A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Research
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Preferred Stellar Masses?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old September 12th 11, 07:58 AM posted to sci.astro.research
Robert L. Oldershaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 617
Default Preferred Stellar Masses?

On Sep 11, 2:25*pm, Christian Froeschlin wrote:
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.

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

I did not dismiss the error bars. I used them. I just take a less
Platonic, more physically realistic, view of things.

1. To me the reported data says the most probable estimate of the mass
is 0.905 sm, but values 0.015 sm higher or 0.015 sm lower can not be
ruled out at a high level of probability. Is there something wrong
with that reasoning?

2. Are you familiar with the idea of systematic errors? Sometines a
value is initially reported as x +/- y, and then down the line it
turns out that a more accurate measure is significantly different from
x +/- y because there were unanticipated errors in the method used to
determine the original mass estimate.

3. Phyicists worry alot about the width of error bars and put in a
great deal of effort trying to narrow them. The only way your comment
makes sense to me is if you are saying the 0.905 value is absolutely
right. My understanding is that it is only the most probable value in
a range of possible values. And there is always systematic
uncertainty in any measurement/estimate. There is a very big
difference in our two views of what 0.0905 +/- 0.015 sm really means.

I am not sure that anything I say will make any difference in
anybody's thinking. So I will let nature speak for itself.

RLO
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
  #22  
Old September 12th 11, 08:00 AM posted to sci.astro.research
Robert L. Oldershaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 617
Default Preferred Stellar Masses?

On Sep 11, 2:39*pm, eric gisse wrote:

This is not science.

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

We have one stellar system for which the total mass and the masses of
the subsystems are measured dynamically to a high degree of accuracy:
the Solar System.

The Solar System's total mass agrees with the prediction of Discrete
Scale Relativity at the 99.987% level.

I notice that you make no mention of this one solid piece of evidence
that is already available.

Why would you put so much emphasis on the two poorly constrained
masses of the systems you mention above, but ignore the more accurate
Solar System data?

Do the mass estimates for the Solar System qualify as science, in your
worldview?

Do you agree that the Solar System's mass is extremely close to one of
DSR's predicted discrete masses?

Or will you assure us that it is off by an astronomical number of
standard deviations?

RLO
Discrete Scale Relativity
  #23  
Old September 12th 11, 03:05 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Thomas Womack
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 206
Default Preferred Stellar Masses?

In article ,
Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
Maybe it is good to the 10% level, but I
think we would need mass data at the 3% level, and probably at the
1-2% level. See my 9/8 response to TW.


OK, have a look at http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.2055

Masses to sub-1% accuracy of 0.395 and 0.275 solar, with a sum 0.670
+- 0.003 which is nowhere near an exact multiple of 0.145.

Tom
  #24  
Old September 12th 11, 05:47 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Robert L. Oldershaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 617
Default Preferred Stellar Masses?

On Sep 12, 10:05*am, Thomas Womack
wrote:
In article ,
Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:

Maybe it is good to the 10% level, but I
think we would need mass data at the 3% level, and probably at the
1-2% level. *See my 9/8 response to TW.


OK, have a look athttp://arxiv.org/abs/1109.2055

Masses to sub-1% accuracy of 0.395 and 0.275 solar, with a sum 0.670
+- 0.003 which is nowhere near an exact multiple of 0.145.

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

Many thanks for pointing out this research to me. This is what I am
looking for - existing data that meets the criteria.

M1 is given as 0.395 sm which is lower than the closest DSR predicted
peak at 0.435 sm. M2 is given as 0.275 sm which is also lower than
the closest DSR predicted peak at 0.290 sm. The total mass of 0.670
sm is therefore clearly lower than the DSR prediction of 0.73 sm.

If this total mass is correct then this mass does not fit the DSR
prediction.

Before I throw in the towel, however, I would like to see this
exercise repeated 50 to 200 times, and it would be a good idea to
check each system for previously unobserved subsystems and possible
errors.

But I grant you that this data point is at odds with the DSR
prediction.

Is anyone looking for systems that agree with DSR's predictions? Or
is there only interest in conflicting data?

RLO
Discrete Scale Relativity
  #25  
Old September 12th 11, 06:54 PM posted to sci.astro.research
eric gisse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 303
Default Preferred Stellar Masses?

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

On Sep 11, 2:39*pm, eric gisse wrote:

This is not science.

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

We have one stellar system for which the total mass and the masses of
the subsystems are measured dynamically to a high degree of accuracy:
the Solar System.

The Solar System's total mass agrees with the prediction of Discrete
Scale Relativity at the 99.987% level.


You predict a quantization of stellar masses in binnings of 0.145 M_sun.

Our sun, of course, is 1.00.. M_sun. The solar system beyond that adds
0.001 M_sun to the equation.

So your prediction is off by 0.015 M_sun.

The current mass of the sun is 1.9885(2) x 10^30 kg [1]. So one standard
deviation of error is equal to 0.0002 x 10^30 kg or 0.0001 M_sun. Your
prediction is incorrect by 0.015 M_sun, or 150 standard deviations.

As we have discussed previously, a prediction that is off by 'only' five
standard deviations is widely considered to be absolutely wrong. Your
prediction is off by 150! But you prefer to express error in
percentages, which masks the true level of wrongness.

You know exactly what you are doing, and it is dishonest as well as most
definitely not science.


I notice that you make no mention of this one solid piece of evidence
that is already available.


My apologies for neglecting the data point that excludes your theory by
150 standard deviations.


Why would you put so much emphasis on the two poorly constrained
masses of the systems you mention above, but ignore the more accurate
Solar System data?


Oh my god, are you kidding me?

What part of "I clicked two planet links at random, and grabbed their
stellar conterpart masses as an example" is THAT FAR out of your ability
to understand?

I see literally zero reason for me to do your research for you. The
point was the data is right there, and you are too lazy to get it and do
an afternoon's worth of basic statistical analysis.


Do the mass estimates for the Solar System qualify as science, in your
worldview?


Yes.


Do you agree that the Solar System's mass is extremely close to one of
DSR's predicted discrete masses?


No.

Why? Because you want to use the wedge of 'but it is cloooooose!' to
mask the fact your theory is wrong.

You made the error of saying this is a 'definitive prediction', and now
you are married to it.

This is probably also why you never actually showed the derivation of
your latest prediction. Now that you know it is wrong, you'll go back
and pick some new constants and come up with a different 'definitive
prediction' that gets a bit closer. Lather, rinse, repeat.


Or will you assure us that it is off by an astronomical number of
standard deviations?

RLO
Discrete Scale Relativity


Y'see Robert, this is why what you do is not science.

You are given a measurement. We know the measurement, and have enough of
an idea of the random and systematic errors of the measurment to say
that the measurement is true within a margin of error known as a
'standard deviation'.

It is the 20th and 21st century's method (aka the MODERN method) of
parameterizing the error of a measurement. Within literally every
reasonable piece of literature you will ever read, nobody EVER relies on
percentage based estimates of error because they are highly misleading
as I have repeatedly shown you WRT particle physics.

You are, of course, perfectly free to keep going on about 'oh my god it
is so close if I use percentages' but nobody is ever going to take you
seriously because this means you are ignorant (willful or otherwise) of
modern statistical analysis. Given we have had this disucssion before,
the ignorance is now willful and malicious.

Your theory has yet another definitive prediction, it has been compared
to observation, and is wrong by 150 standard deviations. Will you admit
error and move on, or are you going to keep posting about how you have
yet another definitive test of DSR while ignoring the previous ones that
have failed?

[1]

IT IS REALLY GODDAMN HARD to find 'mass of the sun' with error bars.
Turns out what you should look for is the 'heliocentric gravitational
constant' which gives you the quantity GM, which ties into how we can
measure the quantity GM really easily to a dozen significant figures but
are constrained by the 4 or 5 significant figures of the gravitational
constant.

http://asa.usno.navy.mil/SecK/2012/A...tants_2012.pdf
  #26  
Old September 12th 11, 07:02 PM posted to sci.astro.research
eric gisse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 303
Default Preferred Stellar Masses?

"Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote in
:
[...]
Is anyone looking for systems that agree with DSR's predictions? Or
is there only interest in conflicting data?

RLO
Discrete Scale Relativity


Are you?

Seriously. Are you looking?

Have you even started pulling the data from the exoplanet site?

Have you even tried searching for precision surveys in the vizer database?

Have you even tried searching on simbad?

Are you just sitting here waiting for people in sci.astro.research to give
you the data you want?
  #27  
Old September 13th 11, 08:02 AM posted to sci.astro.research
jacob navia[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 543
Default Preferred Stellar Masses?

Le 12/09/11 18:47, Robert L. Oldershaw a écrit :
M1 is given as 0.395 sm which is lower than the closest DSR predicted
peak at 0.435 sm. M2 is given as 0.275 sm which is also lower than
the closest DSR predicted peak at 0.290 sm. The total mass of 0.670
sm is therefore clearly lower than the DSR prediction of 0.73 sm.

If this total mass is correct then this mass does not fit the DSR
prediction.


Or, there is a brown dwarf with 0.63 solar masses lurking in the dark.

Proxima centauri is a brown dwarf maybe linked to alpha centauri A and
B. If we believe Mr Oldershaw, Proxima should not be linked to the
alpha centauri A+B system since:

Alpha centauri A is 1.1 solar masses and
Alpha centauri B is 0.93 solar masses what gives

2.03 solar masses what is *exactly* 14 x 0.145.

What a coincidence...

Strange.

:-)
  #28  
Old September 13th 11, 08:03 AM posted to sci.astro.research
Robert L. Oldershaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 617
Default Preferred Stellar Masses?

On Sep 12, 2:02*pm, eric gisse wrote:

Seriously. Are you looking?

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

Here are two important pieces of evidence that objective readers will
want to look at.

(1) Tremblay et al published an analysis of a huge sample of white
dwarf stars from the SDSS survey.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.0056

Look at Figure 7 and Figure 21, which are histograms of very large
mass samples.

In those mass spectra for white dwarf stars you clearly see the main
peak at about 0.580 solar masses (helium-4 analogue) and the much
smaller but clearly significant peak at 0.435 solar masses )helium-3
analogue).

(2) If you go to http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw and click on
"Stellar Scale Discreteness?", you will find several histograms of
mass data from white dwarf samples. The quantized peaks predicted by
Discrete Scale Relativity tend to manifest themselves in this data,
even though the data is a bit older and more uncertain. Also at least
one major diagnostic gap at 0.73 solar mass shows up conspicuously in
several samples. You can get 0.73 sm via multiple star systems, but
NOT via single systems beacuse 5 amu nuclei are highly unstable.

Take a look. The data is worth a long and objective contemplation.

RLO
Fractal Cosmology
  #29  
Old September 13th 11, 05:19 PM posted to sci.astro.research
jacob navia[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 543
Default Preferred Stellar Masses?

Le 12/09/11 18:47, Robert L. Oldershaw a écrit :

Is anyone looking for systems that agree with DSR's predictions? Or
is there only interest in conflicting data?


In another post in this thread I pointed out that the alpha centauri
system has
Alpha centauri A: 1.1 M0
Alpha centauri B: 0.93M0
2.03 M0

2.03 M0 is equal *exactly* to 14 * 0.145
  #30  
Old September 13th 11, 09:50 PM posted to sci.astro.research
eric gisse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 303
Default Preferred Stellar Masses?

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

On Sep 12, 2:02*pm, eric gisse wrote:

Seriously. Are you looking?

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

Here are two important pieces of evidence that objective readers will
want to look at.

(1) Tremblay et al published an analysis of a huge sample of white
dwarf stars from the SDSS survey.


Objective readers will also know that white dwarfs are a possible end of
a given star, and between the main sequence stage and white dwarf there
is a nontrivial amount of mass shedding so any such expectation of mass
quantization is going to be ridiculous.

Then again, here we are.


http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.0056

Look at Figure 7 and Figure 21, which are histograms of very large
mass samples.

In those mass spectra for white dwarf stars you clearly see the main
peak at about 0.580 solar masses (helium-4 analogue) and the much
smaller but clearly significant peak at 0.435 solar masses )helium-3
analogue).


You write stuff like 'helium-3 analoge', but what you say has absolutely
no meaning to anyone but yourself.


(2) If you go to http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw and click on
"Stellar Scale Discreteness?", you will find several histograms of
mass data from white dwarf samples. The quantized peaks predicted by
Discrete Scale Relativity tend to manifest themselves in this data,
even though the data is a bit older and more uncertain.


But of course when I give you main sequence star data, you just shrug
and say "but it isn't accurate enough".


Also at least
one major diagnostic gap at 0.73 solar mass shows up conspicuously in
several samples. You can get 0.73 sm via multiple star systems, but
NOT via single systems beacuse 5 amu nuclei are highly unstable.


You are making things up, Robert.

http://cdsarc.u-strasbg.fr/viz-bin/VizieR?-source=V/19

In that individual catalog of about 10,000 stars there are 271
individual stars with a mass of 5 solar masses +/- 10%.

So roughly 3% of the stars in that cluster are a mass you say cannot
exist. Plus I was lazy, there was another easy dozen catalogs I could
have surveyed.

Instead of just making things up perhaps you could do some research?
Because it appears you are just saying things and not even bothering to
check against basic physics or observation.

This is not science. This is textbook numerology. Your arguments here
are no better than Archimedes Plutonium's.


Take a look. The data is worth a long and objective contemplation.


No, it isn't.

There's enough main sequence star data out there that contradicts your
theory.

Plus you seem to be operating under the dual notions that not only are
main sequence stars quantized in their mass distribution, but white
dwarfs as well.

You want to argue your theory is a theory of stellar evolution, but you
can't explain why the mass-luminostiry diagram of main sequence stars is
continuous while your purported mass distribution is discrete.



RLO
Fractal Cosmology

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
When is manned spaceflight preferred? [email protected] Space Science Misc 15 August 13th 13 06:28 PM
Metal deposit discovered: 30 million solar masses of chromium, 8million solar masses of manganese Yousuf Khan[_2_] Astronomy Misc 6 December 10th 09 06:45 PM
dealing decorates but the preferred version [email protected] Amateur Astronomy 0 August 22nd 07 08:24 AM
sacrifice behind preferred injection [email protected] Amateur Astronomy 0 August 19th 07 05:48 AM
can someone supply some info on stellar masses of stars? [email protected] Astronomy Misc 1 September 4th 06 06:55 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:52 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.