|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
A definitive test of discrete scale (relativity, numerology)
"Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote in
: On Sep 18, 6:34*pm, Martin Hardcastle wrote: earlier posting for the individual stars with errors less than 0.145 solar masses: chi^2 of 16085 for 172 degrees of freedom, null If I add up the two components and take only the systems where the combined error on mass is less than 0.145 solar masses, I get a chi^2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - ------------------------ How can you possibly test a "model" that predicts quantization at 0.145 solar mass when you accept data with an error of up to just under 0.145 solar mass? What's the contribution to the chi squared when this is true? Calculate it, please. Would you not need errors of 0.01 or less? Do you know what a standard deviation is? Given a residual mass difference that disagrees with your binning by 0.1 M_sun, with an error in the measurement of 0.03 M_sun, it can be said that there is a 3 standard deviation disagreement with the predicted binning. You continue to labor under the notion that percentage based representations of error are more accurate. You need to knock that off. It is wrong. Are systematic errors accounted for? What systematic errors? You seem to frequently invoke "systematic errors" without ever bothering, even upon direct request, to explain what you imagine they might be. How much error can sin(i) and sin^3 (i) introduce into mass calculatuons? Thanks, RLO This is something you should be able to answer yourself. Did you ever learn how to propagate error? I have a better idea. Instead of complaining about unknown systematics, discuss the results rather than pretending they don't exist. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
A definitive test of discrete scale (relativity, numerology)
"Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote in
: On Sep 19, 3:59*am, eric gisse wrote: Who was right? NEITHER, apparently. *We now think that H ~ 70 km/sec/ Mpc. An answer that is now verified through several independent methods, all with high quality data. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - ------------- Perhaps someone will offer a primer on how the recently postulated acceleration of the Huble Bubble might affect the value of H and the concept of uniform expansion. [snip] Could you stop changing the subject every time you reply and address the fact that actual statistical analysis of the data you said needed to be analyzed ended up disproving your theory? There is less-than-zero interest in your latest diversionary tactic. * You have the data - no complaints. You had a decade with my cited data set, and you didn't do anything with it. Feel free to argue you never looked for it or somehow missed exactly that which you were looking for. * You have the code - no complaints. You have not even attempted to comment on the work. What's up with that? Do you not understand? Is this too hard for you? * You have the results - complete radio silence. In fact, not only do you deftly refuse to discuss this, you actually had the balls to beg for others to do MORE of the same work for you while completely ignoring the previous results. Nobody cares how if you look at white dwarf data in the right light it can kinda-sorta agree with your theory. Or anything else for that matter because your theory is dead. Feel free to change the subject again if you think it'd fool anyone other than yourself. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
A definitive test of discrete scale (relativity, numerology)
On Sep 20, 2:45*am, eric gisse wrote:
This is something you should be able to answer yourself. Did you ever learn how to propagate error? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you are a master at propagating error, and I have seen much evidence for this, then why not give us a tutorial. Question: In your view are there often several ways to statistically evaluate agreement between theoretical predictions and empirical results? Or only one? Question: Have you ever seen a case where a "very precise determination" of something turns out to be wrong? Say, like the radius of the proton? It was guaranteed to be 0.88 fermi, until better experiments came out with an incompatible new value of 0.84 fermi. See how the real world works? RLO Discrete Scale Relativity |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
chi-square
In article ,
eric gisse writes: I'm somewhat confused as what you said reinforces my point. The reduced chi squared, in my understanding, takes into account the differences in degrees of freedom. Yes. Think of it this way: if the model is a good description and has no free parameters, each data point will contribute about 1 to the total chi-square. Of course this is only an average. Some data points will agree perfectly with the model (and thus contribute zero), but others will be off by one or two sigma (or more if you have a lot of data points). But _on average_, each data point contributes about one to the total chi-square, so the _reduced_ chi-square will be about one if the model is a good description. If your model has free parameters, each of them reduces the total chi-square by about 1. That's why "degrees of freedom" is the number of data points minus the number of free model parameters. Of course this is approximate. If you want to calculate probability, there are tables or formulas for any given number of degrees of freedom and chi-square. I've seen tables that use chi-square and others that use reduced chi-square, so just be sure you know which you have. If I use the bins of 0.145 M_sun as the degrees of freedom, I have 25 degrees of freedom. Reduced chi squared is 98.4 If I use the actual amount of stars, I have 185 degrees of freedom. Reduced chi squared is 13.3. Are you calculating the number of stars per bin (expected minus actual)? Or the distance of each star from the nearest "predicted" mass value? In the latter case, I don't see why you need bins at all. Either way, the explanation I've given should tell you how to figure degrees of freedom. -- Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls. Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Cambridge, MA 02138 USA |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
