Preferred Stellar Masses?

On Oct 1, 2:43*am, eric gisse wrote:
"Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote in news:mt2.0-

"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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

The gap at 0.73 solar masses has been verifiably seen in several white
dwarf samples, which constitute the one class of stars for which
adequate mass resolution was available in older studies of stellar
masses.

If you go to http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw and read the page
titled "Discrete Stellar Masses", you will find several white dwarf
samples by research groups who were leaders in the field at that
point.

They identify the gap at about 0.73 solar masses, they say it appears
real, and they say they have no reliable explanation for it.

This gap, when adequately tested for in individual stars, is highly
diagnostic, since it is a unique feature of atomic nuclei, and of the
predicted stellar analogues.

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

On Oct 1, 2:50*am, eric gisse wrote:

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

Um, no.

Besides, the majority of white dwarfs DISAGREE WITH YOU.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I regard 0.30 +/- 0.02 solar mass to be in good argeement with the
predicted 0.29 solar mass, given real world uncertainties.

Several times in this thread, I have identified wite dwarf samples
whose mass distributions agree with the expectations of Discrete Scale
Relativity.

I have given links to the recent paper on white dwarfs from the huge
SDSS sample, with its clear peaks at about 0.58 solar masses and at
0.43 solar masses.

My website gives the references and results on several older samples
of white dwarf stars.

I urge those who are interested in the idea of quantized stellar
masses to read the published work and draw their own conclusions.

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

"Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote in
:

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.

Apparently not, since you exclude highly common and well traveled
statistical methods.

Unless they support you.


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.

Note the words "acceptable level of confidence". What do those words
mean in practice?

You accept any data that agrees with you, regardless of how wide the
error bars.

When the data does not support you, which quite frankly is all the time,
you crow some nonsense about how you require data that has a margin of
error that's 145 standard deviations larger than the effect you want to
measure. This is idiotic, but I repeat myself...

You should have worked a little harder because you clearly did not know
that there was a large amount of data out there on stellar masses that
was accurate to 0.01 M_sun and that's why you are doing so many mental
gymnastics to explain why exactly what you want is not good enough.

The Torres data sample of about a hundred eclipsing binary systems known
to 1% or better? You were all over Martin Hardcastle to analyze it after
I got the ball rolling with the data analysis that you ignored.

When the data sample crapped all over your numerology, you suddenly
became less interested.

The 185 stars in the J/A+A/352/555/table1 catalog that are known to 1%
or better? Apparently also irrelevant.

Doesn't stop you from literally just making numbers up on the number of
objects that support you. How scientific!


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.

Sure, we will. But "we" does not include "you".

The mass data already disagrees with you, and you are already rejecting
the data.

Have you forgotten already? Or just think we didn't notice?



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.

Which, of course, you brought up in the context of directly imaging
neutron stars to determine their size which is idiotic for all kinds of
reasons.

Looks like you gave up on your numerological predictions of neutron star
sizes after it turns out we *have* imaged them (but not by radio, which
will never work) and your numerology is wrong.


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.

Microlensing surveys have been going on for years, and have been doing
good science that entire time.

Of course, you only notice those things when they are useful to you.

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,

Now write out what that is in solar masses. The number becomes less
cosmologically impressive.

Next, write it out as a fraction of the required dark matter mass budget
for the Milky Way.

Something of the 1% order of magnitude doesn't impress a single person,
so you insist on writing it out in absolute quantitites which does
impress people.

Unfortunately the discovery is interesting but irrelevant, aas the
discovered number is well within the observationally allowed amount
discovered by the various microlensing collaberations.

But keep saying "billions of objects!" and hope the smart people don't
do any math. I'm sure it'll happen.

and the brand new project by
Griest et al to look for primordial black holes in the Kepler data.

Of course, the only surviving range in which there can be a meaningful
amount of MACHOs completely excludes your numerology.

But you probably don't care about that, as this is yet another chance to
relitigate a lost fight!


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


Yes, science moves forward.

Why don't you look back and see what its' done before demanding science
repeat itself to appease a fringe researcher with a dead theory?

Speaking of not looking back, I note with complete unsurprise that you
neglected to comment on the fact that I did check on the white dwarfs
from the Torres sample and have proven that they do not conform to your
numerology's quantized distribution.

Oh well.

"Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote in
:

On Oct 1, 2:50 am, eric gisse wrote:

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

Um, no.

Besides, the majority of white dwarfs DISAGREE WITH YOU.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
------

I regard 0.30 +/- 0.02 solar mass to be in good argeement with the
predicted 0.29 solar mass, given real world uncertainties.


