Preferred Stellar Masses?

On Sep 29, 6:14*am, David Staup wrote:
"Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote in ...
[Mod. note: entire quoted article snipped -- mjh]

would the total kenetic energy of any system have the potential to affect
your theory?
--------------------------------------------------------

Good point! In relativistic theory, and Discrete Scale Relativity, is
merely a further generalization of General Relativity (+ EM in
Einstein-Maxwell field eqns), the total energy of a system includes
the masses and momenta of all subsystems.

Since the prediction of quantized stellar systems is very
controversial, I have decided to keep things as straight forward and
simple as possible for now.

If the predicted mass quantization can be demonstrated as a first
approximation, then we would be motivated to look for even more
stringent total energy quantization.

One step at a time is the best strategy.

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

"Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote in
:

On Sep 29, 6:05*am, David Staup wrote:

can you calculate the number of known systems that would conform by
chance?

[Mod. note: yes. That's what statistical tests like chi^2 are for --
if you have a well-defined sample of objects to start with -- mjh]
-----------------------------------------------------------------

I am hoping that others who can maintain their scientific objectivity
will begin to test the definitive predictions in a fair and unbiased
way.

I find it odd how this has an operational definition being exclusive to
data and analyses that do not agree with you.


It is best when the experimentalists operate somewhat independently
from the theoreticians, who have a "stake" in the outcome. All I ask
is that the test be fair and unbiased and done following the caveats I
have identified.

Done repeatedly. I am bored of including the links.

You've identified the core issue though! You have a stake in this. A
huge emotional stake spanning decades. That's why you can't accept that
your numerology has been falsified.


To repeat those caveats one more time: all system components must be
included in the total mass,

Unless one of the components obeys your numerology. We've seen that
distinction made a few times by you.

dynamical mass determinations are highly
desired

Unless the result agrees with you.

, +/- 0.01 solar mass resolution is desired but there is some
flexibility here,

Of course. According to you, systems that agree with you with the error
bars being six or more times larger are acceptable.

Systems with error bars of 0.01 M_sun or smaller, which disagree with
you, of course are just too imprecise.

You just posted an example that flies in the face of your idiotic
demands. A measurement error of 0.06 M_sun and whose mass was
spectroscopically determined. But since it agrees with you, you allow
it.

Don't you see how ridiculous you look when you do that stuff?

systems should be analysed individually with the
best available methods.

Unless that analysis uses elementary statistics. Then it is highly
suspect.

Finally, I am very wary of statistical
methods used to circumvent these caveats.

Why? The methods are published, well documented, taught in experimental
physics courses, and all over the internet for you to ignore at your
leisure.

Funny how the only 'statistical method' you accept is percentage
agreement.

The only convincing tests
for me are ones that are the most direct, and the least dependent on
any assumptions.

What convinces you is largely irrelevant. You are already a believer in
the numerology.

What matters is whether you can convince others. The scientific
community learned to use statistical analysis years ago. Why don't you
just learn the methods rather than complaining over and over?

"Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote in
:

On Sep 28, 5:22*pm, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply

There are more stars in the sky than grains of sand on the beach.
*There are many stars whose masses are known. *Do you REALLY think
that pointing out ONLY those examples which conform to your ideas
demonstrates ANYTHING AT ALL other than your own delusion?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
----

Apparently you had not yet read my other post of 9/28/11.

Here is a quote from it.

"2) The stellar systems that will verify or falsify DSR's definitive
prediction of quantization in the total masses of star and star/
planet
systems are the ones that will be carefully analyzed dynamically at
the 1-3% level and have credible mass estimates posted to arxiv.org
in
the next 6 to 12 months.

(3) From Sept 7th (start of thread) until present, I find:

16 systems in good or excellent agreement with the DSR prediction.
1 system in fair agreement
1 system in poor agreement "

I have been monitoring and commenting on ALL relevant systems. The
fact that 16 of 18 newly analyzed systems that meet the selection
criteria agree with the Discrete Scale Relativity prediction of
quantized total masses for stellar binaries and planetary systems is
something that you need to think about objectively.

