a central gravitational field and cosmological problems unlike current manner optionally to add to or take away terms in field equation. At present there have been many modifications to Einstein’s field equation but those modifications either cannot return to Newton’s law in weak field or must add new hypothesis and therefore they are not rational and successful. The new gravitational theory not only absorbs the essence of Hoyle's stable universe but also inherits the reasonable composition of the Big Bang Universe, and show that a variety of internal motions of the earth including earthquake are the result of continuous accumulation of energy or matter inside the earth, and geothermal energy is inexhaustible, solar is becoming larger, there is more and more light, not weaker, and it usually against the idea.

Unlike other modifications that could not return to Newton’s theory in weak field of spherical symmetry, such the most typical examples are that some terms are optionally added or taken away from field in order to solve a question, such as add cosmological constant. The article of Jian Liang Yang is “Modification of Field Equation and Return of Continuous Creation----- Galaxies Form from Gradual Growth Instead of Gather of Existent Matter”,International Journal of Advanced Research in Physical Science (IJARPS) Volume 3, Issue 8, 2016, PP 5-32 ISSN 2349-7874 (Print) & ISSN 2349-7882 (Online)

[OceanBreeze]

Yes, Wonderful! With these "papers" I like to skip over the (mostly plagiarized) equations and read the conclusions, and this one is a doozy:

 

 

"The same way, we can work out temperature of the surface of the earth was 0 C 0.9 billion years ago, which means life began 0.9 billion years ago.

Recent an in-depth study [26] showed that the earth was a hockey 2.4 billion years ago, temperature of the equator was −40C , this conclusion is highly in accordance with present theory. And recent another in-depth study [27] showed that the atmosphere pressure 2.7 billion years ago was half of today’s that, the brightness of the sun 2.7 billions years ago was 15% of today’s that, highly conformable with our result.

Continuous creation of matter makes celestial bodies brighter and brighter, temperature is higher higher, and universe was dark ten billion years ago and so-called big bang fireball don’t exist at all.

Observations show that the sun indeed is becoming brighter and brighter, and actually it is a strained interpretation for conventional theory to explain the fact for so-called gravitational collapse. In fact, since think that the sun’s mass is smaller and smaller because of unceasing burning, its interior gravitation should be smaller and smaller and thus collapse trend should be weaker and weaker, the sun becomes impossibly brighter and brighter, and more serious question is that there is not controllable mechanism why the burning is neither fast nor slow. A deep fact implied strong from mass-luminosity relation is that the bigger mass, the higher is its luminosity, and as a result, if solar mass is becoming smaller and smaller due to burning its luminosity should decrease gradually and impossibly becomes brighter and brighter."

 

Great stuff!

 

Oh, and if the ”International Journal of Advanced Research in Physical Science (IJARPS)" isn't already on Beall's List of predatory open-access journals, it should be.

 

 

[exchemist]

Yes, Wonderful! With these "papers" I like to skip over the (mostly plagiarized) equations and read the conclusions, and this one is a doozy:

 

 

"The same way, we can work out temperature of the surface of the earth was 0 C 0.9 billion years ago, which means life began 0.9 billion years ago.

Recent an in-depth study [26] showed that the earth was a hockey 2.4 billion years ago, temperature of the equator was −40C , this conclusion is highly in accordance with present theory. And recent another in-depth study [27] showed that the atmosphere pressure 2.7 billion years ago was half of today’s that, the brightness of the sun 2.7 billions years ago was 15% of today’s that, highly conformable with our result.

Continuous creation of matter makes celestial bodies brighter and brighter, temperature is higher higher, and universe was dark ten billion years ago and so-called big bang fireball don’t exist at all.

Observations show that the sun indeed is becoming brighter and brighter, and actually it is a strained interpretation for conventional theory to explain the fact for so-called gravitational collapse. In fact, since think that the sun’s mass is smaller and smaller because of unceasing burning, its interior gravitation should be smaller and smaller and thus collapse trend should be weaker and weaker, the sun becomes impossibly brighter and brighter, and more serious question is that there is not controllable mechanism why the burning is neither fast nor slow. A deep fact implied strong from mass-luminosity relation is that the bigger mass, the higher is its luminosity, and as a result, if solar mass is becoming smaller and smaller due to burning its luminosity should decrease gradually and impossibly becomes brighter and brighter."

 

Great stuff!

 

Oh, and if the ”International Journal of Advanced Research in Physical Science (IJARPS)" isn't already on Beall's List of predatory open-access journals, it should be.

Yes I looked up this IJARPS and it seems to be one from the stable of pay-to-publish "journals" from ARC Publications PVT Ltd, a 3rd rate Indian on-line journal publisher, with a website containing bad English and on which payment is very prominent.

 

Their "journal" titles do not seem to appear on Beall's list, but then I imagine scammers these days are well aware of that list and easily adapt their titles to look slightly different from the listed ones.

