"Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote in
:

On Sep 18, 6:34*pm, Martin Hardcastle
wrote:

So, again, the data are not telling you what you would like them to
tell you. It took me about ten minutes to find the data you referred
to, get them into the right format, modify and run my code, and do
the modifications needed to run it again on the sums of the masses.
Testing models, when they make quantitative predictions, is easy, and
it's a skill that any would-be-modeller ought to learn. The half-hour
or so I've spent on this today is enough for me, though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
----

When you get refreshed, maybe you could put in a half hour or so on
white dwarf masses.

No one seems to want to talk about the Tremblay et al SDSS white dwarf
mass function.

This is odd since it is a large, recent sample, and is carefully
analysed.

Not by you.

BEEP BOOP...analyzing 57 stars with masses determined to 100% or better

Average standard deviation per star: 1.40
Average mass of star: 0.92 solar masses
Mass range of sample: 0.80 to 1.36 solar masses
Chi-squared of the expected binning hypothesis: 130.75
Reduced chi-squared: 2.2938596491228
The probability that the reduced chi-squared value
of 2.2938596491228 is larger than the value of 130.75
for 57 degrees of freedom is 0.00000010061.

So much for the nonsense about 'quantized masses'.


It also has clear and statistically significant peaks at DSR's
predicted values.

How do you know they are 'statistically significant', and why would it
matter if it did given you have literally zero explanation for why your
theory is wrong every time?


Why is everyone ignoring this piece of information? (He asks
rhetorically).

RLO
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw