Please refrain from insults; it's against the forum rules. If you think I'm trolling, please contact the moderation. No, that "on you" is incorrect. Schmelzer couldn't defend his position (just like you can't), so he gave up. Period. I did no such thing. I pointed out to Schmelzer that his boasting was unwarranted, as he didn't have a clue how many peer-reviewed papers I have published. In other words, his argument of authority might back-fire in a spectacular way, so I warned him not to make one in the first place. Why should I make an argument of authority? Please respond to the contents of my posts, not to the poster of them. Erm, it's you that's making high school math mistakes. Erm, it's you that doesn't even know the basics of GR or QCD. If you think I'm trolling, please contact the moderators. Actually, I don't think you have any intend to do just that. Wouldn't that make your constant "intimidating" a form of trolling too? You can show specific hand-picked examples all you like; if the underlying formulas are incorrect (as I've shown), you're not proving anything. OK, that's easy. Let's take your first example, and modify it a bit: d = 0 kg/m3 if r < 1 meter d = 2.02 * 10^18 kg/m3 if r > 1 meter It's non-uniform, and the numbers for Rs (of 90% core) and R (of 90% core) doesn't change significantly. However, within r < 1 meter, dm/dr = 0, in direct contradiction to your result of: dm/dr > c^2/2G. In other words, there are density profiles for which your equations do not hold. You've got that first part the wrong way around: in general, your results are incorrect; they are only valid for certain density profiles. However, you still haven't been able to produce the conditions to which such density profiles must conform, as I asked you to, so nobody knows whether there are realistic density profiles for which your derivation also doesn't hold. Additionally, since the derivation is mathematically wrong, any conclusion that you reach being right is purely accidental, as I've explained earlier.