"Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote in news:mt2.0-
:

On Sep 11, 2:39*pm, eric gisse wrote:

This is not science.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

We have one stellar system for which the total mass and the masses of
the subsystems are measured dynamically to a high degree of accuracy:
the Solar System.

The Solar System's total mass agrees with the prediction of Discrete
Scale Relativity at the 99.987% level.

You predict a quantization of stellar masses in binnings of 0.145 M_sun.

Our sun, of course, is 1.00.. M_sun. The solar system beyond that adds
0.001 M_sun to the equation.

So your prediction is off by 0.015 M_sun.

The current mass of the sun is 1.9885(2) x 10^30 kg [1]. So one standard
deviation of error is equal to 0.0002 x 10^30 kg or 0.0001 M_sun. Your
prediction is incorrect by 0.015 M_sun, or 150 standard deviations.

As we have discussed previously, a prediction that is off by 'only' five
standard deviations is widely considered to be absolutely wrong. Your
prediction is off by 150! But you prefer to express error in
percentages, which masks the true level of wrongness.

You know exactly what you are doing, and it is dishonest as well as most
definitely not science.


I notice that you make no mention of this one solid piece of evidence
that is already available.

My apologies for neglecting the data point that excludes your theory by
150 standard deviations.


Why would you put so much emphasis on the two poorly constrained
masses of the systems you mention above, but ignore the more accurate
Solar System data?

Oh my god, are you kidding me?

What part of "I clicked two planet links at random, and grabbed their
stellar conterpart masses as an example" is THAT FAR out of your ability
to understand?

I see literally zero reason for me to do your research for you. The
point was the data is right there, and you are too lazy to get it and do
an afternoon's worth of basic statistical analysis.


Do the mass estimates for the Solar System qualify as science, in your
worldview?

Yes.


Do you agree that the Solar System's mass is extremely close to one of
DSR's predicted discrete masses?

No.

Why? Because you want to use the wedge of 'but it is cloooooose!' to
mask the fact your theory is wrong.

You made the error of saying this is a 'definitive prediction', and now
you are married to it.

This is probably also why you never actually showed the derivation of
your latest prediction. Now that you know it is wrong, you'll go back
and pick some new constants and come up with a different 'definitive
prediction' that gets a bit closer. Lather, rinse, repeat.


Or will you assure us that it is off by an astronomical number of
standard deviations?

RLO
Discrete Scale Relativity


Y'see Robert, this is why what you do is not science.

You are given a measurement. We know the measurement, and have enough of
an idea of the random and systematic errors of the measurment to say
that the measurement is true within a margin of error known as a
'standard deviation'.

It is the 20th and 21st century's method (aka the MODERN method) of
parameterizing the error of a measurement. Within literally every
reasonable piece of literature you will ever read, nobody EVER relies on
percentage based estimates of error because they are highly misleading
as I have repeatedly shown you WRT particle physics.

You are, of course, perfectly free to keep going on about 'oh my god it
is so close if I use percentages' but nobody is ever going to take you
seriously because this means you are ignorant (willful or otherwise) of
modern statistical analysis. Given we have had this disucssion before,
the ignorance is now willful and malicious.

Your theory has yet another definitive prediction, it has been compared
to observation, and is wrong by 150 standard deviations. Will you admit
error and move on, or are you going to keep posting about how you have
yet another definitive test of DSR while ignoring the previous ones that
have failed?

[1]

IT IS REALLY GODDAMN HARD to find 'mass of the sun' with error bars.
Turns out what you should look for is the 'heliocentric gravitational
constant' which gives you the quantity GM, which ties into how we can
measure the quantity GM really easily to a dozen significant figures but
are constrained by the 4 or 5 significant figures of the gravitational
constant.

http://asa.usno.navy.mil/SecK/2012/A...tants_2012.pdf