The secondary's mass is a LOWER BOUND. Do you know what a LOWER BOUND
is, and how it is different from a measurement with an error bar?

Besides, as I already stated, your utter generosity with error bars on
results that disagree with you has simply devolved into comic form.
Here, the error bar (which is a lower bound anyway...yeesh) is twice
that of other stars that disagree with your numerology.


Several times in this thread, I have identified wite dwarf samples
whose mass distributions agree with the expectations of Discrete Scale
Relativity.

Unless, of course, one actually analyzes the data. If numerology were a
comic book supervillian, data analysis would be its' arch nemesis.

I did, of course, give you to the link where I did the analysis for you.
I'll re-post for you:

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


I have given links to the recent paper on white dwarfs from the huge
SDSS sample, with its clear peaks at about 0.58 solar masses and at
0.43 solar masses.

Which I have actually analyzed, and found multiple problems with WRT
your theory. Again:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.a...5ca2361ed4cd9?
dmode=source
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.a...c3bd86aa30729?
dmode=source

The error bars on the "clear peaks" is roughly a tenth of a
solar mass. Only a hundred times larger than what you think is
appropriate. Might want to work out that inconsistency.


My website gives the references and results on several older samples
of white dwarf stars.

But I thought literally any data older than September of 2011 had to be
thrown out?


I urge those who are interested in the idea of quantized stellar
masses to read the published work and draw their own conclusions.

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

What if the conclusion they draw disagrees with you?

Its' a strong possibility, given that the data kinda completely
disagrees with your numerology.

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

On Oct 1, 2:43 am, eric gisse wrote:
"Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote in news:mt2.0-

"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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

The gap at 0.73 solar masses has been verifiably seen in several white
dwarf samples, which constitute the one class of stars for which
adequate mass resolution was available in older studies of stellar
masses.

In the white dwarf sample you love to champion, the standard deviation
of the mean on the whole sample is 0.1 M_sun, which by your standards
should be thrown out. Also, it was written before September of 2011,
which also means it should be thrown out.

What scientific argument are you using which lets you pick and choose
data?


If you go to http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw and read the page
titled "Discrete Stellar Masses", you will find several white dwarf
samples by research groups who were leaders in the field at that
point.

They identify the gap at about 0.73 solar masses, they say it appears
real, and they say they have no reliable explanation for it.

This gap, when adequately tested for in individual stars, is highly
diagnostic, since it is a unique feature of atomic nuclei, and of the
predicted stellar analogues.

If one actually examines the page, starting at figure 7 the "gap" at 0.7
(you don't have hundredths of M_sun precision, and you should know that)
went away.

Another falsified prediction of the numerology. On your own home page,
no less.

Making the falsification even stronger: In stellar systems, there is no
observed source of stability below about a hundred and fifty solar
masses that prevents a star from forming and persisting. Unlike in
atomic scale systems, in which unstable elements can disappear nearly
instantly like in the case of an atomic weight of 5.


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

Here's the rest of my post, since you didn't finish it:

(Would you like my posts to be shorter, since you have a hard time with
long technical responses?)

"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?

On Oct 3, 7:37*am, eric gisse wrote:

Its' a strong possibility, given that the data kinda completely
disagrees with your numerology.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a rather absolute statement,
and scientists do not speak in absolute terms like this.

In this thread I have identified at least 17 systems whose
total masses are determined by others to be in agreement
with the predictions of Discrete Scale Relativity regarding
the quantization of stellar system total massses, to the
extent that realistic uncertainties allow.

These systems were not chosen arbitarily or subjectively.
Rather, they were chosen because they met the criteria
set out before the data were looked at.

I do not claim anything more than a 'proof of concept', at
this point. I look forward to more stringent testing of the
definitive predictions by professional scientists who are
both qualified and sincerely unbiased.

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

On Oct 3, 11:33 am, "Robert L. Oldershaw"
wrote:
On Oct 3, 7:37 am, eric gisse wrote:

Its' a strong possibility, given that the data kinda completely
disagrees with your numerology.

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

This is a rather absolute statement,

Is it?

Every database of stars I have seen falsifies your numerological
prediction of quantized masses.

Your own website contains falsifications of your claim of no 0.7 M_sun
peaks.

Every microlensing suervey I have ever seen has falsified your claim of
MACHO based dark matter.

What does it say about your numerology when you cannot muster even a
single technical argument against my claims? Instead of a technical
argument you break out ye olde ad-hominem about how I'm not
"professional" or "objective".

and scientists do not speak in absolute terms like this.

Sure they do. All the time.

Ask a scientist about creationism, solid state theory, aether theories,
your numerology...


