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

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.

(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

wchogg wrote in message ...
On 26 Jun 2003, Aladar wrote:

(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!

No, when calculating the mass of the galactic core from the observations
of the hot accretion disc, you don't *assume* that there's a point mass,
you just use Gauss' law to find the *total* mass in the core. It works
out that there'd either have to be many, many stars per cubic parsec,
whose stellar spectrum is somehow absent, or that there's a supermassive
compact dark object. GR doesn't even figure into the calculations, only
the interpretation.

Correct. Which could be a large spherical system of neutron stars.

I talked about the origin of black hole hoax: it follows from the
assumption of point mass in empty space. However, somehow the current
bigbangology itches to mix the conclusion from the observations ["that
there'd either have to be many, many stars per cubic parsec, whose
stellar spectrum is somehow absent, or that there's a supermassive
compact dark object"] with black holes...

"there'd ... have to be many, many stars per cubic parsec, whose
stellar spectrum is somehow absent", which is correspondent to a
spherical system of neutron stars. And the AGN observations provide
additional evidence in this direction: irregularities in the system of
neutron stars are being regulated by gamma ray flashes.

I'm really just asking to show some control over the immagination,
lets try to stick to the reality, observed. May sound funny from me,
proposing layers of super-heavy nuclei inside the cores of planets and
stars, but I'm telling you that it has more observational evidence
basis then the proton to proton fusion - or the black holes and big
bang, reaching down to kindergarten nova days...

Cheers!
Aladar
http://stolmarphysics.com

(Greg Hennessy) wrote in message ...
In article ,
Aladar wrote:
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?!

I'm not your dear, and no, they are not connected.

How may I call you?


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!

Your sentence makes no sense.

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. And the
systematic is: my prediction is smaller.


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!

I dismiss your claim on one, and only one ground, you haven't shown
that the math supports your claim. I've made no claim of an authority
figure, nor any claim of pp fusion. I've made one claim, you have
shown no mathematical basis for your claim that your function
(1-fi)^-1/3 verses the GR function (1-2fi)^-1/2.

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."

Don't you see that c'=c(1-fi)=c(1-z) and everything fits together,
when the so called GR solution carries a number of internal
contradictions?!



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.



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

Did I refuse to do it?

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

What math?

Cheers!
Aladar
http://stolmarphysics.com

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?

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.

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.

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.

nightbat wrote

Aladar wrote:

wchogg wrote in message ...
On 26 Jun 2003, Aladar wrote:

(Greg Hennessy) wrote in message ...
In article ,
Aladar wrote:

snip

I'm really just asking to show some control over the immagination,
lets try to stick to the reality, observed. May sound funny from me,
proposing layers of super-heavy nuclei inside the cores of planets and
stars, but I'm telling you that it has more observational evidence
basis then the proton to proton fusion - or the black holes and big
bang, reaching down to kindergarten nova days...

Cheers!
Aladar

nightbat

Distinguishing between fantasy and imagination is very important
to scientists and researchers not Sci Fi authors. Control over
imagination is the very thing which Einstein proposed was more important
then known reality. Matching imaginative logical based theoretical
postulates and theory (" Black Comet ") to later becoming apparent
matching observations, is the stuff that good science research and
Nobel's and are made of.

Fantasy is fantasy, but correct logical non intuitive practical
imagination leaps, priceless. Your now admitted proposing layers of
super-heavy nuclei inside the cores of planets and stars is a bit late
since nightbat already explained the non existence of black holes,
oxygen fusion reality in stellar bodies, and " Continuous Universe Rule
", before any of your in agreement brilliant sci.physics poster lights
came on. Why do you think they call a very dense Chandra upper limit
class star a neutron star, Aladar? There is more then proton to proton
fusion. And in reality, base model, non creationist, though fitting Big
Bangs do occur, however, they are observed continuous Novas and Super
Novae. The background radiation evidence is the remnants of this
continuous Universal dispersed multi inter galactic collective process.

And why Creationists would even think that the Universe needed a Big
Bang to be created, when energy can not be destroyed or referenced Deity
based, all He would have to do is imagine it, say the word, or raise His
hand, and it would be done, without a single point Big Bang. Einstein
wanted to know the mind of God, not particularly the details. But it's
in the details that the devil is in and a good physics unbiased
scientist or researcher chases him out. We all hopefully search for
truth, however finding it, even one little part, is another story.


Regards,
the nightbat

(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

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.