Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16
  1. #11
    Aladar's Avatar
    Aladar Guest

    Default Help with Stellar Evolution



    greg.hennessy@tantalus.cox.net (Greg Hennessy) wrote in message news:<bdfch1$f1i$1@tantalus.no-ip.org>...

    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!


    Also, the found difference in the direction of smaller values, which
    happens to coincides with the expected corrected values difference
    from the erratic!


    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!


    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

  2. #12
    Aladar's Avatar
    Aladar Guest

    Default Help with Stellar Evolution

    wchogg <griffith@ups.physics.wisc.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.44.0306261216360.30266-100000@ups.physics.wisc.edu>...

    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

  3. #13
    Aladar's Avatar
    Aladar Guest

    Default Help with Stellar Evolution

    greg.hennessy@tantalus.cox.net (Greg Hennessy) wrote in message news:<bdg0u0$ir3$1@tantalus.no-ip.org>...

    How may I call you?


    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.


    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?!



    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.


    What math?

    Cheers!
    Aladar
    http://stolmarphysics.com

  4. #14
    Greg Hennessy's Avatar
    Greg Hennessy Guest

    Default Help with Stellar Evolution

    In article <834ff27d.0306271242.30b9f63a@posting.google.com >,
    Aladar <alistolmar@3dresearch.com> wrote:

    Greg works just fine.


    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?


    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.


    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.


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




  5. #15
    Aladar's Avatar
    Aladar Guest

    Default Help with Stellar Evolution

    greg.hennessy@tantalus.cox.net (Greg Hennessy) wrote in message news:<bdibmh$tpb$1@tantalus.no-ip.org>...

    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.


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


    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...


    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

  6. #16
    Greg Hennessy's Avatar
    Greg Hennessy Guest

    Default Help with Stellar Evolution

    In article <834ff27d.0306280945.33ceaa6@posting.google.com> ,
    Aladar <alistolmar@3dresearch.com> wrote:

    Yes.


    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.


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


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


    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.


    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.


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


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


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





 

 
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. All change for stellar evolution (Jan 13)
    By Sam Wormley in forum Amateur Astronomy Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 01-17-2005, 05:15 PM
  2. Help with Stellar Evolution
    By Aladar in forum Solar Viewing Forum
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 06-28-2003, 07:24 PM
  3. Help with Stellar Evolution
    By Greg Hennessy in forum Sun Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-23-2003, 04:28 PM
  4. Help with Stellar Evolution
    By Greg Hennessy in forum Solar Viewing Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-23-2003, 04:28 PM
  5. Help with Stellar Evolution
    By DrPostman in forum Sun Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-22-2003, 07:11 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0
Powered by vBulletin®
All times are GMT. The time now is 09:29 PM.