A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Research
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

A definitive test of discrete scale (relativity, numerology)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old September 20th 11, 07:45 AM posted to sci.astro.research
eric gisse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 303
Default 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.
  #22  
Old September 20th 11, 07:47 AM posted to sci.astro.research
eric gisse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 303
Default A definitive test of discrete scale (relativity, numerology)

"Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote in
:

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.


[snip]

Could you stop changing the subject every time you reply and address the
fact that actual statistical analysis of the data you said needed to be
analyzed ended up disproving your theory?

There is less-than-zero interest in your latest diversionary tactic.

* You have the data - no complaints. You had a decade with my cited data
set, and you didn't do anything with it.

Feel free to argue you never looked for it or somehow missed exactly
that which you were looking for.

* You have the code - no complaints. You have not even attempted to
comment on the work.

What's up with that?

Do you not understand? Is this too hard for you?

* You have the results - complete radio silence. In fact, not only do
you deftly refuse to discuss this, you actually had the balls to beg for
others to do MORE of the same work for you while completely ignoring the
previous results.

Nobody cares how if you look at white dwarf data in the right light it
can kinda-sorta agree with your theory. Or anything else for that matter
because your theory is dead.

Feel free to change the subject again if you think it'd fool anyone
other than yourself.
  #23  
Old September 20th 11, 04:44 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Robert L. Oldershaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 617
Default A definitive test of discrete scale (relativity, numerology)

On Sep 20, 2:45*am, eric gisse wrote:

This is something you should be able to answer yourself. Did you ever
learn how to propagate error?

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

If you are a master at propagating error, and I have seen much
evidence for this, then why not give us a tutorial.

Question: In your view are there often several ways to statistically
evaluate agreement between theoretical predictions and empirical
results? Or only one?

Question: Have you ever seen a case where a "very precise
determination" of something turns out to be wrong? Say, like the
radius of the proton? It was guaranteed to be 0.88 fermi, until
better experiments came out with an incompatible new value of 0.84
fermi. See how the real world works?

RLO
Discrete Scale Relativity
  #24  
Old September 20th 11, 07:37 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Steve Willner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,172
Default chi-square

In article ,
eric gisse writes:
I'm somewhat confused as what you said reinforces my point. The reduced
chi squared, in my understanding, takes into account the differences in
degrees of freedom.


Yes. Think of it this way: if the model is a good description and
has no free parameters, each data point will contribute about 1 to
the total chi-square. Of course this is only an average. Some data
points will agree perfectly with the model (and thus contribute
zero), but others will be off by one or two sigma (or more if you
have a lot of data points). But _on average_, each data point
contributes about one to the total chi-square, so the _reduced_
chi-square will be about one if the model is a good description.

If your model has free parameters, each of them reduces the total
chi-square by about 1. That's why "degrees of freedom" is the number
of data points minus the number of free model parameters.

Of course this is approximate. If you want to calculate probability,
there are tables or formulas for any given number of degrees of
freedom and chi-square. I've seen tables that use chi-square and
others that use reduced chi-square, so just be sure you know which
you have.

If I use the bins of 0.145 M_sun as the degrees of freedom, I have 25
degrees of freedom. Reduced chi squared is 98.4

If I use the actual amount of stars, I have 185 degrees of freedom.
Reduced chi squared is 13.3.


Are you calculating the number of stars per bin (expected minus
actual)? Or the distance of each star from the nearest "predicted"
mass value? In the latter case, I don't see why you need bins at
all. Either way, the explanation I've given should tell you how to
figure degrees of freedom.

--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
  #26  
Old September 21st 11, 07:31 AM posted to sci.astro.research
eric gisse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 303
Default A definitive test of discrete scale (relativity, numerology)

"Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote in
:

On Sep 20, 2:45*am, eric gisse wrote:

This is something you should be able to answer yourself. Did you ever
learn how to propagate error?

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

-
--------

If you are a master at propagating error, and I have seen much
evidence for this, then why not give us a tutorial.


http://tinyurl.com/6bbs9us

This material was taught to me in freshman year lab courses.

