Help with Stellar Evolution

(Greg Hennessy) wrote in message ...
In article ,
Aladar wrote:
BS. They assume that a stupid solution of field equations, based on
point mass and empty space is correct! I have shown - and the
observations prove it - that it is incorrect! [t'=t/(1-fi)^1/3 and not
the following from the ASSUMPTIONS(!) t'=t/(1-2fi)^1/2 erratic old
time dilation in GR]

Where have you shown it? You were asked for a reference to this, and
you provided a cite to a paper that you admitted didn't consider the
(1-fi)^-1/3 case.

However, it provided a report of a systematic error in the right
direction and of the right magnitude, corresponding to the
differences of my representation from the old erratic so called GR and
the really observed in 77 in the GPS proved mine is correct.


Where is the calculations showing (1-fi)^-1/3 is better than
(1-2fi)^-1/2? What is the chi squared fit of both functions?

Try http://stolmarphysics.com

Cheers!
Aladar

In article ,
Aladar wrote:
Where have you shown it? You were asked for a reference to this, and
you provided a cite to a paper that you admitted didn't consider the
(1-fi)^-1/3 case.

However, it provided a report of a systematic error in the right
direction and of the right magnitude, corresponding to the
differences of my representation from the old erratic so called GR and
the really observed in 77 in the GPS proved mine is correct.

I've read the cite you gave, and it does not talk about a systematic
error. You give no math showing that any systematic error there might
be is of the right magnitude to be your claim.

Where is the calculations showing (1-fi)^-1/3 is better than
(1-2fi)^-1/2? What is the chi squared fit of both functions?

Try http://stolmarphysics.com

I just looked there, and there is no calculation showing your function
is a better fit than the GR function.

Again, where is the math showing your equation is a better fit than
the GR equation?

On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 00:59:05 GMT, wrote:

In sci.astro DrPostman wrote:
wrote:

If the Greeks had done it so long ago, why did
so many people still believe in a flat Earth?


Who said they did (other than Washington Irving, which got reproduced
in millions of textbooks for a century and a half)? We have zero
evidence that people of that time believed that the Earth was flat.
This lack of evidence disturbs people like Dave Tholan, but that's his
problem.

Do you understand my point? The argument Columbus made was over the
circumference. The Inquisition, and rightly so, questioned his
calculations. Read up on it all here and you might understand better.
http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Scolumb.htm

Fascinating! Thanks for the teaching!

Plus, I never knew our American Indians were called 'Indians'
because Christopher Columbus thought he had landed on India!

Indian...feather or dot?


We're all here to learn from each other. At least most of us are.



--
Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Member,Board of Directors of afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULT® member #15-51506-253.
You can email me at: eckles(at)midsouth.rr.com

"The services provided by Sylvia Browne Corporation are highly
speculative in nature and we do not guarantee that the results
of our work will be satisfactory to a client."
-Sylvia's Refund Policy

In article ,
Aladar wrote:
The GR erratic solution t'=t/(1-2fi)^.5 predits for any fi value a
larger
difference from t then my correct t'=t/(1-fi)^.5 solution. Therefore
it
predicts a larger difference of values for the surface and for the
orbit. FOr the low values of fi (~ 1-5e-10) the difference of expected
difference is around 1%.


No, the difference between (1-2fi)^-1/2 and (1-fi)^-3/2 is not
1%, it is 50%. Expand the two functions out in a taylor series.

(Greg Hennessy) wrote in message ...
In article ,
Aladar wrote:
The GR erratic solution t'=t/(1-2fi)^.5 predits for any fi value a
larger
difference from t then my correct t'=t/(1-fi)^.5 solution. Therefore
it
predicts a larger difference of values for the surface and for the
orbit. FOr the low values of fi (~ 1-5e-10) the difference of expected
difference is around 1%.


No, the difference between (1-2fi)^-1/2 and (1-fi)^-3/2 is not
1%, it is 50%. Expand the two functions out in a taylor series.

