|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
A definitive test of discrete scale (relativity, numerology)
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. It also has clear and statistically significant peaks at DSR's predicted values. Why is everyone ignoring this piece of information? (He asks rhetorically). RLO http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
A definitive test of discrete scale (relativity, numerology)
On Sep 18, 6:02*pm, Martin Hardcastle
wrote: However, the key point is that this test can be done, and, when it's done with stars with accurately measured masses, it is inconsistent with the proposed model at a very high confidence level, as I said earlier. -------------------------------------------------------------- There is something that should be borne in mind: the Sandage - de Vaucouleurs dust-up. If you will recall, the two protagonists battled long and hard over the value of the Hubble constant. Sandage insisted upon 50 km/sec/ Mpc, while de Vaucouleurs insisted upon 100 km/sec/Mpc. The battle raged on for many years. Both camps had the same observational data to work with. Both camps had the same statistical methods to work with. Both camps included the best astrophysicists of the time. Both camps insisted that they were obviously right. Both camps insisted that the other side was wrong. If things can be unambiguoulsy decided with some data and some statistical analysis, HOW CAN THIS BE POSSIBLE?!? There is a very important lesson here about a very common problem in physics: often wrong - never in doubt. Who was right? NEITHER, apparently. We now think that H ~ 70 km/sec/ Mpc. Bottom lines: Be careful about what you say you can rule out. And be very careful about what you say you are SURE is right. Sorry for the EMPHASIS (perhaps I miss PH). RLO http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
A definitive test of discrete scale (relativity, numerology)
"Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote in news:mt2.0-
: On Sep 18, 6:02*pm, Martin Hardcastle wrote: However, the key point is that this test can be done, and, when it's done with stars with accurately measured masses, it is inconsistent with the proposed model at a very high confidence level, as I said earlier. -------------------------------------------------------------- There is something that should be borne in mind: the Sandage - de Vaucouleurs dust-up. If you will recall, the two protagonists battled long and hard over the value of the Hubble constant. Sandage insisted upon 50 km/sec/ Mpc, while de Vaucouleurs insisted upon 100 km/sec/Mpc. The battle raged on for many years. Both camps had the same observational data to work with. Both camps had the same statistical methods to work with. Both camps included the best astrophysicists of the time. Both camps insisted that they were obviously right. Both camps insisted that the other side was wrong. If things can be unambiguoulsy decided with some data and some statistical analysis, HOW CAN THIS BE POSSIBLE?!? Models differ. Fundamental disagreement over fundamental physics and assumptions. Insufficient data. Systematic errors in measurements. I have no idea how many of the above were true for the kerfuffle over the Hubble constant, nor do I care because it is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. There is a very important lesson here about a very common problem in physics: often wrong - never in doubt. 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. Bottom lines: Be careful about what you say you can rule out. And be very careful about what you say you are SURE is right. Your theory has been ruled out at a confidence level so high that the chance you are right is computationally equal to zero. You have been going on and on about this on USENET since 1995: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.a...9046a4e1ba66c? dmode=source And apparently actually got an ApJ editor in a moment of weakness, so there's a publication in 1987 about it too. In a few hours of work using data published more than a decade ago, your theory was excluded. Are you going to move on? Sorry for the EMPHASIS (perhaps I miss PH). RLO http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
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. What a ballsy request. The programming for handling large data samples of star masses has been written out and explained by me, and further refined by Martin. I spent a few minutes debating with myself whether to bother because I knew the result would be some combination of you blatantly ignoring the result that discredits your theory and a request for more analysis to be done, previous results be damned. Boy I wasn't even close, was I? No one seems to want to talk about the Tremblay et al SDSS white dwarf mass function. It might have something to do with you having performed literally no effort on your own. I have news for you: there is no serious intere This is odd since it is a large, recent sample, and is carefully analysed. True, yet completely irrelevant. It also has clear and statistically significant peaks at DSR's predicted values. Really, Robert? How do you define 'statistically significant'? Have you done any analysis of the stars themselves to see if they match your predictions? You could, because the programming is RIGHT THERE FOR YOU. Will you? Probably not. Feel free to use your reflexive disagreement with me as an engine for doing something useful for yourself, though. Are you being consistent with your atomic scale numerology? Nope. You want to claim that white dwarfs obey a mass distribution similar to atoms, but completely neglect the fact that the stellar mass distribution completely disagrees with you. Plus, there are plenty of stars in the neighborhood of 0.73 M_sun which further discredits your theory. Given the existence of 100+ solar mass stars, your numerology predicts 600 atomic mass nuceli. Or inverting the argument, your numerology predicts a lack of