Triply Eclipsing Star

1. Posted today to arxiv.org:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.1061

"Dynamical masses, absolute radii and 3D orbits of the triply eclipsing star HD 181068 from Kepler photometry"

Masses (in solar masses) for the 3 stars a
0.915(34); 0.870(43); 3.0(1)

Total mass of the system adds up to 4.785 solar mass.

4.785 solar mass = 33 times 0.145 solar mass, exactly.

There is still a fair amount of uncertainty in the total mass estimate, but the reported value is a discrete multiple of Discrete Scale Relativity's predicted unit mass of 0.145 solar mass.

2. Also posted today to arxiv.org and published in Natu 2 stellar-mass black holes lurking in M22.

Note that they were detected via radio emissions.

As one pulsar said to the other: "The beat goes on".

RLO
Discrete Scale Relativity

On 10/4/2012 9:08 PM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
1. Posted today to arxiv.org:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.1061

"Dynamical masses, absolute radii and 3D orbits of the triply eclipsing star HD 181068 from Kepler photometry"

Masses (in solar masses) for the 3 stars a
0.915(34); 0.870(43); 3.0(1)

Total mass of the system adds up to 4.785 solar mass.

4.785 solar mass = 33 times 0.145 solar mass, exactly.

There is still a fair amount of uncertainty in the total mass estimate,

0.915+.034 + 0.870+.043 + 3.0+.1 = 34.22 * 0.145

0.915-.034 + 0.870-.043 + 3.0-.1 = 31.78 * 0.145

So why do you say that the total mass of the
system adds up to 33 times 0.145 solar mass?

The numbers say that it adds up to something
between 31.78 and 34.22 times 0.145 solar mass.

..
As one pulsar said to the other: "The beat goes on".

Can you explain what is "discrete" about
something between 31.78 and 34.22?!

--
Jos

In article , "Robert L.
Oldershaw" writes:

Total mass of the system adds up to 4.785 solar mass.

4.785 solar mass = 33 times 0.145 solar mass, exactly.

There is still a fair amount of uncertainty in the total mass
estimate, but the reported value is a discrete multiple of Discrete
Scale Relativity's predicted unit mass of 0.145 solar mass.

How many stellar masses are known? What fraction conform to the DSR
predictions? How likely is that to happen purely by chance?

Phillip Helbig- wrote:
In article , "Robert L.
Oldershaw" writes:

Total mass of the system adds up to 4.785 solar mass.

4.785 solar mass = 33 times 0.145 solar mass, exactly.

There is still a fair amount of uncertainty in the total mass
estimate, but the reported value is a discrete multiple of Discrete
Scale Relativity's predicted unit mass of 0.145 solar mass.

How many stellar masses are known? What fraction conform to the DSR
predictions? How likely is that to happen purely by chance?

More to the point, ths sun's mass would have to be 7 * 0.145 or 1.015
solar masses under this theory, correct?

-- Bill Owen

In article , Jos Bergervoet
writes:

There is still a fair amount of uncertainty in the total mass estimate,

0.915+.034 + 0.870+.043 + 3.0+.1 = 34.22 * 0.145

0.915-.034 + 0.870-.043 + 3.0-.1 = 31.78 * 0.145

So why do you say that the total mass of the
system adds up to 33 times 0.145 solar mass?

The numbers say that it adds up to something
between 31.78 and 34.22 times 0.145 solar mass.

The difference is then 0.44 times 0.145. Of course, for a random mass,
getting within 0.44 times the 0.145 magic number is not at all
surprising.

What is interesting about this result is that the best-fit values
(without the errors) DO hit the 0.145 exactly. However, as I pointed
out, how many systems don't? It's unlikely to win the lottery yet
someone wins every week. Also, RLO himself has stated here many times
that for the purpose of comparing observations with DSR only systems
with well determined masses are to be used.

On 10/6/2012 1:30 PM, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
In article , Jos Bergervoet
writes:

There is still a fair amount of uncertainty in the total mass estimate,

0.915+.034 + 0.870+.043 + 3.0+.1 = 34.22 * 0.145

0.915-.034 + 0.870-.043 + 3.0-.1 = 31.78 * 0.145

So why do you say that the total mass of the
system adds up to 33 times 0.145 solar mass?

The numbers say that it adds up to something
between 31.78 and 34.22 times 0.145 solar mass.

The difference is then 0.44 times 0.145.

??? I would say 2.44 times 0.145 or perhaps
somewhat less if we are not allowed to add
the extremes of the 3 error intervals given.

.. Of course, for a random mass,
getting within 0.44 times the 0.145 magic number is not at all
surprising.

One would expect something like 88% of all
cases to get closer than 0.44 times to an
integer, but it will even be 100% since the
range is actually 2.44 in the case above.

What is interesting about this result is that the best-fit values
(without the errors) DO hit the 0.145 exactly. However, as I pointed
out, how many systems don't?

Well.. with 3 digits behind the decimal
point, as in this case given, it would
hold by chance only for about 0.69% of
the cases (1/145).

It's unlikely to win the lottery yet
someone wins every week. Also, RLO himself has stated here many times
that for the purpose of comparing observations with DSR only systems
with well determined masses are to be used.

That makes it irrelevant for DSR whether
merely the best-fit values (without
the errors) hit the multiples. Still,
it would be *interesting* if those
values would predominantly hit them!