In this thread I have identified at least 17 systems whose
total masses are determined by others to be in agreement
with the predictions of Discrete Scale Relativity regarding
the quantization of stellar system total massses, to the
extent that realistic uncertainties allow.

That'd be impressive if we only knew the masses of 17 stars.

Unfortunately for you, thousands and thousands of stars have masses
known to a few percent or better. Why don't you count them? This is what
is known as "confirmation bias" in which you only count things that
support you.

Besides, your claim of "realistic uncertainties" depends entirely
whether the result agrees with your numerology. What are the error bars
on your supporting stars, again?


These systems were not chosen arbitarily or subjectively.

That is not true. I've shown you databases of hundreds and thousands of
stars that falsify your numerology.

They aren't counted.

Rather, they were chosen because they met the criteria
set out before the data were looked at.

All of the stars you have cited were published after September of 2011?
All of the stars have an error bar of 0.01 M_sun or better?
All of the stars are dynamically determined without using spectroscopic
instrumentation at all?

Are you SURE you want to make that claim? For every star you think
supports you, I can find at least fifteen times that at *your* requested
precision, much less an equilvalent level.


I do not claim anything more than a 'proof of concept', at
this point.

In exploit development, a "proof of concept" means you have a test case
that shows what you claim. What you have is theorycrafting, not a proof
of concept.

Where's your proof of concept? Even a trivial examination of the
literature has falsified your numerology.

I look forward to more stringent testing of the
definitive predictions by professional scientists who are
both qualified and sincerely unbiased.

Do you think I'm pulling a fast one on you, Robert?

I've published the data sources used.
I've published the code used.
I've published the assumptions.

Here are the falsifcations of your numerology again:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.a...5ca2361ed4cd9?
dmode=source
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.a...5ca2361ed4cd9?
dmode=source
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.a...c3bd86aa30729?
dmode=source

When you have a technical argument to make, let me know. Until then,
repost! Besides, people other than myself have done these tests, and
falsified your numerology.

That reminds me... didn't the Kepler group publish a survey of the
masses of stars via direct measurement? And didn't you ignore those as
well? Are you sure you are interested in what anyone, professional or
not, thinks?

At the end of the day, you are posting to USENET and demanding
professional scientists with PhD's and everything do your research for
you. Do you realize how ridiculous that is? Why don't you exercise a bit
of personal initative and do the analysis yourself?

On Oct 4, 3:27*am, eric gisse wrote:

Its' a strong possibility, given that the data kinda completely
disagrees with your numerology.

This is a rather absolute statement,

Is it?

Yes, the term "completely" is an absolute. And since some data agrees
with DSR predictions, your comment is demonstrably false.


Every database of stars I have seen falsifies your numerological
prediction of quantized masses.

There you go again: "Every ... I have seen". False, I have shown you
samples that deviate from your beliefs.


Every microlensing suervey I have ever seen has falsified your claim of
MACHO based dark matter.

Another absolute, and again a false one.


Where's your proof of concept? Even a trivial examination of the
literature has falsified your numerology.

Then I guess the matter is settled for you and you can drop it.
Right?
Because if you are right I will fail all by myself. Do we need you as
some sort of self-appointed amateur Enforcer or Humiliator-in-chief?


That reminds me... didn't the Kepler group publish a survey of the
masses of stars via direct measurement? And didn't you ignore those as
well? Are you sure you are interested in what anyone, professional or
not, thinks?

To my knowledge the Kepler group has not yet published a sample of
total system masses that meets the requirements for a fair and
unbiased test of the prediction in question.


At the end of the day, you are posting to USENET and demanding
professional scientists with PhD's and everything do your research for
you. Do you realize how ridiculous that is? Why don't you exercise a bit
of personal initative and do the analysis yourself?

Sigh, I explained this to you already - several times, in fact. The
theoretical part and the empirical testing part of the scientific
method go better if the person who does the theoretical part is
somewhat distanced from the empirical testing, once that person has
defined the prediction and offered guidance on what it would take to
test it.

I hope this clarifies various matters for you.

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

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

On Oct 4, 3:27*am, eric gisse wrote:

Its' a strong possibility, given that the data kinda completely
disagrees with your numerology.

This is a rather absolute statement,

Is it?

Yes, the term "completely" is an absolute. And since some data agrees
with DSR predictions, your comment is demonstrably false.

I said "kinda completely", as to distinguish between "a small portion of
the data agrees with your numerology" (true) versus "none of the data
agrees" (false).



Every database of stars I have seen falsifies your numerological
prediction of quantized masses.

