Preferred Stellar Masses?

On Sep 9, 3:28*am, brad wrote:

I wonder what difference it *makes to you that the sun has spent ~ 5
billion years radiating mass.

Brad
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And I wonder if you have given any thought to how much this changes
the TOTAL mass of the Solar System. Obviously it does not in any
appreciable way.

This total mass of the system is the relevant issue specifically being
discussed in this thread.

Feel free to guesstimate the total mass radiated by the Sun over its
estimated lifetime. I, for one, would be interested in this piece of
inference.

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

On Sep 9, 3:29*am, wlandsman wrote:

You don't need to know the masses to figure out that the stellar mass function is *continuous*.

Suppose there was a peak in the stellar mass function at 0.145 Solar masses. * We may not exactly know the luminosity corresponding to that mass, but somewhere in the color-magnitude diagram there should be a peak corresponding to the enhanced number of stars of 0.145 solar masses. *But there are no such peaks evident, and Richer et al. find that a single power-law mass function fits the all the data between 0.1 and 0.8 solar masses. * *There are similar color magnitude diagrams for other nearby globular
c
lusters.

I disagree. You assume a rigid, perfect and unproven relationship
between luminosity and mass - one that does not involve any
variability or approximateness.

This may be the way many people think of the M-L relationsip, but it
is a theoretical assumption, not a proven fact.

Yes, there is a well-known correlation between L and M, but it is
heuristic and prone to scatter, as I have already pointed out.

If we want an honest scientific test of the prediction, instead of a
rubber stamp approval of standard assumptions, we need accurate,
dynamically-drived masses, not luminosities.



There are 8,537 stars in their "cleaned" color-magnitude diagram (Figure 3), and 2,317 stars in the amazing proper motion cleaned data in Figure 5. * *These numbers are large enough that one need not worry about the details of luminosity binning.

Especially if one has decided what the correct answer is before any
tests are done. If one wants to look for discretization in any
distribution, one must take a great deal of care with the binning and
statistical methods. This is especially true for systems outside well-
controlled lab conditions, where there is a large amount of scatter in
masses, velocities, ages, effective temperatures, ..., ..., ... .

* *

Of course, one cannot rule out mass quantization at very low levels, and perhaps you
wish to modify your theory to predict that *"there is a 1% larger number of stars at
0.145 solar masses and multiples thereof" to keep it consistent with existing data. *
--Wayne


I am not trying to keep things consistent with conventional
assumptions. I predict fundamental discreteness at the same level as
highly excited Rydberg atoms.

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

On Friday, September 9, 2011 11:02:27 AM UTC-4, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:


Yes, there is a well-known correlation between L and M, but it is
heuristic and prone to scatter, as I have already pointed out.

Um, did you actually look at Figure 5 in http://arxiv.org/abs/0708.4030? I find it very exciting that using highly accurate HST photometry, and proper motion cleaned data, that nearly all the scatter seen in earlier observational color magnitude diagrams has been eliminated.

So, my understanding of your explanation of why we don't see any peaks in the luminosity distribution is as follows: There is a mysterious spread in luminosity among stars of equal mass in the globular cluster. This luminosity spread has the remarkable property that a mass function with peaks at specific masses is transformed into a luminosity function that can be fit with a single continuous power-law. In addition, the spread in luminosity must be strongly correlated with the photometric color
, in order to give the extremely tight color-magnitude diagram shown in Richer et al.

Tis a wondrous and magical explanation indeed!

--Wayne

"Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote in
:

On Sep 8, 4:03 pm, eric gisse wrote:

So we are clear, you are not arguing that your theory is one that
ALSO explains stellar lifecycles?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------

At this point, I am specifically discussing preferred/quantized
stellar masses. This is a manageable topic and involves testable
predictions

There have been plenty of those where you decided that literature
references that discredited your position simply means it is time to
stop responding to the thread and start a new one in a week or two.

Let's stick to it so that we might make some positive
progress. This thread is not a debate. It is intended as a
scientific disucssion.

Are you going to show us how your theory actually predicts quantization
of solar masses? And explain what the atomic analogy is, given the lack
of an obvious one at first glance?

[Mod. note: probably not on this newsgroup, given the charter -- mjh]

Also, when are you going to explain why you believe reality is scale
invariant despite there being literally no evidence for such a thing?



Aren't you getting a little ahead of yourself? You were just arguing
a week or two ago that another 'definitive prediction' was a specific
mass range for neutron stars which turned out to be wrong. You seem
to have forgotten all about that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------

No, wrong again! I was discussing a definitive prediction about the
RADIUS range of neutron stars.

Oh, why did I say mass range? I'm sure you have a theory on that as
well, but not what I intended.

I did give you an example of a neutron star whose size was well outside
your 'definitive prediction'. It was ignored.

That was the discussion in which you
were telling us about the "175,000 fermi" uranium nucleus radius, I
believe. Remember?

Yep. Just because a resource says it is the size of the nucleus doesn't
make it so, I guess.


Just because you say something is wrong does not make it wrong. If
you have unbiased scientific arguments that refer specifically to the
topic of this thread, and they are backed up by empirical evidence,
let's hear about it.

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


I promise to be no less biased than you.

Let me ask a simple question: Have you personally done any work on
answering this question for yourself, such as through at least a query
of the vizer database?

Here's another:

Have you taken a look at the extrasolar planet list yet? There's 800 of
them now, and you made this same 'definitive prediction' for them, but I
have not heard the results of your work yet.

On Sep 10, 10:36 am, wlandsman wrote:

So, my understanding of your explanation of why we don't see any peaks in the luminosity distribution is as follows: There is a mysterious spread in luminosity among stars of equal mass in the globular cluster. This luminosity spread has the remarkable property that a mass function with peaks at specific masses is transformed into a luminosity function that can be fit with a single continuous power-law. In addition, the spread in luminosity must be strongly correlated with the photometric col
or
, in order to give the extremely tight color-magnitude diagram shown in Richer et al.
Tis a wondrous and magical explanation indeed!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is what we need to achieve a convincing scientific test of the
prediction.

1. We would like a sample of 50 to 200 systems, depending on how
accurately the total masses can be determined.

2. We need a sample that covers the mass range of 0.1 solar masses to
2.0 solar masses, and that has decent representation for all portions
of that range, especially in the 0.3 to 1.0 solar masses range.

3. We need the masses to be determined dynamically.

4. We need the masses to be determined to at least the 3% level, or
ideally to the 1-2% level.

I have analyzed the low-mass elipsing binaries data from the Kepler
mission and there are some reasons for optimism, but clearly that
existing data is not quite up to the challenge accept for verifying
the 1.74 solar masses peak. As Jacob Navia pointed out, the Kepler
team hopes to achieve mass estimates at the 1-2% level in the
foreseeable future. This would be delightful if they can really
achieve this.

The test of this prediction requires that the masses of the systems be
determined as directly as possible, i.e., with the fewest possible
questionable assumptions.

I have waited 35 years for an adequate test of this fundamental and
definitive prediction. I would rather wait another few years for
convincing data than to proceed with tests that are not definitive.

If people have suggestions for identifying the required data set, I
would like to hear about that. I am not interested in discussing ways
of testing the prediction that might lead us to false conclusions.

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

On Sep 10, 10:39*am, eric gisse wrote:

Are you going to show us how your theory actually predicts quantization
of solar masses? And explain what the atomic analogy is, given the lack
of an obvious one at first glance?

[Mod. note: probably not on this newsgroup, given the charter -- mjh]

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

Perhaps I would be allowed to say that your questions are answered in
considerable detail at:

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

RLO
Fractal Cosmology

"Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote in
:

On Sep 10, 10:36 am, wlandsman wrote:

So, my understanding of your explanation of why we don't see any
peaks in the luminosity distribution is as follows: There is a
mysterious spread in luminosity among stars of equal mass in the
globular cluster. This luminosity spread has the remarkable
property that a mass function with peaks at specific masses is
transformed into a luminosity function that can be fit with a single
continuous power-law. In addition, the spread in luminosity must be
strongly correlated with the photometric col
or
, in order to give the extremely tight color-magnitude diagram shown
in Richer et al. Tis a wondrous and magical explanation indeed!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
---------

Here is what we need to achieve a convincing scientific test of the
prediction.

Yeah right. As if your way was the only way. The wlandsman fellow
suggested the continuous nature of the H-R plot as an excellent test,
and puts forth a question you seriously need to answer. Specifically: If
masses of stars are quantized, why isn't their luminosities?

Besides, this is a familiar song from you. Let's get into the w-w-
wayback machine and visit the era of "just a few months ago" :

"The race is on to discover the mass spectrum and distribution of
planets and unbound planetary-mass objects (UPMOs) using
microlensing techniques in addition to more conventional methods."

