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?

On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 00:59:05 GMT, wrote:

In sci.astro DrPostman wrote:
wrote:

If the Greeks had done it so long ago, why did
so many people still believe in a flat Earth?


Who said they did (other than Washington Irving, which got reproduced
in millions of textbooks for a century and a half)? We have zero
evidence that people of that time believed that the Earth was flat.
This lack of evidence disturbs people like Dave Tholan, but that's his
problem.

Do you understand my point? The argument Columbus made was over the
circumference. The Inquisition, and rightly so, questioned his
calculations. Read up on it all here and you might understand better.
http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Scolumb.htm

Fascinating! Thanks for the teaching!

Plus, I never knew our American Indians were called 'Indians'
because Christopher Columbus thought he had landed on India!

Indian...feather or dot?


We're all here to learn from each other. At least most of us are.



--
Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Member,Board of Directors of afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULT® member #15-51506-253.
You can email me at: eckles(at)midsouth.rr.com

"The services provided by Sylvia Browne Corporation are highly
speculative in nature and we do not guarantee that the results
of our work will be satisfactory to a client."
-Sylvia's Refund Policy