Preferred Stellar Masses?

In article , "Robert L.
Oldershaw" writes:

On Sep 25, 2:41 pm, eric gisse wrote:

[snip all]
literally nothing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

NEW SYSTEM OF INTEREST

This is a new eclipsing binary with a Cepheid component.

Posted to arxiv.org on 9/27/11
http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.5414 Pietrzynski et al.

Cepheid mass = 3.74 +/- 0.06 solar mass
Discrete Scale Relativity = 26 times 0.145 = 3.77 solar mass.

Secondary mass = 2.64 +/- 0.04 solar mass.
Discrete Scale Relativity = 18 times 0.145 = 2.61 solar mass.

TOTAL SYSTEM MASS = 6.38 solar mass.
Discrete Scale Relativity prediction = 6.38 solar mass.

Agreement: perfecto!

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?

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

On Sep 25, 2:41*pm, eric gisse wrote:

[snip all]
literally nothing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Ignoring falsifications of your numerology sure will make them go away!

You still haven't made a technical reply of any depth to my
falsifications of your numerology. Are you still composing a reply, or
are you just not all that concerned with how reality disagrees with you?


NEW SYSTEM OF INTEREST

This is a new eclipsing binary with a Cepheid component.

Posted to arxiv.org on 9/27/11
http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.5414 Pietrzynski et al.

Fascinating.

Not the Cepheid, that's an impressive but merely incremental improvement
over previous mass estimates.

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.

Why can't you be at least a little bit self consistent when you complain
about results that disagree with your numerology?


Cepheid mass = 3.74 +/- 0.06 solar mass
Discrete Scale Relativity = 26 times 0.145 = 3.77 solar mass.

Secondary mass = 2.64 +/- 0.04 solar mass.
Discrete Scale Relativity = 18 times 0.145 = 2.61 solar mass.

TOTAL SYSTEM MASS = 6.38 solar mass.
Discrete Scale Relativity prediction = 6.38 solar mass.

With a measurement error of 0.07 M_sun. I'm noticing a pattern!

When the observations discredit your numerology, you DEMAND that they
all be to a hundredth of a solar mass accurate.

But when the answer supports your numerology, that requirement
mysteriously relaxes. Others have commented on this before...

What's up with that?


Agreement: perfecto!

Unless one considers the ~12,000 solitary stars that discredit your
theory, or the ~150 OTHER eclipsing binaries which discredit your
theory.

Do you seriously think people are going to look at your single result
and care in the slightest when there are thousands of other examples
that tear your numerology to shreds?

Do you yet have an answer as to why the Sun disagreees with you by a
hundred standard deviations?


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

"Phillip Helbig---undress to reply" wrote
in message ...
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?


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]

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.

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?

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.

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

In article , "Robert L.
Oldershaw" writes:

(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

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.

"Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote in message
...
[Mod. note: entire quoted article snipped -- mjh]

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

"Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote in
:

On Sep 25, 4:32*am, eric gisse wrote:

The only reason 'heat' is being generated is because you have stopped
behaving like a scientist.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
---------------

(1) Discrete Scale Relativity is much more than "numerology", as you
pejoratively refer to it.

If by 'much more' you meant to say 'not much more', then I'll agree with
you.

From Wiki:

"Scientific theories are sometimes labeled "numerology" if their
primary inspiration appears to be a set of patterns rather than
scientific observations. This colloquial use of the term is quite
common within the scientific community and it is mostly used to
dismiss a theory as questionable science."

Do you have actual scientific observations? Rhetorical question as the
answer is a clear "no".

Every "prediction" you make is based upon numbers generated either by
arbitrary relationships between unrelated systems or arbitrary choices
of numbers from another arbitrary equation.

This is made perfectly clear if one actually reads your papers. Actual
manipulation of the field equations you claim your theory is based off
of is nonexistent.

Try to remember that I've read your stuff, Robert. I'm not making it up
as I go along.


(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.

Let's break this nugget down:

"definitive prediction" : This means you have to explain why such a wide
body of observation disagrees with your theory rather than shrugging and
locating another one that barely does.

Nobody is impressed when you post another one sigma result. In fact,
every time you do it, you show that you are missing the point.

"total masses of star and star/planet systems" : You like to oscillate
between 'star' and 'star system' depending whether the current
observation you are looking at happens to agree with you.

As for planetary systems, you've been given the exoplanet database. Have
you tried doing an analysis yet, or are you continuing being
impressively lazy?

"carefully analyzed dynamically" : Spectroscopic determinations are just
as valid, especially since you'll cite them when they agree with you.

Unless they don't agree, then they are crap and full of systematic
errors that you can't identify.

"1-3% level" : More arbitrary numbers. With a decent data set, your
numerology could be tested at the 0.1 M_sun level.

Which does not even address the fact that your arbitrary requirement has
been met or surpassed for the eclipsing binary database you yourself
demanded someone analyze for you because of your laziness disability.

"next 6 to 12 months" : The data you require has been published from 1
to 10 years ago. Thanks for being the posterchild of 'a month in the lab
saves a day in the library'.


(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

What flagrant dishonesty. Look at how you count the stars that agree and
completely ignore the far, far larger amount that disagree.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.a...rm/thread/efe3
ceaafabd57d1#

3,000 stars to 5% or better. A third of the data set disagrees with you
at 1 standard deviation or better.

185 stars to 1% or better. Only 3 agree with you, the rest disagree at
one standard deviation or better.

Of course you reject the result, but naturally you've put no personal
effort into checking the database yourself as evidenced by the
incredibly lazy request that Martin Hardcastle analyze the eclipsing
binary set *I GAVE YOU*.

I am currently looking at the paper "Accurate masses and radii of
normal stars: Modern results and applications" by Torres, Andersen
andGimenez.

[...]

An independent analysis of the data would be most welcome. [1]

Of course once the analysis is done, you start blasting chaffe into the
air and hope people don't notice your numerology is falsified. Again.
[2]



(4) The substellar mass function also provides a strong potential for
testing DSR's predicted quantization.

*snort*

Why do you think this will make any difference?

Planets, eclipsing binaries, main sequence stars, white dwarfs...none of
them exhibit your numerology's quantization. Is clinging onto a dead
theory the behavior of a scientist?

Within a year or two we will,
for the first time in history, have a decent empirical knowledge of
the substellar MF between 1 x 10^-5 solar mass and 0.10 solar mass.
DSR definitively predicts distinct peaks at 8 x 10^-5 solar mass and
0.016 solar mass, with the dominant peak at 8 x 10^-5 solar mass. No
other paradigm or theory has ever made, or could make, such
predictions, and no other theory could explain those peaks in a non-ad
hoc manner if they are found.

Really, no theory explains planet or star formation?

At least you have enough respect for this newsgroup to not bring up that
silly SDSS dataset that ends up disagreeing with you if one actually
reads the damn thing.


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


[1] :
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.a...4a8af0616e746?
dmode=source
[2] :
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.a...30c852aad8a14?
dmode=source

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%, ...

I read the abstract - quite carefully, in fact.

Apparently you did not.

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

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.

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.

To repeat those caveats one more time: all system components must be
included in the total mass, dynamical mass determinations are highly
desired, +/- 0.01 solar mass resolution is desired but there is some
flexibility here, systems should be analysed individually with the
best available methods. Finally, I am very wary of statistical
methods used to circumvent these caveats. The only convincing tests
for me are ones that are the most direct, and the least dependent on
any assumptions.

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

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.

The Torres et al. sample cannot be used as the final word. It is
weighted to stars above 1.0 solar mass and the mass estimate errors
are only marginally acceptable. 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.

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

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

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