A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Others » Solar
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Help with Stellar Evolution



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old June 24th 03, 04:32 PM
Aladar
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Help with Stellar Evolution

(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
  #12  
Old June 24th 03, 05:28 PM
Greg Hennessy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Help with Stellar Evolution

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.


  #13  
Old June 24th 03, 05:28 PM
Greg Hennessy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Help with Stellar Evolution

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.


  #14  
Old June 25th 03, 07:08 PM
Aladar
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Help with Stellar Evolution

(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
  #15  
Old June 25th 03, 07:08 PM
Aladar
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Help with Stellar Evolution

(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
  #16  
Old June 26th 03, 05:54 PM
Aladar
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Help with Stellar Evolution

(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!

I would say, the fact that there are no real observations supporting
the existence of black holes - it by itself proves that the GR
solution is inconsistent with the reality.

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


Don't disregard please the 77 reports! It is interesting that any time
you try to get a precision measurement of GR effect you have to make
corrections for something else! Indeed, always into the direction,
which is closer to my theoretical predictions!

Don't forget about the Hubble redshift! In my representation it is the
photon expansion, energy loss during progression!

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!


If you wish to do either, fine, but you are repeating claims that have
not been substantiated.


Excuse me, but what do you say about the black holes?!?! How many
years are you repeating claims which have not been substantiated?! Or
the pp fusion?! How many years you are repeating claims that have not
been substantiated?! Not to mention the big bang and expanding
UNiverse hoax...


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!


And you present the math to support this statement where?


Its coming...

Cheers!
Aladar
http://stolmarphysics.com
  #17  
Old June 26th 03, 05:54 PM
Aladar
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Help with Stellar Evolution

(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!

I would say, the fact that there are no real observations supporting
the existence of black holes - it by itself proves that the GR
solution is inconsistent with the reality.

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


Don't disregard please the 77 reports! It is interesting that any time
you try to get a precision measurement of GR effect you have to make
corrections for something else! Indeed, always into the direction,
which is closer to my theoretical predictions!

Don't forget about the Hubble redshift! In my representation it is the
photon expansion, energy loss during progression!

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!


If you wish to do either, fine, but you are repeating claims that have
not been substantiated.


Excuse me, but what do you say about the black holes?!?! How many
years are you repeating claims which have not been substantiated?! Or
the pp fusion?! How many years you are repeating claims that have not
been substantiated?! Not to mention the big bang and expanding
UNiverse hoax...


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!


And you present the math to support this statement where?


Its coming...

Cheers!
Aladar
http://stolmarphysics.com
  #18  
Old June 26th 03, 07:03 PM
Greg Hennessy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Help with Stellar Evolution

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.


  #19  
Old June 26th 03, 07:03 PM
Greg Hennessy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Help with Stellar Evolution

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.


  #20  
Old June 27th 03, 12:43 AM
Aladar
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Help with Stellar Evolution

(Greg Hennessy) wrote in message ...
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.


But dear, you don't see that these are connected?! MOre over: the
cause of persistence of black hole hoax is the named error in the
representation of clock rates in a gravitational field! Don't
disregard the data, associated with the subject!


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!


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.


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!


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


Did I refuse to do it? No, I'm just saying that it is not that simple
- if you really would know the subject, you would know that. And I'm
working on it and will present as it will be ready. BTW, I have PDF
files for the shows, can you see these? I will post them today or
tomorrow...

Cheers!
Aladar
http://stolmarphysics.com
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For those that would like a bit of insight into the evolution of areally massive Sam Wormley Amateur Astronomy 1 March 27th 04 09:06 AM
AMBER ALPHA STAR CESAM stellar model harlod caufield Space Shuttle 0 December 27th 03 09:12 PM
AMBER ALPHA STAR CESAM stellar model harlod caufield Policy 0 December 27th 03 09:10 PM
Help with Stellar Evolution Aladar Astronomy Misc 18 June 28th 03 08:24 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.