|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Preferred Stellar Masses?
On Sep 11, 2:25*pm, Christian Froeschlin wrote:
Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: The estimated mass of 55 Cnc appears to be [0.875-0.905/0.875] roughly 3% higher than DSR's predicted 0.875 sm. *Well, we do expect some uncertainty in the data, right? Yes, but isn't that why the error bars are given in the first place? A measurement of 0.905 +/- 0.015 excludes the value 0.875. To dismiss the error bars means you have to claim the data is invalid, that the measurement process was flawed, the authors incompetent. Also, to say that the value is "only wrong by about 3%" is quite meaningless here, this would still be true even if the error bars were at 0.01 or 0.005. --------------------------------------------------------- I did not dismiss the error bars. I used them. I just take a less Platonic, more physically realistic, view of things. 1. To me the reported data says the most probable estimate of the mass is 0.905 sm, but values 0.015 sm higher or 0.015 sm lower can not be ruled out at a high level of probability. Is there something wrong with that reasoning? 2. Are you familiar with the idea of systematic errors? Sometines a value is initially reported as x +/- y, and then down the line it turns out that a more accurate measure is significantly different from x +/- y because there were unanticipated errors in the method used to determine the original mass estimate. 3. Phyicists worry alot about the width of error bars and put in a great deal of effort trying to narrow them. The only way your comment makes sense to me is if you are saying the 0.905 value is absolutely right. My understanding is that it is only the most probable value in a range of possible values. And there is always systematic uncertainty in any measurement/estimate. There is a very big difference in our two views of what 0.0905 +/- 0.015 sm really means. I am not sure that anything I say will make any difference in anybody's thinking. So I will let nature speak for itself. RLO http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Preferred Stellar Masses?
On Sep 11, 2:39*pm, eric gisse wrote:
This is not science. -------------------------------------------------------------------- We have one stellar system for which the total mass and the masses of the subsystems are measured dynamically to a high degree of accuracy: the Solar System. The Solar System's total mass agrees with the prediction of Discrete Scale Relativity at the 99.987% level. I notice that you make no mention of this one solid piece of evidence that is already available. Why would you put so much emphasis on the two poorly constrained masses of the systems you mention above, but ignore the more accurate Solar System data? Do the mass estimates for the Solar System qualify as science, in your worldview? Do you agree that the Solar System's mass is extremely close to one of DSR's predicted discrete masses? Or will you assure us that it is off by an astronomical number of standard deviations? RLO Discrete Scale Relativity |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Preferred Stellar Masses?
In article ,
Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: Maybe it is good to the 10% level, but I think we would need mass data at the 3% level, and probably at the 1-2% level. See my 9/8 response to TW. OK, have a look at http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.2055 Masses to sub-1% accuracy of 0.395 and 0.275 solar, with a sum 0.670 +- 0.003 which is nowhere near an exact multiple of 0.145. Tom |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Preferred Stellar Masses?
On Sep 12, 10:05*am, Thomas Womack
wrote: In article , Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: Maybe it is good to the 10% level, but I think we would need mass data at the 3% level, and probably at the 1-2% level. *See my 9/8 response to TW. OK, have a look athttp://arxiv.org/abs/1109.2055 Masses to sub-1% accuracy of 0.395 and 0.275 solar, with a sum 0.670 +- 0.003 which is nowhere near an exact multiple of 0.145. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Many thanks for pointing out this research to me. This is what I am looking for - existing data that meets the criteria. M1 is given as 0.395 sm which is lower than the closest DSR predicted peak at 0.435 sm. M2 is given as 0.275 sm which is also lower than the closest DSR predicted peak at 0.290 sm. The total mass of 0.670 sm is therefore clearly lower than the DSR prediction of 0.73 sm. If this total mass is correct then this mass does not fit the DSR prediction. Before I throw in the towel, however, I would like to see this exercise repeated 50 to 200 times, and it would be a good idea to check each system for previously unobserved subsystems and possible errors. But I grant you that this data point is at odds with the DSR prediction. Is anyone looking for systems that agree with DSR's predictions? Or is there only interest in conflicting data? RLO Discrete Scale Relativity |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Preferred Stellar Masses?
"Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote in
: [...] Is anyone looking for systems that agree with DSR's predictions? Or is there only interest in conflicting data? RLO Discrete Scale Relativity Are you? Seriously. Are you looking? Have you even started pulling the data from the exoplanet site? Have you even tried searching for precision surveys in the vizer database? Have you even tried searching on simbad? Are you just sitting here waiting for people in sci.astro.research to give you the data you want? |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Preferred Stellar Masses?
Le 12/09/11 18:47, Robert L. Oldershaw a écrit :
M1 is given as 0.395 sm which is lower than the closest DSR predicted peak at 0.435 sm. M2 is given as 0.275 sm which is also lower than the closest DSR predicted peak at 0.290 sm. The total mass of 0.670 sm is therefore clearly lower than the DSR prediction of 0.73 sm. If this total mass is correct then this mass does not fit the DSR prediction. Or, there is a brown dwarf with 0.63 solar masses lurking in the dark. Proxima centauri is a brown dwarf maybe linked to alpha centauri A and B. If we believe Mr Oldershaw, Proxima should not be linked to the alpha centauri A+B system since: Alpha centauri A is 1.1 solar masses and Alpha centauri B is 0.93 solar masses what gives 2.03 solar masses what is *exactly* 14 x 0.145. What a coincidence... Strange. :-) |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Preferred Stellar Masses?
