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

On Oct 4, 3:43*pm, eric gisse wrote:

I said "kinda completely", as to distinguish between "a small portion
of
the data agrees with your numerology" (true) versus "none of the data
agrees" (false).

Interesting!

Not in the slightest. You can pick an arbitrary numerological factor and
have some stars satisfy it.

Your numerology has literally no computable chance of being correct.
I've shown this to you repeatedly, but for some reason you don't seem
interested in mounting a technical argument. You seem to prefer silence.


There you go again: "Every ... I have seen". *False, I have shown
you
samples that deviate from your beliefs.

Did you misquote me for a particular reason?

Please read your statement. I did not misquote you.

Yes you did. Rather deliberately.

I made the explicit point that every *database of stars* I have seen
collectively disagrees with you. You, instead, edit the quote and make
it look like I'm saying every *star* I have seen.

Which is both wrong and incredibly dishonest.

You've shown a few individual stars that deviate, but a search of the
literature finds hundreds to thousands more at the same level of
precision which disagrees with you.


I've been devouring bad science for years. Why should I stop now?

I see. So you see yourself as a warrior for right-thinking science.
But what if your scientific intuition has short-comings? Are you the
final arbiter of what is right and what is wrong?

I guess we'll never know if my thinking has shortcomings since you have
refused to take any opportunity to engage in a technical discussion.


When the necessary data become available for deciding whether or not
the total masses of star systems are quantized, and we can all be
reasonably sure that such data will be available in the foreseeable
future, I will be sure to bring it to the attention of readers.

Um, the data is here. Its' been shown to you. You've ignored it.

In fact, the overwhelming majority of the post you responded to was a
repetition of the explanation of what the data is and how it disagrees
with you.

Curiously enough, you snipped it all and went on a rant.


If DSR is right, then the match between predictions and observations
will become increasingly strong.

Except it isn't.

In fact, you can clearly see your numerology is diverging from
observation more and more as the years go by. You can see that directly
by only using data from ten years ago, then five, then from this year...


Is there any point in continuing this futile 2-person discussion
before such data is available? I think not.

Except the data is available. Not that you'd know, as you seem to only
be interested in data that confirms you.

You were highly interested in the Torres sample until it falsified your
numerology.

You claim to be interested in Kepler's results, but you refuse to follow
the literature references to get the raw mass data.

You liked to wax on about exoplanet masses but you do not appear to have
lifted a finger to pull the exoplanet data from exoplanet.eu or VizieR.

You've had every opportunity to mount a technical reply, and you've
refused. Just like you refuse to explain how the microlensing surveys
don't actually falsify your numerology.

So I'll agree the discussion is futile, but most certainly not because
of any lack of data but rather because you just ignore the data.