There you go again: "Every ... I have seen". False, I have shown you
samples that deviate from your beliefs.

Did you misquote me for a particular reason?

Every database of stars I have examined so far, as a bulk, disagrees
with you so hard that only samples on the order of a hundred stars have
a computationally finite chance of being consistent with your
numerology.

You have not been willing or able to find a problem with the results.
Nor has anyone else.

Yes you've shown me samples. One here, one there. Nobody cares.

Here's a fact you have not yet realized: 21st century astrophysics is a
data driven science. No more nonsense about extrapolating of a sample
size of ten or crap like that. Large scale surveys stamp out hundreds,
thousands, millions of data samples over the survey's lifetime.

I have given you databases with hundreds, even thousands, of stars at
your requested precision and tested them. They falsify your numerology.

So when you say "I HAVE 17 STARS THAT AGREE WITH ME!!!!" people WILL
just look at you, shake their heads, and continue ignoring you as they
have done in the past.



Every microlensing suervey I have ever seen has falsified your claim
of
MACHO based dark matter.

Another absolute, and again a false one.

You proclaim dark matter is comprised of MACHOs. I've given you survey
after survey that shows this is not true.

All you have on your side is the discovery of a small population of
~Jupiter massed planets.

And yes, I do mean "small population". The discovery doesn't even
account for 1% of the dark matter mass budget in the Milky way.

Astrophysics covers large numbers as a matter of course. You impress
nobody when you say "TWO HUNDRED BILLION!!!!" when the reality is what
was discovered barely amounts to 1% of the baryonic mass budget.

Do you have an argument for why the OGLE, EROS, SuperMACHO, etc surveys
do NOT disprove your numerology? Or are you just going to sit there and
crow about the MOA results until entropy consumes the stars?



Where's your proof of concept? Even a trivial examination of the
literature has falsified your numerology.

Then I guess the matter is settled for you and you can drop it.
Right?

No.

You keep repeating claims that are false, and I'll keep correcting them
as long as they are being repeated in places I frequent.

Because if you are right I will fail all by myself. Do we need you as
some sort of self-appointed amateur Enforcer or Humiliator-in-chief?

I've been devouring bad science for years. Why should I stop now?



That reminds me... didn't the Kepler group publish a survey of the
masses of stars via direct measurement? And didn't you ignore those
as
well? Are you sure you are interested in what anyone, professional or
not, thinks?

To my knowledge the Kepler group has not yet published a sample of
total system masses that meets the requirements for a fair and
unbiased test of the prediction in question.

Except the masses have been published. They details were in the
references of the paper you ignored. Why not look the ref up and do some
analysis like I did?

Besides, your criteria for 'fair and unbiased' is quite frankly
*ridiculous*. All you have to do is go buy a textbook on statistics for
like a dollar off Amazon and you'll learn how to analyze data so you
don't need a factor of 150 signal to noise ratio to be confident
something is or is not there.



At the end of the day, you are posting to USENET and demanding
professional scientists with PhD's and everything do your research
for
you. Do you realize how ridiculous that is? Why don't you exercise a
bit
of personal initative and do the analysis yourself?

Sigh, I explained this to you already - several times, in fact. The
theoretical part and the empirical testing part of the scientific
method go better if the person who does the theoretical part is
somewhat distanced from the empirical testing, once that person has
defined the prediction and offered guidance on what it would take to
test it.

Except that's not what you are doing. You aren't offering "guidance",
you are making unreasonable demands that even when satisfied still
disagree with you.

How many stars disagree with you in the Torres, et.al. sample to a
precision of 0.01 M_sun or better? How many agree? You demanded that
database be used, but then you change your mind after things don't go
your way.



I hope this clarifies various matters for you.

On Oct 4, 3:43*pm, eric gisse wrote:

I said "kinda completely", as to distinguish between "a small portion of
the data agrees with your numerology" (true) versus "none of the data
agrees" (false).

Interesting!

There you go again: "Every ... I have seen". *False, I have shown you
samples that deviate from your beliefs.

Did you misquote me for a particular reason?

Please read your statement. I did not misquote you.

I've been devouring bad science for years. Why should I stop now?

I see. So you see yourself as a warrior for right-thinking science.
But what if your scientific intuition has short-comings? Are you the
final arbiter of what is right and what is wrong?

When the necessary data become available for deciding whether or not
the total masses of star systems are quantized, and we can all be
reasonably sure that such data will be available in the foreseeable
future, I will be sure to bring it to the attention of readers.

If DSR is right, then the match between predictions and observations
will become increasingly strong.

Is there any point in continuing this futile 2-person discussion
before such data is available? I think not.

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