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
  #31  
Old June 28th 03, 06:45 PM
Aladar
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Help with Stellar Evolution

(Greg Hennessy) wrote in message ...
In article ,
Aladar wrote:
How may I call you?


Greg works just fine.

OK. CHeck the graphs in the slide show, now in pdf format. (You may
have to turn the slides). You should see the differences for the
neutron stars, how small they are until about 1 solar mass.


Once again you respond to my question about GPS satellites with stuff
about neutron stars. This is the fifth time I have told you I don't
care about it. Why do you keep presenting me with information other
than what I ask for?


Do you agree, Greg, that the magnitude of GR effect on the time dilation
depends of the mass and distance from the center of massive body?

I hope you do, so then the highest effect is on the surface of a neutron
star. And on the surface of a one solar mass neutron star the effect of
time dillation calculated by my correct equation difers from the erratic
so called GR result just around 5%! So, indeed the observed in the GPS
setting around 1% difference is just right! I'm answering your question.

It is not a precise calculation, becaude it is complicated, but you can
see the direction and the magnitude from this example of neutron stars.


Now I don't understand that one: "you have shown no mathematical basis
for your claim that your function (1-fi)^-1/3 verses the GR function
(1-2fi)^-1/2."


If you want to claim your function fits the data better, caluclate the
chi squared for your function, and compare it to the chi squared of
the GR funtion. If your math shows your funtional fit has a lower chi
squared than the GR function, then you have shown a mathematical basis
for your claim. Talking about neutron stars is not a basis for the
claim.


Do you know how many elements are in the calculations of these effects?!


If you want to claim that your function fits better, Prove it with the
math. That is my one and only claim. And it isn't premature, you need
to do the math before you can make a claim.


Now I'm lost. I thought you want the math for the comparing to the
observations. It is complicated. But I have shown the mathematical
basis for my claim.


Your claim is your function fits the data better than the GR
function. You can only claim that if you have done the math. I don't
care if it is complicated, you need to do the math before you can make
a claim.


I can make the claim as I wish - you may object to it...

The math for the theoru is done. It extends seamlessly all the way to
the neutron stars and to the large mass compact - neutron star spherical
systems of the galactic centers. Simple too many observations fit
perfectly to this representation to pass on the claim.. Even the only
real data presented for the GPS fits the picture! Even you would be
tempted to make the claim...


Yes. Each and every time I asked you for the math you have refused to
present it.


What math?


Are you really this stupid? The math showing your function is a better
fit to the data than the GR function.


Oh, it is... Lets start the comparison with the real large masses.
What do we expect from the GR? What do we see? What do we expect
from my representation? I have shown the graphs for the neutron stars.
Look at them! Compare to the observations. At the mean time we are
working on a test for the GPS case and the math for that.

Cheers!
Aladar
http://stolmarphysics.com
  #32  
Old June 28th 03, 08:24 PM
Greg Hennessy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Help with Stellar Evolution

In article ,
Aladar wrote:
Once again you respond to my question about GPS satellites with stuff
about neutron stars. This is the fifth time I have told you I don't
care about it. Why do you keep presenting me with information other
than what I ask for?


Do you agree, Greg, that the magnitude of GR effect on the time dilation
depends of the mass and distance from the center of massive body?


Yes.

I hope you do, so then the highest effect is on the surface of a neutron
star.


Since there are no GPS receivers in orbit around a neutron star, I
don't care. The issue is if your funtion provides a better or worse
fit to the GPS data.

And on the surface of a one solar mass neutron star the effect of
time dillation calculated by my correct equation difers from the erratic
so called GR result just around 5%! So, indeed the observed in the GPS
setting around 1% difference is just right! I'm answering your question.


Since my question had nothing to do with neutron stars, you aren't
answering my question.

It is not a precise calculation, becaude it is complicated, but you can
see the direction and the magnitude from this example of neutron stars.


It isn't *ANY* sort of calculation. You have said two numbers, with no
math, one of which I don't care about.

If you want to claim your function fits the data better, caluclate the
chi squared for your function, and compare it to the chi squared of
the GR funtion. If your math shows your funtional fit has a lower chi
squared than the GR function, then you have shown a mathematical basis
for your claim. Talking about neutron stars is not a basis for the
claim.


Do you know how many elements are in the calculations of these effects?!


Yes. Do you? Do the calculation, and show me the results of your
function, and the GR function, and *show* the chi squared value of
both. It will then be obvious which one fits the data better.

Your claim is your function fits the data better than the GR
function. You can only claim that if you have done the math. I don't
care if it is complicated, you need to do the math before you can make
a claim.


I can make the claim as I wish - you may object to it...


And I object to it. I have been objecting to it for what seems like
for ever, since you provide no math to support your claim.

The math for the theoru is done.


Then it should be easy to show me the chi squareds.

Are you really this stupid? The math showing your function is a better
fit to the data than the GR function.


Oh, it is... Lets start the comparison with the real large masses.


No, since there are no GPS receivers in orbit around large masses,
lets start with GPS receivers around the earth.

At the mean time we are
working on a test for the GPS case and the math for that.


And when you get it, and present it, then you can claim your function
fits the data better. Not before.




  #33  
Old June 28th 03, 08:24 PM
Greg Hennessy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Help with Stellar Evolution

In article ,
Aladar wrote:
Once again you respond to my question about GPS satellites with stuff
about neutron stars. This is the fifth time I have told you I don't
care about it. Why do you keep presenting me with information other
than what I ask for?


Do you agree, Greg, that the magnitude of GR effect on the time dilation
depends of the mass and distance from the center of massive body?


Yes.

I hope you do, so then the highest effect is on the surface of a neutron
star.


Since there are no GPS receivers in orbit around a neutron star, I
don't care. The issue is if your funtion provides a better or worse
fit to the GPS data.

And on the surface of a one solar mass neutron star the effect of
time dillation calculated by my correct equation difers from the erratic
so called GR result just around 5%! So, indeed the observed in the GPS
setting around 1% difference is just right! I'm answering your question.


Since my question had nothing to do with neutron stars, you aren't
answering my question.

It is not a precise calculation, becaude it is complicated, but you can
see the direction and the magnitude from this example of neutron stars.


It isn't *ANY* sort of calculation. You have said two numbers, with no
math, one of which I don't care about.

If you want to claim your function fits the data better, caluclate the
chi squared for your function, and compare it to the chi squared of
the GR funtion. If your math shows your funtional fit has a lower chi
squared than the GR function, then you have shown a mathematical basis
for your claim. Talking about neutron stars is not a basis for the
claim.


Do you know how many elements are in the calculations of these effects?!


Yes. Do you? Do the calculation, and show me the results of your
function, and the GR function, and *show* the chi squared value of
both. It will then be obvious which one fits the data better.

Your claim is your function fits the data better than the GR
function. You can only claim that if you have done the math. I don't
care if it is complicated, you need to do the math before you can make
a claim.


I can make the claim as I wish - you may object to it...


And I object to it. I have been objecting to it for what seems like
for ever, since you provide no math to support your claim.

The math for the theoru is done.


Then it should be easy to show me the chi squareds.

Are you really this stupid? The math showing your function is a better
fit to the data than the GR function.


Oh, it is... Lets start the comparison with the real large masses.


No, since there are no GPS receivers in orbit around large masses,
lets start with GPS receivers around the earth.

At the mean time we are
working on a test for the GPS case and the math for that.


And when you get it, and present it, then you can claim your function
fits the data better. Not before.




 




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 01:22 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.