A Wonderful Modification To Einstein’S Field Equation

[Super Polymath]

Stars are like an unstable fusion reactor bound to pop.

 

They gain volume not mass.

 

This is elementary to me so fallacies are easier for me to spot. I watched the original Cosmos religiously when I was ten or so.

[CraigD]

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

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

By all known theory, well-supported by observation, the expansion of stars doesn’t last.

 

Depending on their mass, after stars have exhausted the supplies of light elements they are capable of changing, via atomic fusion, into heavier elements, they contract. In lower mass stars, such as our own Sun, this contraction reaches an long-lasting state know as a white dwarf, evolving slowly into a black dwarf, which differs from a white dwarf mainly in being cooler and less luminous. Higher mass stars contract in a more dramatic way, becoming hot enough to fuse elements heavier than iron into even heavier elements, a short-lived state leading to a supernova.

 

The evolution of massive stars into supernovae is very important to life as we know it, not only because supernovae produce many of the chemical elements necessary for life, but because they’re the only ones that produce very heavy radioactive elements like uranium, which allow plants like Earth to be warmer than they otherwise would. (There are many good descriptions of how start evolve, including this Wikipedia article)

 

Some well-known cosmological physicists, perhaps most famously Fred Hoyle, have proposed that the universe expands while creating new matter. Such theories can be called “quasi-steady state”, to distinguish them from now almost entirely discredited theories that propose that the universe is not expanding, contracting, or creating new matter. (Some reference can be found at the above link)

 

If I your description of Yang’s “Modification of Field Equation and Return of Continuous Creation...”, is accurate, xps13579, and I understand it, it proposes a QSS different from most in that matter is created in the relatively small volumes inside stars, rather than as Hoyle and others proposed, in the huge volumes of near absolute vacuum between them. Hoyle’s model doesn’t blatantly contradict the well-supported theories we have of the dynamics and evolution of stars. Yang appears to which can incline a scientifically reader to describe it in words like

I read it. It is crap.

You haven’t started a thread in the introductions forum (gentle reminder – our site rules require you to), so we don’t know much about you, , xps13579. Are you Jian Liang Yang, also known as Ming Yang, Professor, researcher of theoretical physics, physical department of Zhengzhou university, the author of the paper we’ve been discussing, and this book?

[xps13579]

observations show that the earth is expanding and the sun is brighter and brighter, which means bigger and bigger, therefor we can induce all celestial bodies are growing and never contracting, so-called gravitational collapse is merely a fancy and isn't real nature of natural world at all. in a word matter or energy continuously creates but not all exist after big bang.if matter has been existing from big bang, the matter to form the sun has been existing from big bang, the burning can not last to mowadays and its components should not keep unchanged long time

[xps13579]

though popular “quasi-steady state”admits the creation of matter it isn't the real prediction of general relativity, in order to get the creation Hoyle artificially brough in C field which leads to matter's creation, obviously it isn't scientifif manner optionally to add terms or take away from basic equation. the modified field equation by Jian liang yang not only can deals with the motion in a central gravitational field but also deals with cosmological problems without any other addition to field, therefor well on logic

[CraigD]

observations show that the earth is expanding and the sun is brighter and brighter, which means bigger and bigger, therefor we can induce all celestial bodies are growing and never contracting, so-called gravitational collapse is merely a fancy and isn't real nature of natural world at all.

Xps13579, as required by our site rules, back up you claims with links and references. Because you’ve failed to do so, this thread has been moved to the strange claims forum.

 

Also, respond to my previous post request that you identify yourself as the author of the paper mentioned in post #1, or not.

 

If you fail to respond to my request, or continue to post claims without backing them up with links or references, you won’t be allowed to post at Hypography.

 

To the best of my knowledge, your claims are incorrect.

 

Theory hypothesizing that the Earth was expanding – the expanding Earth hypothesis - had some scientific credibility and popularity in the 1900s, but were abandoned in favor of the theory of plate tectonics in the mid 1900s. According to sources such as the previous link, the expanding Earth hypothesis is now scientifically rejected, unsupported by any plausible theory or observation.

 

Observation support the best current theories of stellar evolution, which I outlined in my previous post, in which stars are formed when large gas clouds contract, become stars, expand for a while, then contract, sometime exploding. Their contraction is due to gravity, their expansion due to pressure produced by their fusing light elements into heavier.