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.a...7e1c89ce291dd?
dmode=source

You were then given a link to the exoplanet database, though in a
slightly different context. Regardless, you never seemed to have looked.
At all. You silently dropped your arguments about the planetary mass
spectrum and observations of planets via microlensing.

Now once again, you are arguing that STARS are binned. Same song,
different verse.

The thing is, knowing about exoplanets requires knowing a little bit
about the parent star. Like, the mass via Kepler's 3rd law once the
period of the planet is known. Very basic information.

If you look at the exoplanet database, you can see the primary
information on the stars. Like mass.

Example: http://exoplanet.eu/star.php?st=55+Cnc

55 Cnc has a mass of 0.905 +/- 0.015 M_sun.

Another example: http://exoplanet.eu/star.php?st=WASP-48

1.09 +/- 0.08 M_sun.

Both these examples are a solid standard deviation outside your
proported 'mass spectrum'. This is just two, I have better things to do
than do your research for you. Like stare at the wall.

The question I have, at this point, is "why are you doing absolutely no
work of your own?" There's a massive database of astrophysical objects
out there via the meta-catalog vizer, and the actual object database
simbad. Hell, you could do a few hours of perl scripting and straight up
*DATAMINE* (the site admin might cry at that) all the data out of the
exoplanet database if you can't figure out how to do a query through
SIMBAD or find a helpful catalog in ViZeR. You could even get this
information by clicking and writing it down!

There's absolutely no excuse for you not being able to take an
afternoon, and answer your own question here.

You seem to think you can throw out a bunch of ideas and pick what
sticks.

Your arguments on dark matter didn't stick. Same for planets. Your
convictions haven't changed, and you haven't changed your song, so I
guess you are just waiting for us to forget? I dunno.

Are you going to be the scientist you really want us to believe you are
and do the work? Or is the hurdle of moving your mouse and clicking just
TOO HIGH?

On Sep 10, 5:10*pm, eric gisse wrote:

Yeah right. As if your way was the only way. The wlandsman fellow
suggested the continuous nature of the H-R plot as an excellent test,
and puts forth a question you seriously need to answer. Specifically: If
masses of stars are quantized, why isn't their luminosities?

Your posts are getting so emotional and rude that I am inclined to
dismiss them because you seem to have lost scientific objectivity
regarding Discrete Scale Relativity.

However, I will answer your criticisms as an excercise and to present
a little balance for curious readers. This will probably be the last
time I do so, unless you adopt a more scientific attitude.

Where is it written in the book of nature that mass and luminosities
must be equally quantized? If the masses of stars are poorly
constrained, when based only on M-L relations, can you be sure that
you and wlandsman are right that luminosities would manifest an
overtly discretized distribution?


Besides, this is a familiar song from you. Let's get into the w-w-
wayback machine and visit the era of "just a few months ago" :

* * * * "The race is on to discover the mass spectrum and distribution of
* * * * planets and unbound planetary-mass objects (UPMOs) using * *
* * * * microlensing techniques in addition to more conventional methods."

You were then given a link to the exoplanet database, though in a
slightly different context. Regardless, you never seemed to have looked.
At all. You silently dropped your arguments about the planetary mass
spectrum and observations of planets via microlensing.

Sigh. (1) I have recently published a definitive prediction regarding
the abundance of exoplanets orbiting the lowest mass M-dwarfs. (2)
Discrete Scale Relativity definitively predicts exactly where the main
peak in the exoplanet mass function will occur.

I am keeping track of everything related to exoplanet masses. The
situation looks good for both predictions, but as with the stellar
mass case, while we are close to definitive verification/
falsification, we are not quite there yet.

That is why I am silent on the exoplanet issue. I am waiting for the
necessary data.
When it becomes available, you can be sure that I will report it.


Example:http://exoplanet.eu/star.php?st=55+Cnc

55 Cnc has a mass of 0.905 +/- 0.015 M_sun.

Another example:http://exoplanet.eu/star.php?st=WASP-48

1.09 +/- 0.08 M_sun.

Take the mass immediately above. If the actual mass were 1.01 sm or
1.16 sm, both within the error bars, then either mass would be "right
on the money". See the problem with low accuracy mass determinations?
We need at least +/- 0.01, and +/- 0.005 would be a lot safer.

The estimated mass of 55 Cnc appears to be [0.875-0.905/0.875] roughly
3% higher than DSR's predicted 0.875 sm. Well, we do expect some
uncertainty in the data, right? That's why we need samples of 50-200
stars. One or two stars is a bit short of that basic requirement.

When the error limits are +/- 0.01 solar masses, and there is
disagreement with DSR predictions, then you would be justified in
pointing that out. Until then, please try to maintain scientific
integrity and objectivity. Let's give this prediction a fair and
unbiased test.

Both these examples are a solid standard deviation outside your
proported 'mass spectrum'. This is just two, I have better things to do
than do your research for you. Like stare at the wall.

Why not just sit back and wait for the high accuracy data to become
available and published? I started this thread to introduce the
definitive prediction. I will now wait for the data needed to
adequately test it. Why get all worked up? Nature will pass verdict
in due course.

The question I have, at this point, is "why are you doing absolutely no
work of your own?"

I would like to bring others into the research on Discrete Scale
Relativity. I do not want to work on this by myself. I believe that
as DSR begins to explain what the old paradigms cannot explain, and as
the LHC continues to show that something is rotten at the very heart
of theoretical physics, then others will join in, especially if low-
hanging fruit is idenified and waiting to be plucked. Get it?

Either drop the rudeness and adopt at least a halfway objective (if
not a cooperative) scientific aittude, or I will regard your posts as
being misinformation from one whose scientific objectivity is in
serious doubt, and ignore them.

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

Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:

The estimated mass of 55 Cnc appears to be [0.875-0.905/0.875] roughly
3% higher than DSR's predicted 0.875 sm. Well, we do expect some
uncertainty in the data, right?

Yes, but isn't that why the error bars are given in the first place?
A measurement of 0.905 +/- 0.015 excludes the value 0.875. To dismiss
the error bars means you have to claim the data is invalid, that the
measurement process was flawed, the authors incompetent.

Also, to say that the value is "only wrong by about 3%" is quite
meaningless here, this would still be true even if the error bars
were at 0.01 or 0.005.

"Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote in
:

On Sep 10, 5:10*pm, eric gisse wrote:

Yeah right. As if your way was the only way. The wlandsman fellow
suggested the continuous nature of the H-R plot as an excellent test,
and puts forth a question you seriously need to answer. Specifically:
If masses of stars are quantized, why isn't their luminosities?

Your posts are getting so emotional and rude that I am inclined to
dismiss them because you seem to have lost scientific objectivity
regarding Discrete Scale Relativity.

However, I will answer your criticisms as an excercise and to present
a little balance for curious readers. This will probably be the last
time I do so, unless you adopt a more scientific attitude.

Where is it written in the book of nature that mass and luminosities
must be equally quantized?

Nowhere. Nature does not quantize stellar or planetary masses.

If the masses of stars are poorly
constrained, when based only on M-L relations, can you be sure that
you and wlandsman are right that luminosities would manifest an
overtly discretized distribution?

Yes, because your claim that the quantization is in steps of a tenth of
a solar mass. That's a LOT. There simply has to be a difference in
luminosity, especially in low mass stars.

Besides, wlandsman's reference cites stars below 0.145 solar masses
which by your arguments can't exist.

Moreover, *YOU* have no answer for how luminosity can be continuous
while stellar masses are incredibly discrete.



Besides, this is a familiar song from you. Let's get into the w-w-
wayback machine and visit the era of "just a few months ago" :

* * * * "The race is on to discover the mass spectrum and
distribution of * * * * planets and unbound planetary-mass objects
(UPMOs) using * * * * * * microlensing techniques in addition to more
conventional methods."

You were then given a link to the exoplanet database, though in a
slightly different context. Regardless, you never seemed to have
looked. At all. You silently dropped your arguments about the
planetary mass spectrum and observations of planets via microlensing.

Sigh. (1) I have recently published a definitive prediction regarding
the abundance of exoplanets orbiting the lowest mass M-dwarfs. (2)
Discrete Scale Relativity definitively predicts exactly where the main
peak in the exoplanet mass function will occur.

I'm sure you believe what you write.

As with your other predictions, these are likely a continuation of the
theme of you picking out constants which happen to satisfy you. If you
can finally be convinced that reality disagrees (which is hard), you
just pick new constants.

This is not science.


I am keeping track of everything related to exoplanet masses. The
situation looks good for both predictions, but as with the stellar
mass case, while we are close to definitive verification/
falsification, we are not quite there yet.

600 exoplanets isn't enough?


That is why I am silent on the exoplanet issue. I am waiting for the
necessary data.
When it becomes available, you can be sure that I will report it.


Example:http://exoplanet.eu/star.php?st=55+Cnc

55 Cnc has a mass of 0.905 +/- 0.015 M_sun.

Another example:http://exoplanet.eu/star.php?st=WASP-48

1.09 +/- 0.08 M_sun.

Take the mass immediately above. If the actual mass were 1.01 sm or
1.16 sm, both within the error bars, then either mass would be "right
on the money". See the problem with low accuracy mass determinations?
We need at least +/- 0.01, and +/- 0.005 would be a lot safer.

Why?

Your binning is 0.145 stellar masses wide. When one standard deviation
is half that, there is more than enough useful data to determine whether
there is binning of stellar masses.


The estimated mass of 55 Cnc appears to be [0.875-0.905/0.875] roughly
3% higher than DSR's predicted 0.875 sm.

LEARN TO USE STANDARD DEVIATIONS! Saying "off by just a few percent" is
stupidly misleading in just about every case. At this point either you
simply refuse to learn modern statistical analysis (which is dumb) or
you understand the arguments but persist anyway (also dumb). I don't
know or care which it is, but this is another reason why your few
arguments based on observation aren't taken seriously.

Its' just like your "predictions" of fundamental particle masses. Saying
99.99...% correct sounds nice to a layman but when a physicist asks for
the answer in standard deviations, one finds out you are 50 off and
suddenly the prediction isn't all that impressive.


Well, we do expect some
uncertainty in the data, right? That's why we need samples of 50-200
stars. One or two stars is a bit short of that basic requirement.

*shakes head*

The exoplanets existence allow direct observation of the stellar masses
via Kepler's 3rd law, and in every actual planet I've checked on the
exoplanet site there exists a determination of the parent star's mass.
Given there's roughly 600 planets (some multiplanet systems), there is
at least 500 stars with corresponding mass determinations.

This is the type of intellectual laziness that I'm talking about.


When the error limits are +/- 0.01 solar masses, and there is

Really? A hundredth of a solar mass? Methinks you need to learn a little
about error analysis.

Besides, what personal effort have you done to find out whether or not
there exist stars with masses that precisely determined? So far it looks
like 'none'.

disagreement with DSR predictions, then you would be justified in
pointing that out. Until then, please try to maintain scientific
integrity and objectivity. Let's give this prediction a fair and
unbiased test.

That would have been a fair argument to make if DSR hasn't been
repeatedly falsified. But sure, lets pretend it has a shot.


Both these examples are a solid standard deviation outside your
proported 'mass spectrum'. This is just two, I have better things to
do than do your research for you. Like stare at the wall.

Why not just sit back and wait for the high accuracy data to become
available and published?

Don't need to. Sufficient data is available now.

I started this thread to introduce the
definitive prediction. I will now wait for the data needed to
adequately test it. Why get all worked up? Nature will pass verdict
in due course.

The question I have, at this point, is "why are you doing absolutely
no work of your own?"

I would like to bring others into the research on Discrete Scale
Relativity. I do not want to work on this by myself.

Decades of non-interest in a theory in a field as wide as astrophysics
ought to be a hint.

I believe that
as DSR begins to explain what the old paradigms cannot explain, and as
the LHC continues to show that something is rotten at the very heart
of theoretical physics, then others will join in, especially if low-
hanging fruit is idenified and waiting to be plucked. Get it?

Crying about how physics is rotten is not the hallmark of a researcher
who is to be taken seriously.


Either drop the rudeness and adopt at least a halfway objective (if
not a cooperative) scientific aittude, or I will regard your posts as
being misinformation from one whose scientific objectivity is in
serious doubt, and ignore them.

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


I am a grownup, I can be however I want.

Now, I have given you links to the various astrophysical catalogs and
databases. The data you require is right there.

You, on the other hand, have given a cosmic shrug and then threaten
(lol) to regard my posts as 'misinformation'. Whatever on Earth you
think that means...

People would take you a lot more seriously if you'd actually utilize the
resources I didn't need to give you. Because from this apparently-biased
prespective, you don't seem all that interested in figuring out whether
your theory is observationally correct.