No astronomical explanation could be
responsible for this effect that is far
within the measurement errors, but it
might be something in the detection
method. So Robert's concern was not DSR
this time, apparently. His worry is the
presence of data artifacts, it seems..

--
Jos

In article , Jos Bergervoet
writes:

The numbers say that it adds up to something
between 31.78 and 34.22 times 0.145 solar mass.

The difference is then 0.44 times 0.145.

??? I would say 2.44 times 0.145 or perhaps
somewhat less if we are not allowed to add
the extremes of the 3 error intervals given.

Right.

.. Of course, for a random mass,
getting within 0.44 times the 0.145 magic number is not at all
surprising.

One would expect something like 88% of all
cases to get closer than 0.44 times to an
integer, but it will even be 100% since the
range is actually 2.44 in the case above.

Right. DSR looks even worse.

What is interesting about this result is that the best-fit values
(without the errors) DO hit the 0.145 exactly. However, as I pointed
out, how many systems don't?

Well.. with 3 digits behind the decimal
point, as in this case given, it would
hold by chance only for about 0.69% of
the cases (1/145).

Right, hence my question about how many systems DON'T hit the DSR
prediction.

On Saturday, October 6, 2012 5:44:58 AM UTC-4, Bill Owen wrote:
Phillip Helbig- wrote:


More to the point, ths sun's mass would have to be 7 * 0.145 or 1.015

solar masses under this theory, correct?



-- Bill Owen
------------------------------------------------

The masses of the Sun and Jupiter are discussed specifically in the newest "Technical Note" (#1) at http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw .
Please take a few minutes to read this brief note that answers your question and relates to the topic at hand.

[Mod. note: as usual, web links have not been moderated; caveat lector
-- mjh]

We have had a long previous discussion at SAR of what kind of sample/data would be needed to actually and fairly test the "quantized" stellar mass spectrum hypothesis. I see no reason to repeat this discussion here.

RLO
Discrete Scale Relativity

On Thursday, October 4, 2012 2:08:48 PM UTC-5, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
1. Posted today to arxiv.org:



http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.1061



"Dynamical masses, absolute radii and 3D orbits of the triply eclipsing star HD 181068 from Kepler photometry"

Since when are you interested in Kepler datasets?

The spectroscopic instruments are sufficient enough to observe redshifts directly and determine the mass of a star once its' radius is known. You reject Kepler mass estimates as unproven science or whatever excuse you felt like using.

Cherry picking data is bad science, Robert. Just because I don't post much anymore does not mean that such things escape my notice forever.




Masses (in solar masses) for the 3 stars a

0.915(34); 0.870(43); 3.0(1)

Progress! You listed the error bars.

You neglect to mention that 2 of the 3 individual components aren't discrete multiples. Looks like this is one of those days where the sum must be discrete but the components can be continuous.

I am still not clear how you justify that, especially given how frequently you argue for capture scenarios...




Total mass of the system adds up to 4.785 solar mass.

One step forward, one step back.




4.785 solar mass = 33 times 0.145 solar mass, exactly.

4.785 +/- 0.114 M_sun, Robert. Please use error bars consistently, and correctly.

What you have here is barely a 1 standard deviation result. You've posted plenty of stars *yourself* that are 5+ standard deviation falsifications.

What do you hope to accomplish by posting oneoff's every few months and then completely disregarding the data analysis?




There is still a fair amount of uncertainty in the total mass estimate

Was it too difficult to compute?

# wcalc
Enter an expression to evaluate, q to quit, or ? for help:
- .915+.87+3
= 4.785
- sqrt(.034^2 + .043^2 + .1^2)
= 0.114039


, but the reported value is a discrete multiple of Discrete Scale Relativity's predicted unit mass of 0.145 solar mass.



Its' also a discrete multiple of lots of things that aren't 0.145, and is also consistent with a continuum of masses.

Just in case people have forgotten I would like to reference previous bulk analysis of stellar mass samples and how it falsifies your numerology:

https://groups.google.com/group/sci....di rect&pli=1

The data analysis I performed completely falsified your numerology. You, of course, could not find fault so you ignored the analysis.

Not one to know when to quit, you asked Martin Hardcastle to analyze one specific data set of eclipsing binaries with high quality mass determinations.

https://groups.google.com/group/sci....n&noredi rect

That didn't work out for you either.

It has been quite awhile - have you managed to find fault in the analysis, or are you still unclear as to how statistical analysis works? Would you like some assistance?

[...]

On Saturday, October 6, 2012 3:31:24 PM UTC-5, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
On Saturday, October 6, 2012 5:44:58 AM UTC-4, Bill Owen wrote:

Phillip Helbig- wrote:





More to the point, ths sun's mass would have to be 7 * 0.145 or 1.015



solar masses under this theory, correct?







-- Bill Owen

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



The masses of the Sun and Jupiter are discussed specifically in the newest "Technical Note" (#1) at http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw .

Please take a few minutes to read this brief note that answers your question and relates to the topic at hand.

What value would that serve?

I've walked you through the analysis of including everything of note in the solar system and the whole setup is still a 50+ standard deviation falsification of your numerology.

Doing this over and over year after year will get you zero additional support. You do know that, right?

[...]