On Sep 12, 2:02*pm, eric gisse wrote:
Seriously. Are you looking? --------------------------------------------------------------- Here are two important pieces of evidence that objective readers will want to look at. (1) Tremblay et al published an analysis of a huge sample of white dwarf stars from the SDSS survey. http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.0056 Look at Figure 7 and Figure 21, which are histograms of very large mass samples. In those mass spectra for white dwarf stars you clearly see the main peak at about 0.580 solar masses (helium-4 analogue) and the much smaller but clearly significant peak at 0.435 solar masses )helium-3 analogue). (2) If you go to http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw and click on "Stellar Scale Discreteness?", you will find several histograms of mass data from white dwarf samples. The quantized peaks predicted by Discrete Scale Relativity tend to manifest themselves in this data, even though the data is a bit older and more uncertain. Also at least one major diagnostic gap at 0.73 solar mass shows up conspicuously in several samples. You can get 0.73 sm via multiple star systems, but NOT via single systems beacuse 5 amu nuclei are highly unstable. Take a look. The data is worth a long and objective contemplation. RLO Fractal Cosmology |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Preferred Stellar Masses?
Le 12/09/11 18:47, Robert L. Oldershaw a écrit :
Is anyone looking for systems that agree with DSR's predictions? Or is there only interest in conflicting data? In another post in this thread I pointed out that the alpha centauri system has Alpha centauri A: 1.1 M0 Alpha centauri B: 0.93M0 2.03 M0 2.03 M0 is equal *exactly* to 14 * 0.145 |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Preferred Stellar Masses?
"Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote in news:mt2.0-
: On Sep 12, 2:02*pm, eric gisse wrote: Seriously. Are you looking? --------------------------------------------------------------- Here are two important pieces of evidence that objective readers will want to look at. (1) Tremblay et al published an analysis of a huge sample of white dwarf stars from the SDSS survey. Objective readers will also know that white dwarfs are a possible end of a given star, and between the main sequence stage and white dwarf there is a nontrivial amount of mass shedding so any such expectation of mass quantization is going to be ridiculous. Then again, here we are. http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.0056 Look at Figure 7 and Figure 21, which are histograms of very large mass samples. In those mass spectra for white dwarf stars you clearly see the main peak at about 0.580 solar masses (helium-4 analogue) and the much smaller but clearly significant peak at 0.435 solar masses )helium-3 analogue). You write stuff like 'helium-3 analoge', but what you say has absolutely no meaning to anyone but yourself. (2) If you go to http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw and click on "Stellar Scale Discreteness?", you will find several histograms of mass data from white dwarf samples. The quantized peaks predicted by Discrete Scale Relativity tend to manifest themselves in this data, even though the data is a bit older and more uncertain. But of course when I give you main sequence star data, you just shrug and say "but it isn't accurate enough". Also at least one major diagnostic gap at 0.73 solar mass shows up conspicuously in several samples. You can get 0.73 sm via multiple star systems, but NOT via single systems beacuse 5 amu nuclei are highly unstable. You are making things up, Robert. http://cdsarc.u-strasbg.fr/viz-bin/VizieR?-source=V/19 In that individual catalog of about 10,000 stars there are 271 individual stars with a mass of 5 solar masses +/- 10%. So roughly 3% of the stars in that cluster are a mass you say cannot exist. Plus I was lazy, there was another easy dozen catalogs I could have surveyed. Instead of just making things up perhaps you could do some research? Because it appears you are just saying things and not even bothering to check against basic physics or observation. This is not science. This is textbook numerology. Your arguments here are no better than Archimedes Plutonium's. Take a look. The data is worth a long and objective contemplation. No, it isn't. There's enough main sequence star data out there that contradicts your theory. Plus you seem to be operating under the dual notions that not only are main sequence stars quantized in their mass distribution, but white dwarfs as well. You want to argue your theory is a theory of stellar evolution, but you can't explain why the mass-luminostiry diagram of main sequence stars is continuous while your purported mass distribution is discrete. RLO Fractal Cosmology |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
When is manned spaceflight preferred? | [email protected] | Space Science Misc | 15 | August 13th 13 06:28 PM |
Metal deposit discovered: 30 million solar masses of chromium, 8million solar masses of manganese | Yousuf Khan[_2_] | Astronomy Misc | 6 | December 10th 09 05:45 PM |
dealing decorates but the preferred version | [email protected] | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | August 22nd 07 08:24 AM |
sacrifice behind preferred injection | [email protected] | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | August 19th 07 05:48 AM |
can someone supply some info on stellar masses of stars? | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 1 | September 4th 06 06:55 AM |