Why don't you just come out and say you'll refuse to consider data that
does not agree with you? My analysis was objective. I never cherry
picked data. I even used the stupidly burdensome requirement that the
masses be known to 1% / 0.01 M_sun or better, and your theory was still
falsified with available data.

You don't even apply the same "selection criteria" to your own data so
why should anyone else?

Besides, you've had the exoplanet.eu data for awhile. Are you trying to
analyze it or what?


Can you find data published or posted to arxiv.org during the 9/7 to
9/28 period that meet the required sensitivity and that support your
assumptions and falsify my prediction?

This is a stupid requirement that is specifically crafted to exclude
years and years of data that destroys your theory.

You demanded an analysis be run on the eclipsing binary data YOU FOUND
IN arXiv. That I gave the VizieR database to you which had that in it,
apparently slipped your mind.

Where was your requirement when you thought the data was going to
support you?



Please do accuse me of proceeding in an improper manner, unless you
(1) accurately know what I am doing and (2) can show specific
scientific errors.

Well, you don't know what you are doing.

The specific scientific errors have been shown rather repeatedly by
different people to no effect so I am unsure as to who you think you are
fooling.


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

"Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote in news:mt2.0-
:

On Sep 29, 6:08*am, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply

What you need to do is define your sample first then look whether the
distribution is as you predict. *Someone in this thread did the work
for
you, with the result that DSR is disproved. *End of story.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

My response to David Staup defines what, for me, constitutes the
scientific criteria for a fair test of the prediction.

How in the blathering hell is "only data published within the last
month, and only dynamically determined" in any way scientific?

Please, take a moment to justify that. I get strong amounts of amusement
watching you scalpel down data to a manner that only agrees with you.


The Torres et al. sample cannot be used as the final word.

Of course not. It disagrees with you, even though it satisfies every one
of your "I am ignorant of modern statistics" based requirements.

It is
weighted to stars above 1.0 solar mass

*blinks*

It is too late to argue your numerology only applies to low mass stars.

You do not get a mulligan.

and the mass estimate errors
are only marginally acceptable.

The stars in the Torres catalog are all known to like 2% or better.
There are 61 stars within the catalog that are known to 0.01 M_sun or
better, and you still aren't satisfied.

Since the data does not support you, it is only "marginally acceptable".
Funny how the error bars that are acceptable are variable in a direct
relation to how well the data supports you. Notice how 80% of the Torres
catalog is within the 0.06 M_sun limit which you'll cite if a star
within it supports your numerology?


Their work can be cited as possible
evidence against the prediction, but I do not accept that this one
questionable sample can falsify the prediction.

Of course you don't accept it. Its' only another 95 stars that falsify
your theory.

Give us a number, Robert. How many stars would it take to falsify your
theory?


You seem to want to "end" the story as soon as possible.

You seem to want to drag it out for another 30 years.

Have you even collected the exoplanet data yet, or are you waiting for
someone to do it for you?


Does my little 16 out of 18 sample mentioned above count for anything,
in your opinion?

Why should the cherry picking of data by a non-objective person count
for a damn thing?

What are the error bars on the stars you think agree with you? Star for
star I can find at least 15 stars that disagree with you for every 1
that does. More, if I hold myself to the same error bars that you hold
supporting data against.

"Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote in
:

On Sep 29, 4:55*am, eric gisse wrote:

The fascinating bit is how you are using a spectroscopic mass
determination as support of your numerology even though you've been
routinely arguing against it because it is 'theoretical' or some such
nonsense.

I'd like to know if you read the paper past the abstract.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-----------------

The Abstract says, and I quote:

"We derive the dynamical masses for both stars with an accuracy of
1.5%, ...


What do you imagine dynamical means in this context?

I read the abstract - quite carefully, in fact.

But not the paper, which was my point.

Section 3:

"Adopting these ephemerides the spectroscopic orbit (systemic
velocity, velocity amplitudes, eccentricity, periastron passage
and mass ratio) plus a Fourier series of order six (which
approximates the pulsations of the Cepheid primary component) were
fitted to the radial velocity data."