Sorry, I made a typing error, but you used a third value....

t'=t/((1-fi)^(1/3)) is the correct value. However, the expected time
dilation is based on the same values on the surface of Earth. Since
the basis is the far away from the masses, the difference turns out to
be about 1%, when you equal the values for the surface as the basis.

Cheers!
Aladar
http://stolmarphysics.com

In article ,
Aladar wrote:
t'=t/((1-fi)^(1/3)) is the correct value. However, the expected time
dilation is based on the same values on the surface of Earth. Since
the basis is the far away from the masses, the difference turns out to
be about 1%, when you equal the values for the surface as the basis.

Where is the *math* that shows this?

And does the formula then predict a better agreement for an object in
low earth orbit?

In article ,
Aladar wrote:
Sorry, typo. t'=t((1-fi)^(-1/3)) this is the correct. But you could
check on the slide show at http://stolmarphysics.com

No, I can't, since it requires powerpoint, which I don't have.

I made a general statement that
my correct representation fits better to the observations.

You haven't proven your representation fits better since you Haven't
Shown The Math.

Why do you refuse to supply the math?

Again, where is the math showing your equation is a better fit than
the GR equation?

There. Plus the very Daisy-petal graph of neutron star mass and
radius, very much verified by all neutron star observations.

The paper you claimed supported your theory was not of neutron star
observations.

Correct.

Thus it can't have the math you claim it has.

(Greg Hennessy) wrote in message ...
In article ,
Aladar wrote:
t'=t/((1-fi)^(1/3)) is the correct value. However, the expected time
dilation is based on the same values on the surface of Earth. Since
the basis is the far away from the masses, the difference turns out to
be about 1%, when you equal the values for the surface as the basis.

Where is the *math* that shows this?

And does the formula then predict a better agreement for an object in
low earth orbit?

It must, because it is the correct theoretical formula.

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?! No, you were eager to base on it the hole black hole and big
bang hoax complex...

And I saved the slide show and it should play without Power POint on
your computer as well, just takes some time to load.

So: the correct theoretical prediction of Shapiro effect: the light
propagation speed changes as c'=c(1-fi) where fi=G/c^2*M/r (G
gravitational constant, c light propagation speed, M mass of the Sun,
r distance from the center of the Sun).
And: the correct theoretical prediction for the time dilation
t'=t*(1-fi)^(-1/3)
And: the correct theoretical prediction of length contraction
l'=l*(1-fi)^(2/3)

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! With
the Shapiro theoretical values I suspect that they were already using
about the same corrections of light speed, but could not find the
exact formulations...

Cheers!
Aladar
http://stolmarphysics.com

In article ,
Aladar wrote:
Where is the *math* that shows this?

And does the formula then predict a better agreement for an object in
low earth orbit?

It must, because it is the correct theoretical formula.

We have no idea if it is the correct theoretical formula or not unless
you SHOW THE MATH and prove it is correct.

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.

(Greg Hennessy) wrote in message ...
In article ,
Aladar wrote:
Where is the *math* that shows this?

And does the formula then predict a better agreement for an object in
low earth orbit?

It must, because it is the correct theoretical formula.

We have no idea if it is the correct theoretical formula or not unless
you SHOW THE MATH and prove it is correct.

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?! No, you were eager to base on it the hole black hole and big
bang hoax complex...

So: the correct theoretical prediction of Shapiro effect: the light
propagation speed changes as c'=c(1-fi) where fi=G/c^2*M/r (G
gravitational constant, c light propagation speed, M mass of the Sun,
r distance from the center of the Sun).
And: the correct theoretical prediction for the time dilation
t'=t*(1-fi)^(-1/3)
And: the correct theoretical prediction of length contraction
l'=l*(1-fi)^(2/3)

[Again: l'/t'=c' if l/t=c] Also: the gravitational redshift
turns out to be z=fi! Showing a similarity to Doppler effect,
hence the generated in the gravitational field frequencies
correspond to the local speed of light, shifted as it would
have a relative velocity from the basic motion!

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! With
the Shapiro theoretical values I suspect that they were already using
about the same corrections of light speed, but could not find the
exact formulations... Still looking...

Cheers!
Aladar
http://stolmarphysics.com