On Friday, October 24, 2014 2:34:42 AM UTC-4, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
In a recent thread some posters argued that estimated masses for
binary star systems do not get more accurate with time, so my choosing
of 2012 as the start for building a test sample was vigorously
criticized.

Sorry, no, I won't be baited by your strawman argument. What you
actually claimed was that you should be able to *ignore* data from
papers published before 2012, just based on your intuition.
Responders properly discussed the problems with your assertion.
Responders *never* made the claim above.

If we were to follow your intuitive assertion for the Torres et al
paper you cite, and discount data from before the start of 2012, then
there basically wouldn't be any data left. Thus, by your own
arguments, shouldn't we ignore the Torres et al paper

Also, how does a single paper performing intensive observation and
analysis on a single eclipsing binary say anything about the accuracy
of orbit solutions published before 2012? The answer is, it doesn't.
As Figure 1 shows, equivalent precision for the source has been
accessible since 1996 using those observatories. Nothing special
happened in 2012.

CM