By the way, aren't you worried about those systematic errors which you
were using as a reason to ignore spectroscopic mass determinations that
disagree with you?

You never did specify them. Now would be an excellent time, so you can
help us understand how they do not apply when the data agrees with you.

Speaking of "not reading the paper", I'd like to bring up some other
things that the paper does that you've been bizzarely selective in
arguing about.

The uncertainty in the mass of the system was obtained via Monte Carlo
simulations. Since you just posted about how concerned you are about
error analysis using methods you don't understand (you phrased it
different) I'm wondering why you aren't rejecting this result.

Now taking that error bar at face value, the system has a mass
uncertainty of sqrt(0.04^2 + 0.06^2) = 0.072 M_sun. Haven't you been
arguing this WHOLE TIME about how you'll only accept data that falsifies
your numerology if the error bars are of the 0.01 M_sun size?

Finally, I am highly amused that you are citing the "OGLE-LMC-CEP1812"
star system. This system comes from the OGLE data set, which in case
you've already repressed it, is the result of a series of sky searches
for MACHOS which also just happened to exclude your numerology by an
incredibly high margin.

It is an impressive feat to say a data point simultaneously supports and
does not support your numerology, so I applaud the mental gymnastics you
have performed.


Apparently you did not.

Would you like to revise that estimate?


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

On Sep 29, 6:07*am, "Robert L. Oldershaw"
wrote:

Apparently
------------------------------------------------------------------

TODAY'S SYSTEM OF INTEREST [9/29/11]

http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.6339 by Kilic et al.

This may be a white dwarf binary, detached, non-eclipsing.

Not a particularly good test system at this point, but much potential
for the future.

Primary: white dwarf with M = 0.30 +/- 0.02 soolar mass.
Discrete Scale Relativity: M = 0.29 solar mass.

Secondary: white dwarf with M =/ 0.30 solar mass? No main sequence
star seen, so it appears to be compact or ultracompact. The mass is
poorly constrained, but the authors say: "J1630 is best explained by a
binary system containing a 0.30 solar mass white dwarf with a M =/
0.30 white dwarf companion..."

So the primary, like the majority of white dwarfs, is in good
agreement with DSR predictions.

If the companion's mass estimate can be refined in future efforts,
then J1630 might be a very promising test system. A good system to
keep an eye on. A "mini test" within the overall test of quantized
stellar system masses.

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

On Sep 29, 6:16*am, eric gisse wrote:

Do you have actual scientific observations?

Yes.

Discrete Scale Relativity is a reasonably complete paradigm in terms
of its conceptual foundations and implications.

The scaling equations were published in 1985 and have not needed to be
adjusted.

At http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw you will find a list of 40
successful retrodictions.

The new paradigm has made successful predictions (like pulsar-planets,
a vast population of unbound planetary-mass systems, and self-
similarity between the frequency spectra of specific variable stars
and specific excited atoms undergoing specific transitions).

Someday I suspect that you will want to study the new paradigm in
considerable detail.

RLO
Discrete Scale Relativity

"Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote in news:mt2.0-
:

On Sep 29, 6:16*am, eric gisse wrote:

Do you have actual scientific observations?

Yes.

Discrete Scale Relativity is a reasonably complete paradigm in terms
of its conceptual foundations and implications.

The scaling equations were published in 1985 and have not needed to be
adjusted.

At http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw you will find a list of 40
successful retrodictions.

The new paradigm has made successful predictions (like pulsar-planets,
a vast population of unbound planetary-mass systems, and self-
similarity between the frequency spectra of specific variable stars
and specific excited atoms undergoing specific transitions).

Of course you think the predictions are successful. You have been
handling the mental gymnastics of simultaneous confirmation and
falsification for years now.

"Gap in the stellar mass function at about 0.73 M_sun."

Strike 1. There is no gap. The stellar mass function is a continuous
distribution through the entire main sequence, which is an observational
claim rather than a numerology based claim.

"Decreased upper limit for masses of single stars."

