In article ,
Aladar wrote:
Once again you respond to my question about GPS satellites with stuff
about neutron stars. This is the fifth time I have told you I don't
care about it. Why do you keep presenting me with information other
than what I ask for?

Do you agree, Greg, that the magnitude of GR effect on the time dilation
depends of the mass and distance from the center of massive body?

Yes.

I hope you do, so then the highest effect is on the surface of a neutron
star.

Since there are no GPS receivers in orbit around a neutron star, I
don't care. The issue is if your funtion provides a better or worse
fit to the GPS data.

And on the surface of a one solar mass neutron star the effect of
time dillation calculated by my correct equation difers from the erratic
so called GR result just around 5%! So, indeed the observed in the GPS
setting around 1% difference is just right! I'm answering your question.

Since my question had nothing to do with neutron stars, you aren't
answering my question.

It is not a precise calculation, becaude it is complicated, but you can
see the direction and the magnitude from this example of neutron stars.

It isn't *ANY* sort of calculation. You have said two numbers, with no
math, one of which I don't care about.

If you want to claim your function fits the data better, caluclate the
chi squared for your function, and compare it to the chi squared of
the GR funtion. If your math shows your funtional fit has a lower chi
squared than the GR function, then you have shown a mathematical basis
for your claim. Talking about neutron stars is not a basis for the
claim.

Do you know how many elements are in the calculations of these effects?!

Yes. Do you? Do the calculation, and show me the results of your
function, and the GR function, and *show* the chi squared value of
both. It will then be obvious which one fits the data better.

Your claim is your function fits the data better than the GR
function. You can only claim that if you have done the math. I don't
care if it is complicated, you need to do the math before you can make
a claim.

I can make the claim as I wish - you may object to it...

And I object to it. I have been objecting to it for what seems like
for ever, since you provide no math to support your claim.

The math for the theoru is done.

Then it should be easy to show me the chi squareds.

Are you really this stupid? The math showing your function is a better
fit to the data than the GR function.

Oh, it is... Lets start the comparison with the real large masses.

No, since there are no GPS receivers in orbit around large masses,
lets start with GPS receivers around the earth.

At the mean time we are
working on a test for the GPS case and the math for that.

And when you get it, and present it, then you can claim your function
fits the data better. Not before.