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.