"Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote in
:

On Sep 20, 2:45*am, eric gisse wrote:

This is something you should be able to answer yourself. Did you ever
learn how to propagate error?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
--------

If you are a master at propagating error, and I have seen much
evidence for this, then why not give us a tutorial.

http://tinyurl.com/6bbs9us

This material was taught to me in freshman year lab courses.

If you are going to beg for an education in statistical anlaysis, don't
waste people's time by floating nonsense claims about mysterious and
unquantifiable systematic errors in all the observations that falsify
your theory.


Question: In your view are there often several ways to statistically
evaluate agreement between theoretical predictions and empirical
results? Or only one?

Sure, several.

Don't embarass yourself by using the existence of multiple statistical
analysis methods as an attempt to delude yourself into thinking your
theory has a shot.

It is dead. Never coming back, not that it was ever a serious theory to
begin with.


Question: Have you ever seen a case where a "very precise
determination" of something turns out to be wrong? Say, like the
radius of the proton?

Sure, that's one example.

The gravitational constant is another.

Thank you for reminding me about the proton radius thing. I had totally
forgotten about this.

Let's get in the w-w-wayback machine and trundle back to July of 2010
where you were spewing nonsense about how your theory was doing better
than the current QED approximation.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.f...5e74f37a17874?
dmode=source

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.f...75c7ed16c84c2?
dmode=source

In a year, the following is apparent:

1) You still do not understand the concept of the standard deviation,
systematic vs random errors, or statistical analysis in general.

2) You still do not understand significant digits.

3) You still do not understand why percentage based error estimates are
horrible to use.

4) You still simply ignore me when I prove your theory wrong.

5) You still think it it a good idea to bring up an observation that
disagrees with you by 41 standard deviations.


It was guaranteed to be 0.88 fermi,

No it wasn't. Both the word "guranteed" and the number "0.88" are wrong.

Measurement settled upon 0.8768(69) fm, consistent with current QED
predictions. Absent systematic error in the measurement, that was the
answer. Then a new method of measuring is tried, and a systematic error
was discovered.

I am unsurprised to see you think "0.88" and "0.8768(69)" are the same
number.

until
better experiments came out with an incompatible new value of 0.84
fermi. See how the real world works?

Yeah, observation disproves theories. The approximation to QED that
predicts the ~0.87 fm proton radius is wrong, just as your theory is
wrong.

I'm glad you took the time to remind everyone that your theory made
another prediction that was wrong by an amount of standard deviations
that takes two digits to express.


RLO
Discrete Scale Relativity


[Mod. note: we seem to be wandering away from our, admittedly tenuous,
grasp on astrophysics here -- please focus on that and not on the
proton radius, which belongs on some other group -- mjh]