In article ,
Aladar wrote:
How may I call you?

Greg works just fine.

OK. CHeck the graphs in the slide show, now in pdf format. (You may
have to turn the slides). You should see the differences for the
neutron stars, how small they are until about 1 solar mass.

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?

Now I don't understand that one: "you have shown no mathematical basis
for your claim that your function (1-fi)^-1/3 verses the GR function
(1-2fi)^-1/2."

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.

If you want to claim that your function fits better, Prove it with the
math. That is my one and only claim. And it isn't premature, you need
to do the math before you can make a claim.

Now I'm lost. I thought you want the math for the comparing to the
observations. It is complicated. But I have shown the mathematical
basis for my claim.

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.

Yes. Each and every time I asked you for the math you have refused to
present it.

What math?

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