|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 08:06 AM |
AMBER ALPHA STAR CESAM stellar model | harlod caufield | Space Shuttle | 0 | December 27th 03 08:12 PM |
AMBER ALPHA STAR CESAM stellar model | harlod caufield | Policy | 0 | December 27th 03 08:10 PM |
Help with Stellar Evolution | Aladar | Astronomy Misc | 18 | June 28th 03 08:24 PM |