(Greg Hennessy) wrote in message ...
In article ,
Aladar wrote:
OK! How about this minor problem: you are talking about black holes,
inventing superheavy black holes in the centers of galaxies

Since the data in question aren't about black holes in the center of
the galaxy, who consider them? The issue at hand is clock rates at
different velocities and positons in a gravitational field.

But dear, you don't see that these are connected?!

I'm not your dear, and no, they are not connected.

How may I call you?


You have not demonstrated that your
formulation is a better fit to the data than GR.

Don't disregard please the 77 reports!

I'm not. They say the data fit the GR solution to less than 2%.

Also, the found difference in the direction of smaller values, which
happens to coincides with the expected corrected values difference
from the erratic!

Your sentence makes no sense.

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. And the
systematic is: my prediction is smaller.


But the problem is that *YOU* have to make the effort. If you want to
claim you have a better fit to the data *YOU* have to do the math.

But the problem is that you tend to dismiss my claims on any
grounds... Anything goes... Now the premature insistence on presenting
the math, yesterday the authority figures, claiming pp fusion...
anything!

I dismiss your claim on one, and only one ground, you haven't shown
that the math supports your claim. I've made no claim of an authority
figure, nor any claim of pp fusion. I've made one claim, you have
shown no mathematical basis for your claim that your function
(1-fi)^-1/3 verses the GR function (1-2fi)^-1/2.

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."

Don't you see that c'=c(1-fi)=c(1-z) and everything fits together,
when the so called GR solution carries a number of internal
contradictions?!



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.



You have failed to do so. Even after being asked almost a dozen times.

Did I refuse to do it?

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

What math?

Cheers!
Aladar
http://stolmarphysics.com