If you are going to beg for an education in statistical anlaysis, don't
waste people's time by floating nonsense claims about mysterious and
unquantifiable systematic errors in all the observations that falsify
your theory.


Question: In your view are there often several ways to statistically
evaluate agreement between theoretical predictions and empirical
results? Or only one?


Sure, several.

Don't embarass yourself by using the existence of multiple statistical
analysis methods as an attempt to delude yourself into thinking your
theory has a shot.

It is dead. Never coming back, not that it was ever a serious theory to
begin with.


Question: Have you ever seen a case where a "very precise
determination" of something turns out to be wrong? Say, like the
radius of the proton?


Sure, that's one example.

The gravitational constant is another.

Thank you for reminding me about the proton radius thing. I had totally
forgotten about this.

Let's get in the w-w-wayback machine and trundle back to July of 2010
where you were spewing nonsense about how your theory was doing better
than the current QED approximation.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.f...5e74f37a17874?
dmode=source

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.f...75c7ed16c84c2?
dmode=source

In a year, the following is apparent:

1) You still do not understand the concept of the standard deviation,
systematic vs random errors, or statistical analysis in general.

2) You still do not understand significant digits.

3) You still do not understand why percentage based error estimates are
horrible to use.

4) You still simply ignore me when I prove your theory wrong.

5) You still think it it a good idea to bring up an observation that
disagrees with you by 41 standard deviations.


It was guaranteed to be 0.88 fermi,


No it wasn't. Both the word "guranteed" and the number "0.88" are wrong.

Measurement settled upon 0.8768(69) fm, consistent with current QED
predictions. Absent systematic error in the measurement, that was the
answer. Then a new method of measuring is tried, and a systematic error
was discovered.

I am unsurprised to see you think "0.88" and "0.8768(69)" are the same
number.

until
better experiments came out with an incompatible new value of 0.84
fermi. See how the real world works?


Yeah, observation disproves theories. The approximation to QED that
predicts the ~0.87 fm proton radius is wrong, just as your theory is
wrong.

I'm glad you took the time to remind everyone that your theory made
another prediction that was wrong by an amount of standard deviations
that takes two digits to express.


RLO
Discrete Scale Relativity


[Mod. note: we seem to be wandering away from our, admittedly tenuous,
grasp on astrophysics here -- please focus on that and not on the
proton radius, which belongs on some other group -- mjh]
  #27  
Old September 21st 11, 07:33 AM posted to sci.astro.research
eric gisse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 303
Default A definitive test of discrete scale (relativity, numerology)

"Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote in
:

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.


I note that you forgot to thank me for doing all your research for you.

I've done more work on your theory in the last year than you have in the
past 15. Every time I give you a piece of literature that disproves your
theory is another piece of literature that mysteriously evaded your
sights.


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.


This sample? I just did the analysis on twelve thousand stars. Did you
not see it?

Your nonsensical requirement that a significant amount of stars be
measured to 0.01 M_sun level has been satisfied. There are 277 stars
within the sample given to you, with a range of 0.88 to 4.63 M_sun. That
sample only has a chi squared of about 3800.

Your theory is, unsurprisingly, still excluded to an 'indistinguishable
from 100%' probability. You, of course, do not seem too concerned about
this. Another day, still zero comment on my analysis.

If you won't be embarassed for yourself, I'll be embarassed for you.


I have much less faith in the arguments you use to summarily dismiss a
whole paradigm on the basis of one dubious sample,


YOU PICKED THE SAMPLE.

You *begged* him to do the analysis you are incapable of doing.

Only when the data shreds your theory do you break out the 'one dubious
sample' BS.

Do you believe you have any credibility here?

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.


So much for the 'definitive test' you were crowing about until it was
actually done.

This is intellectually dishonest behavior, and it needs to stop
happening or at least stop appearing here. There are other newsgroups
which will let me use the words I want to use.


If white dwarf samples are consistent with discrete masses, or at
least show evidence for preferred masses, what do you say then?