chi-square
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
A definitive test of discrete scale (relativity, numerology)
"Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote in
: On Sep 20, 2:45*am, eric gisse wrote: This is something you should be able to answer yourself. Did you ever learn how to propagate error? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - -------- If you are a master at propagating error, and I have seen much evidence for this, then why not give us a tutorial. http://tinyurl.com/6bbs9us This material was taught to me in freshman year lab courses. If you are going to beg for an education in statistical anlaysis, don't waste people's time by floating nonsense claims about mysterious and unquantifiable systematic errors in all the observations that falsify your theory. Question: In your view are there often several ways to statistically evaluate agreement between theoretical predictions and empirical results? Or only one? Sure, several. Don't embarass yourself by using the existence of multiple statistical analysis methods as an attempt to delude yourself into thinking your theory has a shot. It is dead. Never coming back, not that it was ever a serious theory to begin with. Question: Have you ever seen a case where a "very precise determination" of something turns out to be wrong? Say, like the radius of the proton? Sure, that's one example. The gravitational constant is another. Thank you for reminding me about the proton radius thing. I had totally forgotten about this. Let's get in the w-w-wayback machine and trundle back to July of 2010 where you were spewing nonsense about how your theory was doing better than the current QED approximation. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.f...5e74f37a17874? dmode=source http://groups.google.com/group/sci.f...75c7ed16c84c2? dmode=source In a year, the following is apparent: 1) You still do not understand the concept of the standard deviation, systematic vs random errors, or statistical analysis in general. 2) You still do not understand significant digits. 3) You still do not understand why percentage based error estimates are horrible to use. 4) You still simply ignore me when I prove your theory wrong. 5) You still think it it a good idea to bring up an observation that disagrees with you by 41 standard deviations. It was guaranteed to be 0.88 fermi, No it wasn't. Both the word "guranteed" and the number "0.88" are wrong. Measurement settled upon 0.8768(69) fm, consistent with current QED predictions. Absent systematic error in the measurement, that was the answer. Then a new method of measuring is tried, and a systematic error was discovered. I am unsurprised to see you think "0.88" and "0.8768(69)" are the same number. until better experiments came out with an incompatible new value of 0.84 fermi. See how the real world works? Yeah, observation disproves theories. The approximation to QED that predicts the ~0.87 fm proton radius is wrong, just as your theory is wrong. I'm glad you took the time to remind everyone that your theory made another prediction that was wrong by an amount of standard deviations that takes two digits to express. RLO Discrete Scale Relativity [Mod. note: we seem to be wandering away from our, admittedly tenuous, grasp on astrophysics here -- please focus on that and not on the proton radius, which belongs on some other group -- mjh] |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
A definitive test of discrete scale (relativity, numerology)
"Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote in
: On Sep 19, 5:43*pm, Martin Hardcastle wrote: This is the database *you* suggested I run the test on: the paper is a good piece of work, standard in its field, and clearly provides the 'definitive test' you wanted: I have done a test that any competent undergraduate could do and the result is completely inconsistent with your expectations: several of us have also provided you with the tools you need to do the same test yourself, so you don't really have any excuse to call bias. When the best available data conclusively rule out a model, a good scientist thinks again. I think that's all I need to say on the subject. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - ------------ Sincere thanks for your efforts on this sample, which I do not dispute. This sample does not manifest the predicted quantization. I note that you forgot to thank me for doing all your research for you. I've done more work on your theory in the last year than you have in the past 15. Every time I give you a piece of literature that disproves your theory is another piece of literature that mysteriously evaded your sights. However, we know that the number of stars with masses below 1.00 solar mass and with errors at the 0.01 solar mass level is still quite small in this sample. So I am nowhere near ready to give up yet. This sample? I just did the analysis on twelve thousand stars. Did you not see it? Your nonsensical requirement that a significant amount of stars be measured to 0.01 M_sun level has been satisfied. There are 277 stars within the sample given to you, with a range of 0.88 to 4.63 M_sun. That sample only has a chi squared of about 3800. Your theory is, unsurprisingly, still excluded to an 'indistinguishable from 100%' probability. You, of course, do not seem too concerned about this. Another day, still zero comment on my analysis. If you won't be embarassed for yourself, I'll be embarassed for you. I have much less faith in the arguments you use to summarily dismiss a whole paradigm on the basis of one dubious sample, YOU PICKED THE SAMPLE. You *begged* him to do the analysis you are incapable of doing. Only when the data shreds your theory do you break out the 'one dubious sample' BS. Do you believe you have any credibility here? having seen this kind of reasoning falsifed over and over again throughout the history of science. You