In article ,
Aladar wrote:
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

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.

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%.

When you consider all sides of my representation (just the GR, but QM
as well, if you want!) you will find that indeed my formulation is a
better fit to the data than GR! BUt please, make the effort!

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.

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