On Saturday, October 25, 2014 2:30:40 AM UTC-4, wlandsman wrote:

There is zero scientific justification for throwing out the pre-2012
data.

---------------------------------------

In the 3 recent responses there seems to be an acknowledgement that
the accuracy of stellar mass estimates does tend to improve with time.

So I am at a loss to understand the very vigorous effort to discredit
my choice of a start date (data posted to arXiv.org or published
during or after 2012) for accepting estimated masses in this specific
test.

Given our assumption that the estimates tend to improve with time, it
is a no-brainer that one would want to choose some start date that
rules out the older, less accurate, estimates. Why would anyone who is
after a reliable test want to include the older lower-quality data?

As decades go by and the number of data points increases to much
larger numbers, will the critics still claim that the choice of a 2012
start date remains unacceptable? If so, such an attitude seems
unscientific and based on questionable motivations.

RLO
Fractal Cosmology