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?

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?