stars above 15 solar masses or so because there are no stable nuclei past Z ~ 100. Why is everyone ignoring this piece of information? (He asks rhetorically). Probably because nobody cares. Or maybe because people are willing to put in about as much effort as you, which is to say 'none at all'. I have arguably worked harder on this subject than you have in the last decade. * Your notions of dark matter composition and distribution? Completely wrong. I was the one who gave you the literature on microlensing searches, which was ignored. No, saying "Hawkins" three times fast doesn't make 15 years of microlensing surveys go away. * Stellar mass distribution? Completely wrong. You've already moved on to completely ignoring how wrong you are about this, and it didn't even take 24 hours. You've put literally zero effort into doing this yourself, and you've had decades. The data set I used was published in 1999. You have no excuses. * Eclipsing binary system mass distribution? Completely wrong. Martin did the analysis for you, which you are free to repeat yourself given the available framework. But you won't, and we both know that. The most recent data is from 2010, but since you missed stuff from 1999 I am not surprised you missed that. * Planet mass distribution? You've made literally zero effort in testing that one despite being given the data, and I'm not doing it for you. Guess we'll never know on that one... Oh wait, yes we will. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.a...568058f29d8ea? dmode=source I generally interpret "complete ignoring of technical points" on research newsgroups as evidence for the person I'm responding to having no argument. So much for numerology on planetary mass distributions. Given all the failures and didn't-even-try's above, do you really have to ask why another block of data you think is interesting is being ignored? I will promise you this however: If you ever get another journal of note to publish your claims after this, I'll be sure to get a refutation published. The science is in, and your theory is wrong. Will you be the scientist you claim to be and move on to something new, or adopt crank behaviors like ignoring data that disagrees with you? Choose carefully, as this is an archived medium. RLO http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
A definitive test of discrete scale (relativity, numerology)
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. Both Sandage and de Vaucouleurs argued that their "answer [was] now verified through several independent methods, all with high quality data." Don't people understand? There are Platonic over-simplified mathematical models of reality, i.e., pseudo-reality. And then there is the physical reality of the real world, i.e., reality. If you assert that the former model is an absolute and unchangeable version of the latter, you commit a cardinal sin, from the scientific point of view. RLO Discrete Scale Realtivity |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
A definitive test of discrete scale (relativity, numerology)
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? Would you not need errors of 0.01 or less? Are systematic errors accounted for? How much error can sin(i) and sin^3 (i) introduce into mass calculatuons? Thanks, RLO |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
A definitive test of discrete scale (relativity, numerology)
In article ,
Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: 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? Easy: the chi^2 statistic does this for you. Stars with large errors will just not contribute very much to the final sum. Any basic statistics book will explain this. Bevington & Robinson is one I've recommended to students in the past. (If we restrict ourselves to systems where the magnitudes of the errors are very small, the result is actually much, much worse for your model, because all the systems where we don't actually know enough to say much are excluded, leaving all the systems which simply don't fit. Run the code, make a different cut, see for yourself.) Are systematic errors accounted for? You tell me what systematic errors are present, I'll tell you whether they're accounted for. As you'll see if you look at the paper, the authors have gone to some trouble to determine and correct for systematic errors in the fitting. How much error can sin(i) and sin^3 (i) introduce into mass calculatuons? They're *eclipsing* binaries, as again the paper makes clear. So, virtually none; and what there is is accounted for in the errors in mass used in the chi^2 calculation. 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. Martin -- 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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
A definitive test of discrete scale (relativity, numerology)
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. 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. I have much less faith in the arguments you use to summarily dismiss a whole paradigm on the basis of one dubious sample, 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. If white dwarf samples are consistent with discrete masses, or at least show evidence for preferred masses, what do you say then? RLO http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
A definitive test of discrete scale (relativity, numerology)
On Sep 19, 5:04*pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw"
wrote: And then there is the physical reality of the real world, i.e., reality. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here is an interesting system - a pulsar/star binary, published in NATURE IN 2010. http://arxiv.org/abs/1010.5788 Pulsar mass is 1.97 +/- 0.04 solar mass Star mass is 0.500 +/- 0.006 solar mass Total mass = 2.470 solar mass Predicted DSR peak at 17 times 0.145 solar mass = 2.465 solar mass. [2.470 - 2.465/2.470] times 100 = 0.2% error = 99.8% agreement. 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 |