Nice hedging, Robert.

The 'definitive prediction' of binning has now been excluded, so play
the coward and say 'at least show evidence for preferred masses'.

Regardless, what you ask is a hypothetical as you have not and will not
do the analysis for discrete masses and you have not and will not do the
analysis for preferred masses.

Can you please stop sending this stuff to sci.astro.research now? You
might as well go back to crossposting to half of the sci.* tree.


RLO
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

  #28  
Old September 21st 11, 07:34 AM posted to sci.astro.research
eric gisse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 303
Default A definitive test of discrete scale (relativity, numerology)

"Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote in news:mt2.0-17850-
:

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


What of the thousands and thousand of stars that prove your theory wrong?

Are you going to keep posting example after example that agrees with you,
while ignoring the thousands that don't?

Are you even going to directly respond to my analysis?
  #29  
Old September 21st 11, 07:53 PM posted to sci.astro.research
wlandsman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 43
Default A definitive test of discrete scale (relativity, numerology)

On Monday, September 19, 2011 2:48:25 AM UTC-4, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:

No one seems to want to talk about the Tremblay et al SDSS white dwarf
mass function.


OK, let's talk about the Tremblay et al results. First, I was
surprised to see you accept these spectroscopic results which make use
of a theoretical mass-radius relation. Comparison to the handful of
dynamical white dwarf masses, and gravitational redshift measurements
suggest that the masses are probably good to 0.01-0.02 Msun. But then
I don't understand why you wouldn't accept the theoretical
mass-luminosity relation for main-sequence stars, and the overwhelming
evidence for a continuous mass spectrum from the observed continuous
luminosity function of star clusters.

Second, a peak in the white dwarf mass spectrum is a strong prediction
of standard stellar evolution. The hot (12,000 K) white dwarfs
observed by Tremblay et al. are degenerate cores of stars that have
recently "died" (i.e. passed through their planetary nebula phase and
ejected their envelopes). If you look at the old (~13 Gyr) globular
clusters, then the hot white dwarfs are all descendants of ~0.8 solar
mass stars. (Higher mass stars evolved more quickly and are now much
cooler white dwarfs, lower mass stars have not yet evolved to become
white dwarfs.) In globular clusters one finds a strong white dwarf
mass peak at 0.53 Msun (Kalarai et al 2009
http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.2253 ) indicating that 0.27 Msun is lost
through red giant winds and planetary nebula formation. When one looks
at younger star clusters such as NGC 3532 (Dobbie et al. 2009
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.395.2248D ) with a turnoff
mass of 3-4 Msun, one finds higher mass (~0.8 Msun) white dwarfs.

Modeling the field star white dwarf population such as reported by
Tremblay et al. is more complicated. The population is dominated by
the 10 Gyr old disk but there has also been more recent star
formation. Catalan et al. (2008 http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.3034 ) show
examples of model fits (their Figure 10) assuming a continuous
power-law initial mass function and exponentially decreasing star
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.

[Mod. note: reformatted to 80 characters per line -- mjh]
  #30  
Old September 22nd 11, 08:37 AM posted to sci.astro.research
eric gisse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 303
Default 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.

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.


Not by you.

BEEP BOOP...analyzing 57 stars with masses determined to 100% or better

Average standard deviation per star: 1.40
Average mass of star: 0.92 solar masses
Mass range of sample: 0.80 to 1.36 solar masses
Chi-squared of the expected binning hypothesis: 130.75
Reduced chi-squared: 2.2938596491228
The probability that the reduced chi-squared value
of 2.2938596491228 is larger than the value of 130.75
for 57 degrees of freedom is 0.00000010061.

So much for the nonsense about 'quantized masses'.


It also has clear and statistically significant peaks at DSR's
predicted values.


How do you know they are 'statistically significant', and why would it
matter if it did given you have literally zero explanation for why your
theory is wrong every time?


Why is everyone ignoring this piece of information? (He asks
rhetorically).

RLO
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.