|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
A definitive test of discrete scale (relativity, numerology)
On Sep 21, 2:53*pm, wlandsman wrote:
formation. They can find a good fit to the field white dwarf mass function and reproduce the broad peak near 0.6 Msun, and the long tail toward higher white dwarf masses. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- But I think that even after all the above discussion, you have to grant that there are distinct peaks indistinguishable from the predicted peaks at 0.435 solar masses and 0.580 solar masses in the referenced Tremblay et al graph. Nobody ever predicted that peak at 0 .435 solar mass, or explained it, until Discrete Scale Relativity came along. Now go to http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw , click on "Stellar Scale Discreteness?" There you will find SEVEN SAMPLES of white dwarf stars, planetary nebula nuclei and main sequence stars that all show indications of the quantization predicted by Discrete Scale Relativity. I am not saying that the data on my website, or the huge white dwarf data sample in Tremblay et al, or all the systems I have brought to people's attention in the last 2 weeks, prove the predicted DSR quantization. What I am saying is that there is good empirical evidence that supports the prediction and argues compellingly for astrophysicists to keep an open mind on this issue. Nature will eventually yield the necessary evidence for a definitive answer. Those who say the matter was settled long ago, or recently, seem much too sure of themselves and much to dismissive of the relevant uncertainties that undercut their beliefs. RLO Discrete Fractal Cosmology |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
A definitive test of discrete scale (relativity, numerology)
In article , "Robert L.
Oldershaw" writes: 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, I think you underestimate the amount of detail needed to estimate the errors in this sort of work (i.e. the traditional distance-ladder determination of the Hubble constant); one reason other methods are so interesting is that the error budget is better understood. Both probably underestimated their errors; with realistic errors, they marginally agreed. One can also determine the Hubble constant from the time delay in a multiply imaged quasar. A while back, there were two camps with two rather different values, one led by Bill Press and another with no clear leader but several groups touting the same value (so it's probably not a big surprise when the latter camp proved to be right). Anyway, after some heated discussion about this at a conference, Paul Schechter called out "What's the problem? They agree at 3 sigma!" |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
A definitive test of discrete scale (relativity, numerology)
On Sep 24, 4:02*am, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
wrote: I think you underestimate the amount of detail needed to estimate the errors in this sort of work (i.e. the traditional distance-ladder determination of the Hubble constant); one reason other methods are so interesting is that the error budget is better understood. *Both probably underestimated their errors; with realistic errors, they marginally agreed. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nicely put. But couldn't the same argument be applied to older estimates of stellar masses that mainly relied on mass-luminosity- effective temperature-specific gravity relations, and also to dynamical mass estimates if they involve unknown unknowns like unknown systematic errors or unaccounted for low-luminosity companions in wide orbits. In science, it takes a while for experimental efforts to truly sort things out. Take the Hubble constant for one, and the faster-than- light neutrinos for another. The prudent scientist does not rush to judgement and decide what is right/wrong before the matter is scientifically settled. 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 |