"Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote in
:
On Sep 19, 5:43*pm, Martin Hardcastle
wrote:
This is the database *you* suggested I run the test on: the paper is
a good piece of work, standard in its field, and clearly provides the
'definitive test' you wanted: I have done a test that any competent
undergraduate could do and the result is completely inconsistent with
your expectations: several of us have also provided you with the
tools you need to do the same test yourself, so you don't really have
any excuse to call bias. When the best available data conclusively
rule out a model, a good scientist thinks again. I think that's all I
need to say on the subject.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
------------
Sincere thanks for your efforts on this sample, which I do not
dispute. This sample does not manifest the predicted quantization.
I note that you forgot to thank me for doing all your research for you.
I've done more work on your theory in the last year than you have in the
past 15. Every time I give you a piece of literature that disproves your
theory is another piece of literature that mysteriously evaded your
sights.
However, we know that the number of stars with masses below 1.00 solar
mass and with errors at the 0.01 solar mass level is still quite small
in this sample. So I am nowhere near ready to give up yet.
This sample? I just did the analysis on twelve thousand stars. Did you
not see it?
Your nonsensical requirement that a significant amount of stars be
measured to 0.01 M_sun level has been satisfied. There are 277 stars
within the sample given to you, with a range of 0.88 to 4.63 M_sun. That
sample only has a chi squared of about 3800.
Your theory is, unsurprisingly, still excluded to an 'indistinguishable
from 100%' probability. You, of course, do not seem too concerned about
this. Another day, still zero comment on my analysis.
If you won't be embarassed for yourself, I'll be embarassed for you.
I have much less faith in the arguments you use to summarily dismiss a
whole paradigm on the basis of one dubious sample,
YOU PICKED THE SAMPLE.
You *begged* him to do the analysis you are incapable of doing.
Only when the data shreds your theory do you break out the 'one dubious
sample' BS.
Do you believe you have any credibility here?
having seen this
kind of reasoning falsifed over and over again throughout the history
of science. You know: disproving evolution because it could be
mathematically "proven" that the Sun was less than a million years
old; or proving mathematicaly that H had to be 100 +/- 10 km/sec/Mpc
while simultaneously proving it had to be 50 +/- 5 km/sec/Mpc.
So much for the 'definitive test' you were crowing about until it was
actually done.
This is intellectually dishonest behavior, and it needs to stop
happening or at least stop appearing here. There are other newsgroups
which will let me use the words I want to use.
If white dwarf samples are consistent with discrete masses, or at
least show evidence for preferred masses, what do you say then?
Nice hedging, Robert.
The 'definitive prediction' of binning has now been excluded, so play
the coward and say 'at least show evidence for preferred masses'.
Regardless, what you ask is a hypothetical as you have not and will not
do the analysis for discrete masses and you have not and will not do the
analysis for preferred masses.
Can you please stop sending this stuff to sci.astro.research now? You
might as well go back to crossposting to half of the sci.* tree.
RLO
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw