|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Southworth Det Eclips Binary Catalog
On Friday, November 29, 2013 7:26:30 AM UTC-5, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
The fact is that no-one except you sees any evidence at all for these peaks. Even you see them only by cherry-picking the data (which you are "not willing to discuss") and by changing the criteria with time (now it is the total mass; it used to be the individual masses). Put all of this together and the result is that you have convinced no-one. In fact, what has probably happened is that your unsupported claims have made people even more sceptical of DSR. ---------------------------------------------------------- Well, I would urge open-minded readers to look at the multiple samples of published white dwarf mass distributions that I have put at http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw in the page entitled "Stellar Scale Discreteness?". If you do not see peaks at the predicted mass multiples, then there must be something obscuring your vision. Sure the analyses are a bit old and amateurish, but the non-uniform distribution and evidence for my hypothesis cannot be hand-waved away completely. I have also analyzed much larger white dwarf samples from SDSS DR4 and DR7, among other new samples (and there are several good ones). The same pattern of peaks at 0.4 - 0.45 solar mass; 0.55 - 0.60 solar mass; and 0.82 - 0.90 solar mass are present at highly significant levels. [Mod. note: please describe the statistical tests that you've done to reach this conclusion -- mjh] I will not respond to insulting and ad hominem comments that indicate unquestioned faith in a negative result and a denial of the existence of positive results. RLO Fractal Cosmology |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Southworth Det Eclips Binary Catalog
In article , "Robert L.
Oldershaw" writes: Well, I would urge open-minded readers to look at the multiple samples of published white dwarf mass distributions that I have put at http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw in the page entitled "Stellar Scale Discreteness?". If you do not see peaks at the predicted mass multiples, then there must be something obscuring your vision. Your bins are much wider than 0.0145, so the fact that a multiple of this occurs in a bin with a large number of objects is no surprise. IIRC, someone (Martin?) did an analysis of the rawer data and found nothing. So, why you are still making this claim? |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Southworth Det Eclips Binary Catalog
In article ,
Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: I am also wondering if anyone will say: "That looks interesting and worthy of being pursued further". I would ideally like to get those with more advanced skills in statistics and data presentation to participate in this research. Here is the figure (for the 2012 and 2013 data): http://www.extragalactic.info/~mjh/hist-new.png This shows the deviation of the total masses from the closest multiple of 0.145 solar masses, for only the objects published in 2012 and 2013. It doesn't look particularly interesting to me. Moreover, since we have the error bars, we can do the same test I told you how to do last time we had this thread. Take the quantity plotted, divide by the error bars, square the result, add them all together, and look up in a table of chi^2 significances. The idea that this histogram shows data all consistent with zero is rejected at better than the 99.999% confidence level (chi^2 = 562.8 for 32 objects). Here's how to do it in a few lines of python (astropy is good!): from astropy.table import Table t=Table.read('debs.dat',format='ascii') m1=10.0**t['col7'] m2=10.0**t['col9'] e1=(10.0**t['col8']-1.0)*m1 e2=(10.0**t['col10']-1.0)*m2 m=m1+m2 e=sqrt(e1**2.0+e2**2.0) d=m % 0.145 d-=0.145*(d0.0725) chi2=(d/e)**2.0 print chi2.sum() (restricting to the newer data left as an exercise for the reader) For the benefit of anyone else reading, just to note that picking a subset of the data because you happen to like the way it looks, and without any reason to reject the other data (note: 'it's old' is not a valid reason), is a deeply unscientific procedure. However, in this case, it doesn't seem to help you. In fact, the full dataset is a better fit to your model, though it is still rejected at a very high confidence level, presumably because the error bars are higher. That may be an unreasonable dream, but I have endless hope, plenty of time and the perseverance of a mule. Unfortunately, you don't appear to be able to carry out simple statistical tests or accept the results when others do them for you. These are far more useful qualities in a scientist than 'the perseverance of a mule'. Mules are notorious for going in the wrong direction in spite of all efforts to correct them. Martin -- Martin Hardcastle School of Physics, Astronomy and Mathematics, University of Hertfordshire, UK Please replace the xxx.xxx.xxx in the header with herts.ac.uk to mail me |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Southworth Det Eclips Binary Catalog
On Sunday, December 1, 2013 9:59:20 AM UTC-5, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
Your bins are much wider than 0.0145, so the fact that a multiple of this occurs in a bin with a large number of objects is no surprise. I do not believe that this statement is scientifically correct. IIRC, someone (Martin?) did an analysis of the rawer data and found nothing. So, why you are still making this claim? Martin did an analysis of the Torres binary sample published (I think) in about 2010. While I sincerely appreciated his efforts, I responded that I had doubts about that sample/analysis and that I believed that future and more careful analyses would yield a different answer. That is the whole point of the new 2012/2013(and counting) sample. Let's confine this discussion to the specific sample I identified in the first post of this thread, and stay focused on the issue of what THAT sample says and what it does not say. Is that possible!?!? I am making a real effort to be polite and objective. Could you do the same? |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Southworth Det Eclips Binary Catalog
On Sunday, December 1, 2013 3:57:51 AM UTC-5, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
[Mod. note: please describe the statistical tests that you've done to reach this conclusion -- mjh] ------------------------------------------------- To be completely honest I have mostly relied on the statistical analyses of the professional astrophysicists doing the actual research and analyses. For example when they say they see a definite peak in the 0.4 to 0.45 solar mass bin, in the 0.55 to 0.6 solar mass bin and the 0.82 to 0.9 solar mass bin, and when these reported peaks continue to show up in different samples, and when no other extraneous peaks show up prominently, then I take them at their word. The fact that their conclusions seem intuitively obvious to me also gives me confidence. [Mod. note: if a professional astrophysicist has made the claims that you were making, please give references to the relevant publication in a refereed journal -- mjh] |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Southworth Det Eclips Binary Catalog
On Sunday, December 1, 2013 11:22:50 AM UTC-5, Martin Hardcastle wrote:
In article , Firstly, thanks again for your efforts. The histogram looks interesting to me. If you widen the bins, due to small sample size, the results are more clear. It is also instructive to compare the number of systems with deviations between about -0.02 solar mass and about +0.02 solar mass (about 16, I think) and compare that with the COMBINED distributions [-0.05 to -0.7 solar mass] and [0.05 to 0.07 solar mass] (4-6?). Is that not an interesting piece of information? You will have to tell me because of my putative incompetence in matters statistical. I will have to spend more time tonight studying your post. Off to lunch with my 96-year-old father who still play a decent game of golf! |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Southworth Det Eclips Binary Catalog
In article , "Robert L.
Oldershaw" writes: It is also instructive to compare the number of systems with deviations between about -0.02 solar mass and about +0.02 solar mass (about 16, I think) and compare that with the COMBINED distributions [-0.05 to -0.7 solar mass] and [0.05 to 0.07 solar mass] (4-6?). Presumably 0.7 is a typo for 0.07. Where to the numbers 0.05, and o.07 come from? Why these and not others? |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Southworth Det Eclips Binary Catalog
In article , "Robert L.
Oldershaw" writes: For example when they say they see a definite peak in the 0.4 to 0.45 solar mass bin, in the 0.55 to 0.6 solar mass bin and the 0.82 to 0.9 solar mass bin, and when these reported peaks continue to show up in different samples, and when no other extraneous peaks show up prominently, then I take them at their word. The fact that their conclusions seem intuitively obvious to me also gives me confidence. But your unit is 0.145 solar masses! Again, if the bin width is larger than your unit, then ANY bin you choose will have at least one of your multiples in it. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Southworth Det Eclips Binary Catalog
On Sunday, December 1, 2013 11:22:50 AM UTC-5, Martin Hardcastle wrote:
In article , I have now had a chance to look over your post of 12/1 11:22 AM and I have the following comments. My histogram looks slightly different from yours. This is possibly due to: (1) I reject 2 systems with very large error bars, and (2) my binning is a bit different from yours. It is instructive to use bins that are roughly 0.02 solar mass wide. This gives a smoother presentation of the data and shows more clearly what is going on. If we had 400 systems, this might not be necessary, but with 36 systems I think it is. Also the 16 centrally located deviations, as opposed to the measly 4 deviations in the outer wings seems to defy your interpretation of the data. You say 32 systems, but I count 38-2=36. Are you including arXiv submitted papers? I strongly disagree with your characterization of my choice of the newer data for a valid sample. Science improve; that is its very nature. The mass distribution of stellar masses (and most other measured parameters in science) will improve in precision, and especially in ACCURACY, with time. This is self-evident and has a vast historical body of supporting evidence. I think you are wrong on this issue and that I am clearly right. Your criticism of mules is extreme and incorrect. (:-) They are stubborn but not hopelessly errant and can be guided. There persistence is admirable. I think the criticism might better fit cosmologists who are notoriously "often wrong but never in doubt" and constantly charge off in wrong directions, unguided by an empirical compass. One famous scientist (AE) often said he had the tough hide and stubbornness of a mule. These can be useful qualities in times of adversity. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Southworth Det Eclips Binary Catalog
On Sunday, December 1, 2013 3:52:47 PM UTC-5, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
But your unit is 0.145 solar masses! Again, if the bin width is larger than your unit, then ANY bin you choose will have at least one of your multiples in it. --------------------------------------- I just looked at all the samples presented at my website. THE BIN WIDTHS ARE 0.05 SOLAR MASS. This is sufficient to show where white dwarf mass peaks are AND where they are NOT. The published histograms usually have slightly narrower binning. PLEASE STOP POSTING FALSE AND MISLEADING INFORMATION! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
ASTRO: Lunar eclips too | TheCroW | Astro Pictures | 0 | March 4th 07 02:31 PM |
ASTRO: Live online streams of total lunar eclips | TheCroW | Astro Pictures | 1 | March 4th 07 05:35 AM |
Binary Star catalog | John Oliver | Research | 1 | March 24th 05 10:52 AM |
Which catalog is best? | Lucy | Research | 5 | April 27th 04 03:49 PM |
Which catalog is best? | Lucy | Misc | 5 | April 27th 04 03:49 PM |