
Help with Stellar Evolution
greg.hennessy@tantalus.cox.net (Greg Hennessy) wrote in message news:<bdfch1$f1i$1@tantalus.noip.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


Help with Stellar Evolution
wchogg <griffith@ups.physics.wisc.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.44.0306261216360.30266100000@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 superheavy 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


Help with Stellar Evolution
greg.hennessy@tantalus.cox.net (Greg Hennessy) wrote in message news:<bdg0u0$ir3$1@tantalus.noip.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 (1fi)^1/3 verses the GR function
(12fi)^1/2."
Don't you see that c'=c(1fi)=c(1z) 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


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.


Help with Stellar Evolution
greg.hennessy@tantalus.cox.net (Greg Hennessy) wrote in message news:<bdibmh$tpb$1@tantalus.noip.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


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.

Similar Threads

By Sam Wormley in forum Amateur Astronomy Forum
Replies: 9
Last Post: 01172005, 05:15 PM

By Aladar in forum Solar Viewing Forum
Replies: 14
Last Post: 06282003, 07:24 PM

By Greg Hennessy in forum Sun Forum
Replies: 0
Last Post: 06232003, 04:28 PM

By Greg Hennessy in forum Solar Viewing Forum
Replies: 0
Last Post: 06232003, 04:28 PM

By DrPostman in forum Sun Forum
Replies: 0
Last Post: 06222003, 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

Forum Rules
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0
Powered by vBulletin®
All times are GMT. The time now is 09:29 PM.