In article ,
Aladar wrote:
Sorry, typo. t'=t((1-fi)^(-1/3)) this is the correct. But you could
check on the slide show at http://stolmarphysics.com

No, I can't, since it requires powerpoint, which I don't have.

I made a general statement that
my correct representation fits better to the observations.

You haven't proven your representation fits better since you Haven't
Shown The Math.

Why do you refuse to supply the math?

Again, where is the math showing your equation is a better fit than
the GR equation?

There. Plus the very Daisy-petal graph of neutron star mass and
radius, very much verified by all neutron star observations.

The paper you claimed supported your theory was not of neutron star
observations.

Correct.

Thus it can't have the math you claim it has.