wchogg wrote in message ...
On 26 Jun 2003, Aladar wrote:

(Greg Hennessy) wrote in message ...
In article ,
Aladar wrote:
The correct theoretical values should be examined against the
observations; and I claim that the GPS observation in the right
direction and in the right magnitude have shown the difference!

If you claim this, then show the math. And make sure you include data
from both Low Earth Orbit, and from a GPS orbit.

You are so eager to ask from me the math for everything, corrected,
when you were not even noticed for 87 years that the solution is in
error?!

You have not demonstrated that the GR solution is inconsistent with
the data given the known errors.

OK! How about this minor problem: you are talking about black holes,
inventing superheavy black holes in the centers of galaxies - when
this is only follows from the erratic solution, based on assumption of
point mass in empty space! In essence you are using a circular
argument: you arrive to a POINT MASS - which was the initial axiom!

No, when calculating the mass of the galactic core from the observations
of the hot accretion disc, you don't *assume* that there's a point mass,
you just use Gauss' law to find the *total* mass in the core. It works
out that there'd either have to be many, many stars per cubic parsec,
whose stellar spectrum is somehow absent, or that there's a supermassive
compact dark object. GR doesn't even figure into the calculations, only
the interpretation.

Correct. Which could be a large spherical system of neutron stars.

I talked about the origin of black hole hoax: it follows from the
assumption of point mass in empty space. However, somehow the current
bigbangology itches to mix the conclusion from the observations ["that
there'd either have to be many, many stars per cubic parsec, whose
stellar spectrum is somehow absent, or that there's a supermassive
compact dark object"] with black holes...

"there'd ... have to be many, many stars per cubic parsec, whose
stellar spectrum is somehow absent", which is correspondent to a
spherical system of neutron stars. And the AGN observations provide
additional evidence in this direction: irregularities in the system of
neutron stars are being regulated by gamma ray flashes.

I'm really just asking to show some control over the immagination,
lets try to stick to the reality, observed. May sound funny from me,
proposing layers of super-heavy nuclei inside the cores of planets and
stars, but I'm telling you that it has more observational evidence
basis then the proton to proton fusion - or the black holes and big
bang, reaching down to kindergarten nova days...

Cheers!
Aladar
http://stolmarphysics.com