"Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote in news:mt2.0-
:
On Oct 6, 3:41*am, "Robert L. Oldershaw"
wrote:
-----------------------------------------
CLARIFICATION
Some have barked at me for what they try to convince others is an
attempt to hide from negative results - specifically the Torre et al
mass results.
AW YEAH! Going back to the classics!
Its' been awhile since I heard a dog reference. Here I was thinking you
finally realized how silly those sounded coming from an adult.
For what its worth, here is my response
-----------------------------------------------------------
You specifically requested Martin Hardcastle analyze the Torres
eclipsing binary sample.
Then once he does that, you pan the results and go on your merry way.
And now you are saying you have only identified one star that
disagrees
with you? Isn't that textbook crank behavior?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Ordinarily I would ignore this abusive type of post.
However, so that readers are not mislead by things that you know full
well are misleading innuendos, I will set the matters straight with
facts.
Both you and your imagined supporters have had ample time to pick apart
both my analysis and Martin Hardcastle's. The resounding lack of
technical arguments against either analysis makes one wonder what you
are talking about with this "misleading innuendo" nonsense.
The methodology, analysis, code, and data used have all been crystal
clear. You've had weeks to ask for clarification, and you've been
nothing but dismissive of the whole thing to the point where it is clear
you are not interested in dissenting data.
Martin Hardcastle did analyze the Torre et al sample and find that it
did not agree with DSR predictions.
I clearly said in print that I accepted his analysis for that sample.
I also pointed out the reasons that I felt that this sample could not
be the final word on the matter.
Other samples do support the DSR predictions.
You do not have "other samples". You have carefully picked individual
data points.
The Torres, et. al. sample has 95 binary systems, which when put
together against the count you think supports you, outnumbers it 5 to 1.
Even more if you count the fact they are binary (and a few trinary)
systems.
This, of course, is merely one sample. I gave you the analysis of a
12,000 star sample, a quarter of which met your ridiculously overdone
requirements. That also conclusively disagreed with you.
I am highly curious to know why you think your "other samples" take
precedence over a 5:1 majority of systems that disagree with you by
using the rules of which you agreed to.
The small unofficial sample reported above represents the systems that
(1) were analyzed and reported on arxiv.org during the month of
September, or were drawn to my attention during that period by
articles published in the scientific literature during the month of
September, and (2) met the requirements that I have identified for a
fair and unbiased test of the predicted quantization of the total
masses of star systems.
I'd like to remind you that your requirements continue to be silly, and
reek of being specifically crafted to exclude the large amounts of data
previously published which has been shown to discredit your numerology.
The Solar System, which is the one system for which we have definitive
mass data for all components, agrees with the Discrete Scale
Relativity predictions excellently, as anyone can see by reading the
initial post in this thread.
Yes, examine the "initial post", in which you repeat your preferred mode
of analysis:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.a...b6a91038d2f1c?
dmode=source
"However, when you add the mass of the planetary system and get a
total system mass, the value is 1.99158 x 10^33 g.
This agrees with one of the predicted peaks at the 99.987% level."
I'll just leave that here, so we can visit it again in a moment...
Your comment that the Sun's mass is in conflict with DSR predictions
indicates your "misunderstanding" of the fundamental prediction
clearly set out in the initial post. The prediction concerns the
quantization of the TOTAL mass of the bound systems. It would seem
that your comments about the Sun's mass are misleading in a very
calculated and unscientific manner.
You forgot to link to the post you thought was unscientific.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.a...870e714d91633?
dmode=source
I note you never actually responded to that one either. Funny how every
time someone does an analysis which inevitibly ends up not supporting
you, it is either ignored or dismissed.
Regardless, since you aren't counting the planetary masses in your
"successful prediction" list, I didn't see the need to do it either. But
for giggles, let's do that. But let's do it correctly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standar...onal_parameter
The solar system minus sun adds up to 177,718,531 km^3 s^-2
The sun is 132,712,440,018 km^3 s^-2
Since the error in G completely and undeniably dominates the measurement
of MG, i'm not including errors in MG here. Including that in the
analysis is an exercise for the reader.
The CODATA value of G is currently [1] 6.67384(80) x 10^-11 m^2 kg^-1
s^-2
Multiply the total of MG by (1000 m / km)^3 and divide by the value of
G.
You get 1.99121(48) x 10^30 kg.
Now you claim the total mass of the solar system is an integer multpile
of 0.145 solar masses. One solar mass is 1.98855(24) x 10^30 kg.
So the mass of the solar system, in solar masses, is 1.99121 / 1.98855 =
1.00134 M_sun
But what's the uncertainty in the measurement? Since you have such
personal trouble with the concept, I'll propagate the uncertainty for
you.
The fractional uncertainty in x = y/z is &x / x = &y/y + &z/z , which
you can verify yourself if you open literally any textbook on error
analysis.
[Mod. note: normally these will actually say that the fractional
errors add in quadrature, i.e. (&x/x)^2 = (&y/y)^2 + (&z/z)^2 . Not
that it makes a big difference in this case -- mjh]
So for our case, the error in the mass of the solar system in solar
masses is 0.00036, so the mass of the solar system is 1.00134(36) M_sun.
You claim that it is the nearest integer multiple of 0.145 M_sun. That
is 1.015 M_sun. The difference between what you predict and what is
observed is 0.01355 M_sun.
Since the error in our knowledge of the solar system's mass is 0.00036
M_sun, this means you are wrong by 37.6 standard deviations.
Yes, off by more than 37 standard deviations with a full accounting of
the solar system.
Why is it you prefer the unscientific fractional percentage estimate of
error rather than the scientific standard deviation? Your method seems
to make your numerology look better than it is because you never take
into account error of measurement.
Then again, I suppose that would be the point, wouldn't it? You'd never
post you are wrong by 37 standard deviations, but rather you'd post how
you are off by only a few fractions of a percent.
Deliberately using misleading error analysis in a journal article would
get the article retracted by the editors if found out after publication,
and you'd never get another publication in that journal ever again. If
you tried to submit one with an equivalently misleading analysis, the
same result would happen.
Would it be safe to assume this is why you haven't had a publication in
ApJ or any other journal of note in 25 years? Guess we'll never know.
I have no intention of answering any more of your abusive and
unscientific posts.
If showing you that your numerology does not match observation as you
claim is both unscientific and abusive, then I feel obligated to point
out to you that you are going to have a difficult time convincing any
scientist.
You might not answer my posts anymore, but I know you read them and so
do others. If you are comfortable with me posting a critical analysis
unopposed every time you post your latest nonsense, then that's fine as
it makes it clear to everyone that you have no answer to my criticisms.
[1]
http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?bg