
Help with Stellar Evolution
greg.hennessy@tantalus.cox.net (Greg Hennessy) wrote in message news:<bd1svg$5a0$1@tantalus.noip.org>...
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.
Try http://stolmarphysics.com
Cheers!
Aladar


Help with Stellar Evolution
In article <834ff27d.0306220952.66f059a6@posting.google.com >,
Aladar <alistolmar@3dresearch.com> wrote:
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.
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?


Help with Stellar Evolution
In article <834ff27d.0306221555.9420071@posting.google.com> ,
Aladar <alistolmar@3dresearch.com> wrote:
No, the difference between (12fi)^1/2 and (1fi)^3/2 is not
1%, it is 50%. Expand the two functions out in a taylor series.


Help with Stellar Evolution
greg.hennessy@tantalus.cox.net (Greg Hennessy) wrote in message news:<bd5p6e$v12$1@tantalus.noip.org>...
Sorry, I made a typing error, but you used a third value....
t'=t/((1fi)^(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


Help with Stellar Evolution
In article <834ff27d.0306230757.6b58b87a@posting.google.com >,
Aladar <alistolmar@3dresearch.com> wrote:
Where is the *math* that shows this?
And does the formula then predict a better agreement for an object in
low earth orbit?


Help with Stellar Evolution
greg.hennessy@tantalus.cox.net (Greg Hennessy) wrote in message news:<bd79m9$6mt$1@tantalus.noip.org>...
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(1fi) 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*(1fi)^(1/3)
And: the correct theoretical prediction of length contraction
l'=l*(1fi)^(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


Help with Stellar Evolution
In article <834ff27d.0306240732.5cbf003b@posting.google.com >,
Aladar <alistolmar@3dresearch.com> wrote:
We have no idea if it is the correct theoretical formula or not unless
you SHOW THE MATH and prove it is correct.
If you claim this, then show the math. And make sure you include data
from both Low Earth Orbit, and from a GPS orbit.


Help with Stellar Evolution
greg.hennessy@tantalus.cox.net (Greg Hennessy) wrote in message news:<bd9u77$jm3$1@tantalus.noip.org>...
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...
So: the correct theoretical prediction of Shapiro effect: the light
propagation speed changes as c'=c(1fi) 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*(1fi)^(1/3)
And: the correct theoretical prediction of length contraction
l'=l*(1fi)^(2/3)
[Again: l'/t'=c' if l/t=c] Also: the gravitational redshift
turns out to be z=fi! Showing a similarity to Doppler effect,
hence the generated in the gravitational field frequencies
correspond to the local speed of light, shifted as it would
have a relative velocity from the basic motion!
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... Still looking...
Cheers!
Aladar
http://stolmarphysics.com


Help with Stellar Evolution
greg.hennessy@tantalus.cox.net (Greg Hennessy) wrote in message news:<bdcpoe$2d1$1@tantalus.noip.org>...
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.
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!
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...
Its coming...
Cheers!
Aladar
http://stolmarphysics.com


Help with Stellar Evolution
In article <834ff27d.0306260854.56af9dac@posting.google.com >,
Aladar <alistolmar@3dresearch.com> wrote:
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.
I'm not. They say the data fit the GR solution to less than 2%.
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.

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 09:35 AM.