[xps13579]

it is wrong to appraise a paper bsaed on the order of the journal to publish it, journals are merely a kind of medium, which don't represent the quality of individual paper, heroes not have to ask family background. examining a paper should only depend on its sentific content but not anything else.

[exchemist]

it is wrong to appraise a paper bsaed on the order of the journal to publish it, journals are merely a kind of medium, which don't represent the quality of individual paper, heroes not have to ask family background. examining a paper should only depend on its sentific content but not anything else.

That's pious nonsense. Nobody has the time or the ability to read through and evaluate for themselves everything that gets published, especially if it is outside one's speciality.  

 

Ever heard  of "fake news"? That whole subject is about the basis on which we all take on trust information we are not in a position to verify for ourselves. And that leads to a focus on how to determine what sources we can trust and what sources we can't.  

 

Furthermore, nobody is morally obliged to listen patiently to the ravings of every nutter on the street corner, in case they may contain a germ of truth.  If we did that, we'd never get anything done. As a matter of simple practicality we all use filters, of various sorts, to avoid wasting our time on rubbish. 

 

In the case of science, the way it is done is by relying on review by specialists in the field. This is what reputable journals arrange, before accepting papers for publication, because they have a reputation to uphold and will not publish crap.  

 

In the case of our poster here, nobody has a moral duty to wade through what he has published, unless they have good reason to think it will not be a waste of their time.

Edited December 18, 2016 by exchemist

[xps13579]

journal's order doesn't represent paper's quality, so-called top journals also publish many incorrect papers, even some journals have already degenerated into culb of a few authorities,the papers published by these journals plagiarize and flatter each other, seriously go against the spirit of science, and instead, those unknown jounals often publish the most original thoughts, these journals are eager for the scholars to pursuit of truth, of course, thoes snobs hate the kind of journals

[exchemist]

journal's order doesn't represent paper's quality, so-called top journals also publish many incorrect papers, even some journals have already degenerated into culb of a few authorities,the papers published by these journals plagiarize and flatter each other, seriously go against the spirit of science, and instead, those unknown jounals often publish the most original thoughts, these journals are eager for the scholars to pursuit of truth, of course, thoes snobs hate the kind of journals

These seem to be wild allegations, verging on the hysterical. I'd be interested to see if you can back them with up proper evidence.

 

But in any case, my point about the avoidance of timewasting still holds. The internet today gives every crank, nutcase and nitwit a platform to speak to the world. We are deluged in nonsense. The filters we use may have imperfections but now, more than ever in history, we badly need these filters to scrutinise claims and thought processes on our behalf.  Until you can suggest better filters, I think I'll stick to trusting the editors of  reputable specialist journals.

 

Michael Gove may have had enough of experts, but I haven't. 

 

P.S. What's a "culb"? 

 

 

 

 

 

     

 

 

 

By such criteria and I am snob and proud to be recognised as such.  

Edited December 18, 2016 by exchemist

[OceanBreeze]

journal's order doesn't represent paper's quality, so-called top journals also publish many incorrect papers, even some top journals have already degenerated into culb of a few authorities,the papers published by these journals plagiarize and flatter each other, seriously go against the spirit of science, and instead, those unknown jounals often publish the most original and innovative thoughts, these journals are eager for the scholars to pursuit of truth, of course, thoes snobs hate the kind of journals

 

OK. It isn't the journal that is at fault, it is the paper. I read it. It is crap.

[xps13579]

"OK. It isn't the journal that is at fault, it is the paper. I read it. It is crap."

it is virtuous that wantonly calumniates a outstanding work,

[exchemist]

....and then he was abruptly shot, by an agent of the Illuminati, presumably. 

[xps13579]

the attitude to face new ideas should be welcome but not hate,especially shouldn't give blind attack, of course it is admitted to critique mistakes with appropriate wording and adequate reasoning and proofs, this requires you deeply to understand author's paper otherwise you don't have the competence to comment the paper

[xps13579]

if you aren't ready to construct any new theory you not have to pay attention to any new claim, and if you determine set up a new theory in future you must care any new claim and discover otherwise you will likely find your research's fruit back and your effort in vain. you may attack any new theory but cann't change its position to have been published.

[Super Polymath]

Despite what fake articles tell you, matter does not come from nothing.

 

Dark matter, that is what you want to look at. It's similar to what you're saying, but it's the real deal. 

Edited December 20, 2016 by Super Polymath

[xps13579]

the new matter comes from the work done by the negative pressure inside a star, dm=-pdv, as the star expands ( v increases) with universal expansion, m increases with p negative

[xps13579]

we don't oppose filter papers, but should filter out thoes repeated and dispensable papers never the orinigal, especially innovative thinking

[Super Polymath]

Stars expand as they age, this is nothing new. But they don't gain matter, nor do planets. 

Edited December 20, 2016 by Super Polymath

[xps13579]

if they cann't gain matter continuously their expansion cann't last