know: disproving evolution because it could be mathematically "proven" that the Sun was less than a million years old; or proving mathematicaly that H had to be 100 +/- 10 km/sec/Mpc while simultaneously proving it had to be 50 +/- 5 km/sec/Mpc. So much for the 'definitive test' you were crowing about until it was actually done. This is intellectually dishonest behavior, and it needs to stop happening or at least stop appearing here. There are other newsgroups which will let me use the words I want to use. If white dwarf samples are consistent with discrete masses, or at least show evidence for preferred masses, what do you say then? Nice hedging, Robert. The 'definitive prediction' of binning has now been excluded, so play the coward and say 'at least show evidence for preferred masses'. Regardless, what you ask is a hypothetical as you have not and will not do the analysis for discrete masses and you have not and will not do the analysis for preferred masses. Can you please stop sending this stuff to sci.astro.research now? You might as well go back to crossposting to half of the sci.* tree. RLO http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
A definitive test of discrete scale (relativity, numerology)
On Monday, September 19, 2011 2:48:25 AM UTC-4, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
No one seems to want to talk about the Tremblay et al SDSS white dwarf mass function. OK, let's talk about the Tremblay et al results. First, I was surprised to see you accept these spectroscopic results which make use of a theoretical mass-radius relation. Comparison to the handful of dynamical white dwarf masses, and gravitational redshift measurements suggest that the masses are probably good to 0.01-0.02 Msun. But then I don't understand why you wouldn't accept the theoretical mass-luminosity relation for main-sequence stars, and the overwhelming evidence for a continuous mass spectrum from the observed continuous luminosity function of star clusters. Second, a peak in the white dwarf mass spectrum is a strong prediction of standard stellar evolution. The hot (12,000 K) white dwarfs observed by Tremblay et al. are degenerate cores of stars that have recently "died" (i.e. passed through their planetary nebula phase and ejected their envelopes). If you look at the old (~13 Gyr) globular clusters, then the hot white dwarfs are all descendants of ~0.8 solar mass stars. (Higher mass stars evolved more quickly and are now much cooler white dwarfs, lower mass stars have not yet evolved to become white dwarfs.) In globular clusters one finds a strong white dwarf mass peak at 0.53 Msun (Kalarai et al 2009 http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.2253 ) indicating that 0.27 Msun is lost through red giant winds and planetary nebula formation. When one looks at younger star clusters such as NGC 3532 (Dobbie et al. 2009 http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.395.2248D ) with a turnoff mass of 3-4 Msun, one finds higher mass (~0.8 Msun) white dwarfs. Modeling the field star white dwarf population such as reported by Tremblay et al. is more complicated. The population is dominated by the 10 Gyr old disk but there has also been more recent star formation. Catalan et al. (2008 http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.3034 ) show examples of model fits (their Figure 10) assuming a continuous power-law initial mass function and exponentially decreasing star formation. They can find a good fit to the field white dwarf mass function and reproduce the broad peak near 0.6 Msun, and the long tail toward higher white dwarf masses. [Mod. note: reformatted to 80 characters per line -- mjh] |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
A definitive test of discrete scale (relativity, numerology)
"Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote in
: On Sep 18, 6:34*pm, Martin Hardcastle wrote: So, again, the data are not telling you what you would like them to tell you. It took me about ten minutes to find the data you referred to, get them into the right format, modify and run my code, and do the modifications needed to run it again on the sums of the masses. Testing models, when they make quantitative predictions, is easy, and it's a skill that any would-be-modeller ought to learn. The half-hour or so I've spent on this today is enough for me, though. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - ---- When you get refreshed, maybe you could put in a half hour or so on white dwarf masses. No one seems to want to talk about the Tremblay et al SDSS white dwarf mass function. This is odd since it is a large, recent sample, and is carefully analysed. Not by you. BEEP BOOP...analyzing 57 stars with masses determined to 100% or better Average standard deviation per star: 1.40 Average mass of star: 0.92 solar masses Mass range of sample: 0.80 to 1.36 solar masses Chi-squared of the expected binning hypothesis: 130.75 Reduced chi-squared: 2.2938596491228 The probability that the reduced chi-squared value of 2.2938596491228 is larger than the value of 130.75 for 57 degrees of freedom is 0.00000010061. So much for the nonsense about 'quantized masses'. It also has clear and statistically significant peaks at DSR's predicted values. How do you know they are 'statistically significant', and why would it matter if it did given you have literally zero explanation for why your theory is wrong every time? Why is everyone ignoring this piece of information? (He asks rhetorically). RLO http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Discrete Scale Relativity Beats QED on New Proton Radius Test | Robert L. Oldershaw | Astronomy Misc | 10 | July 11th 10 06:34 AM |
SX Phoenicis Stars as a Test of Discrete Scale Relativity | Robert L. Oldershaw | Research | 0 | June 24th 09 05:23 PM |
Definitive Tests Of Discrete Scale Relativity | Robert L. Oldershaw | Research | 0 | May 2nd 09 07:30 AM |
Discrete Scale Relativity | [email protected] | Research | 3 | October 15th 07 09:52 AM |
Critical Test for the Big Bang and Discrete Fractal Paradigms | [email protected] | Research | 56 | April 27th 07 09:11 PM |