Strike 2. Complete nonsense. You like to say each integer multiple of
0.145 M_sun corresponds to atomic number of an element in the periodic
table. Which puts an upper bound on the largest stars of about 20 solar
masses if I remember correctly. The real upper limit is in the
neighborhood of 150 M_sun. Where are the 600 atomic weight atoms?

"Mass of the proton."

Strike 3. You are wrong by 40 standard deviations.

And just for fun, strike 4: "The global 160 minute g-mode oscillation of
the Sun."

The Sun has a mass that disagrees with your numerology 100 standard
deviations. The data point that falsifies your theory cannot
simultaneously also support it.

I'm done going through your list of failures because time is finite.

I'm willing to bet an examination of your other claims, especially 1-8,
will show that most if not all of them are completely wrong.

I am, however, curious to know how on Earth you can make any of those
claims given that you have not once in your life done a statistical
analysis of published data.

Let me guess - through 1-8 you are relying on someone else who did the
work for you, and you then convinced yourself that your numerology
agrees?


Someday I suspect that you will want to study the new paradigm in
considerable detail.

Why, is science going to be abandoned in the future?

Numerology is not science.



RLO
Discrete Scale Relativity

On Sep 30, 2:53*am, eric gisse wrote:

How in the blathering hell is "only data published within the last
month, and only dynamically determined" in any way scientific?

Please, take a moment to justify that. I get strong amounts of amusement
watching you scalpel down data to a manner that only agrees with you.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In science, technical and analytical capabilities are always
advancing.

My argument, given in this thread several times, is that we are only
now entering a period in which some of Discrete Scale Relativity's
definitive predictions can be tested at an acceptable level of
confidence.

A good example is the Kepler exoplanet project which is cranking out
lots of new high quality data, from wich we will learn many new
things.

Another excellent example is the Spektr-R radio telescope launched by
the Russians, and which acheived first light this week with all
systems working. This remarkable new system will be sure to generate
interesting new observations.

As a final example, out of many that could be chosen, I emphasize my
contention that the microlensing projects are on the verge of playing
a major role in astrophysics again. As evidence for the
appropriateness of that contention I would cite the amazing new
results of the MOA collaboration, which appears to have discovered 0.2
trillion unbound planetary-mass objects, and the brand new project by
Griest et al to look for primordial black holes in the Kepler data.

So, you see, science is always moving forward. That is why I
emphasize using new data to test Discrete Scale Relativity in a fair
and far more definitive maner than was available in the past.

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

"Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote in news:mt2.0-
:

On Sep 29, 6:07*am, "Robert L. Oldershaw"
wrote:

Apparently
------------------------------------------------------------------

TODAY'S SYSTEM OF INTEREST [9/29/11]

http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.6339 by Kilic et al.

This may be a white dwarf binary, detached, non-eclipsing.

Not a particularly good test system at this point, but much potential
for the future.

Primary: white dwarf with M = 0.30 +/- 0.02 soolar mass.
Discrete Scale Relativity: M = 0.29 solar mass.

A measurement error that's only twice as large as what you unrelentingly
require for systems that disagree with you.

What's up with that?


Secondary: white dwarf with M =/ 0.30 solar mass? No main sequence
star seen, so it appears to be compact or ultracompact. The mass is
poorly constrained, but the authors say: "J1630 is best explained by a
binary system containing a 0.30 solar mass white dwarf with a M =/
0.30 white dwarf companion..."

So the primary, like the majority of white dwarfs, is in good
agreement with DSR predictions.

Um, no.

The secondary only has a lower bound. That makes it incredibly worse
than other systems with _actually defined_ masses.

That those disagree with you is irrelevant to you, however.

Besides, the majority of white dwarfs DISAGREE WITH YOU.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.a...5ca2361ed4cd9?
dmode=source

Why do you insist on making things up? Why even post to a research
newsgroup at all?


If the companion's mass estimate can be refined in future efforts,
then J1630 might be a very promising test system. A good system to
keep an eye on. A "mini test" within the overall test of quantized
stellar system masses.

Naturally a system with only a lower bound on its' mass is a "promising
test system", while the data set you were citing daily just a week ago
suddenly is no longer relevant.

Are you intentionally making yourself look like a joke, or is this
accidental?


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