|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Help with Stellar Evolution
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? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Help with Stellar Evolution
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? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Help with Stellar Evolution
In article ,
Aladar wrote: The GR erratic solution t'=t/(1-2fi)^.5 predits for any fi value a larger difference from t then my correct t'=t/(1-fi)^.5 solution. Therefore it predicts a larger difference of values for the surface and for the orbit. FOr the low values of fi (~ 1-5e-10) the difference of expected difference is around 1%. No, the difference between (1-2fi)^-1/2 and (1-fi)^-3/2 is not 1%, it is 50%. Expand the two functions out in a taylor series. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Help with Stellar Evolution
In article ,
Aladar wrote: The GR erratic solution t'=t/(1-2fi)^.5 predits for any fi value a larger difference from t then my correct t'=t/(1-fi)^.5 solution. Therefore it predicts a larger difference of values for the surface and for the orbit. FOr the low values of fi (~ 1-5e-10) the difference of expected difference is around 1%. No, the difference between (1-2fi)^-1/2 and (1-fi)^-3/2 is not 1%, it is 50%. Expand the two functions out in a taylor series. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Help with Stellar Evolution
(Greg Hennessy) wrote in message ...
In article , Aladar wrote: The GR erratic solution t'=t/(1-2fi)^.5 predits for any fi value a larger difference from t then my correct t'=t/(1-fi)^.5 solution. Therefore it predicts a larger difference of values for the surface and for the orbit. FOr the low values of fi (~ 1-5e-10) the difference of expected difference is around 1%. No, the difference between (1-2fi)^-1/2 and (1-fi)^-3/2 is not 1%, it is 50%. Expand the two functions out in a taylor series. Sorry, I made a typing error, but you used a third value.... t'=t/((1-fi)^(1/3)) is the correct value. However, the expected time dilation is based on the same values on the surface of Earth. Since the basis is the far away from the masses, the difference turns out to be about 1%, when you equal the values for the surface as the basis. Cheers! Aladar http://stolmarphysics.com |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Help with Stellar Evolution
(Greg Hennessy) wrote in message ...
In article , Aladar wrote: The GR erratic solution t'=t/(1-2fi)^.5 predits for any fi value a larger difference from t then my correct t'=t/(1-fi)^.5 solution. Therefore it predicts a larger difference of values for the surface and for the orbit. FOr the low values of fi (~ 1-5e-10) the difference of expected difference is around 1%. No, the difference between (1-2fi)^-1/2 and (1-fi)^-3/2 is not 1%, it is 50%. Expand the two functions out in a taylor series. Sorry, I made a typing error, but you used a third value.... t'=t/((1-fi)^(1/3)) is the correct value. However, the expected time dilation is based on the same values on the surface of Earth. Since the basis is the far away from the masses, the difference turns out to be about 1%, when you equal the values for the surface as the basis. Cheers! Aladar http://stolmarphysics.com |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Help with Stellar Evolution
In article ,
Aladar wrote: t'=t/((1-fi)^(1/3)) is the correct value. However, the expected time dilation is based on the same values on the surface of Earth. Since the basis is the far away from the masses, the difference turns out to be about 1%, when you equal the values for the surface as the basis. Where is the *math* that shows this? And does the formula then predict a better agreement for an object in low earth orbit? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Help with Stellar Evolution
In article ,
Aladar wrote: t'=t/((1-fi)^(1/3)) is the correct value. However, the expected time dilation is based on the same values on the surface of Earth. Since the basis is the far away from the masses, the difference turns out to be about 1%, when you equal the values for the surface as the basis. Where is the *math* that shows this? And does the formula then predict a better agreement for an object in low earth orbit? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Help with Stellar Evolution
(Greg Hennessy) wrote in message ...
In article , Aladar wrote: t'=t/((1-fi)^(1/3)) is the correct value. However, the expected time dilation is based on the same values on the surface of Earth. Since the basis is the far away from the masses, the difference turns out to be about 1%, when you equal the values for the surface as the basis. 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. 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... And I saved the slide show and it should play without Power POint on your computer as well, just takes some time to load. 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) 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... 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 |