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

On Oct 6, 3:41*am, "Robert L. Oldershaw"
wrote:

----------------------------------------------------

Yet Another New System Of Interest.

At the rate of a successful data point a week, you'll accumulate enough
systems to match the Torres data set in two years or so.

This week's data point is, unfortunately, invalidated by last week's
data point which disagrees with you at 5 sigma.


Just published in the Astrophysical Journal Supplement , 197(1), 2011

"Kepler - 14b ..." by Buchhave et al
http://iopscience.iop.org/0067-0049/197/1/3
or
http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.5510

This appears to be a 3 component system.

Kepler-14A has a mass of 1.512 +/- 0.043 solar mass
Kelper-14B has a mass of 1.39 solar mass (not sure of error limits)
Kepler-14b has a mass of 0.0084 +/- 0.0002 solar mass

Oops, I guess this week's data point must be disregarded too! You've
repeatedly stated that only stars of uncertainty that is 0.01 M_sun or
better can be used. Maybe next week?



None of these systems by itself is in very good agreement with the DSR
predicted peaks, but when you add them together the story is very
different.

Estimated Total System Mass = 2.91 solar mass.

20 times the predicted Stellar Mass Unit of 0.145 solar mass = 2.90
solar mass.

Relative error = 0.003
Agreement = 99.7%

Did I make any mistakes on this one?

Sure.

* You still don't use the standard deviation as an expression of how
good your prediction matches observation. I have come to the conclusion
this is deliberate.

* The error on Kepler-14A is four times as large as what you deem
minimally acceptable. But once again, you forgive and forget when the
answer pleases you. This is deliberate.

* The mass of the star was determined through spectroscopy. You've
repeatedly said this is unacceptable, but since you like the answer you
forgive and forget. Again - deliberate.

* The mass of the secondary is estimated, There is no error bar, because
it wasn't directly measured. You, of course, read this and proceeded
anyway. Deliberate.

* The principle source of your rejection of my analysis of the Prieto,
et. al. data set was that it was based on a stellar evolution model in
order.

If one reads your paper, the notes on the mass of the star you just
cited says the following in Table 3:

"Based on the Girardi stellar evolution models."

Which I consider fascinating since you are now citing data based on
evolutionary models of stars. The only difference being you think this
data agrees with you.

I don't believe this was deliberate as I don't think you actually read
the notes on the mass estimate. But if you did, that'd be another
deliberate error.

Is this still science? Can we get some comments here?