|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
Quantized Stellar Masses?
|
#112
|
|||
|
|||
Quantized Stellar Masses?
On Oct 5, 2:16*am, "Robert L. Oldershaw"
wrote: I see. *So you see yourself as a warrior for right-thinking science. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERESTING SYSTEM OF THE DAY - 10/4/11 "PSR J1903+0327 : A Unique Milli-Second Pulsar with a Main Sequence Companion Star" http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0507 Pulsar mass = 1.67 solar mass Companion mass = 1.667 solar mass TOTAL SYSTEM MASS = 3.337 solar mass. DSR PREDICTED MASS = 3.335 solar mass = (23)(0.145 solar mass). Relative error 0.02 % Agreement 99.8% Note also that this system is in conflict with conventional astrophysics in that (1) millisecond pulsars are usually coupled with white dwarfs, and (2) its eccentricity of 0.44 is unexplainably high. A very interesting system! RLO http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
Quantized Stellar Masses?
"Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote in
: On Oct 5, 2:16*am, "Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote: I see. *So you see yourself as a warrior for right-thinking science. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - -------- INTERESTING SYSTEM OF THE DAY - 10/4/11 95 INTERESTING SYSTEMS OF LAST MONTH http://cdsarc.u-strasbg.fr/viz-bin/C.../A%2bARV/18.67 95 eclipsing binary stars, and the entire sample in part and total disagrees with you. The stars are known to your demanded precision or better, and all you did is sniff and move on when presented with proof your theory is wrong. Do you think the little 'oh I found a new star system' routine is going to do anything except **** people off? "PSR J1903+0327 : A Unique Milli-Second Pulsar with a Main Sequence Companion Star" http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0507 Nope, sorry. This is an unacceptable observation. 1) The mass ratio is only known to about 10%: Note the mass ratio of R = 1.56 +/- 0.15. You've repeatedly asserted you'll only accept masses known to 0.01 M_sun or better. 2) The mass of the system was determined spectroscopically, which you have repeatedly said is 'unacceptable' due to 'systematic errors'. 3) The masses themselves are merely the most probable estimates after reducing the value of chi^2 as a function of the observed parameters. You have refused to acknowledge any analysis that disproves your numerology that uses this so you would be a hypocrite to change your mind now that you think it supports you. Pulsar mass = 1.67 solar mass Companion mass = 1.667 solar mass Where are your error bars, Robert? TOTAL SYSTEM MASS = 3.337 solar mass. DSR PREDICTED MASS = 3.335 solar mass = (23)(0.145 solar mass). Relative error 0.02 % Agreement 99.8% At what level of confidence, Robert? You can't answer this question because your reference does not put error bars on the mass estimates. Note also that this system is in conflict with conventional astrophysics in that (1) millisecond pulsars are usually coupled with white dwarfs, and (2) its eccentricity of 0.44 is unexplainably high. A very interesting system! Only because you think it agrees with you. Where's your explanation as to why every star in the Torres sample disagrees with you? Or why the sun disagrees to the tune of a hundred sigma? etc... |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
Quantized Stellar Masses?
On Oct 5, 1:05*pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw"
wrote: On Oct 5, 2:16*am, "Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote: "PSR J1903+0327 : A Unique Milli-Second Pulsar with a Main Sequence Companion Star" http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0507 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORRECTION!!! The above-mentioned preprint has a bad mistake in it, which I discovered on closer study. The authors state: "This also matches the prediction of the companion's mass of 1.667 solar mass from pulsar timing (Freire 2011)." The 1.667 solar mass is actually the estimated mass of the pulsar. Not the mass of the companion. The analysis of PSR J1903+0327 really comes from Freire et al, 2010, which can be read at: http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.5809 . The dynamical mass estimate for the binary system = 2.70 +/- 0.11 solar masses, and is found on page 7 of the above linked preprint. The closest DSR prediction is (19)(0.145 sm) = 2.755 solar mass. However the error bars encompass 2 separate DSR predicted values at 2.610 and 2.755 solar mass. Bottom Lines: This is still an interesting system. It has an unusual set of subsystems. It has a very unusual eccentricity. But the dynamical mass estimate falls far short of what would be needed to test the DSR predictions. Perhaps in the future the dynamical mass estimate for the total binary system can be refined enough to offer more useful information. RLO http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
Quantized Stellar Masses?
"Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote in
: On Oct 5, 1:05*pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote: On Oct 5, 2:16*am, "Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote: "PSR J1903+0327 : A Unique Milli-Second Pulsar with a Main Sequence Companion Star" http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0507 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - -------- CORRECTION!!! The above-mentioned preprint has a bad mistake in it, which I discovered on closer study. The authors state: "This also matches the prediction of the companion's mass of 1.667 solar mass from pulsar timing (Freire 2011)." The 1.667 solar mass is actually the estimated mass of the pulsar. Not the mass of the companion. That explains why the answer doesn't match up with the Champion, et.al. results. Regardless, I'm glad you've gotten over your silly obsession with only using results from September 2011 and onwards. In addition with getting rid of your nonsensical argument that only objects with masses determined to 0.01 M_sun or better can be used. The analysis of PSR J1903+0327 really comes from Freire et al, 2010, which can be read at: http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.5809 . The dynamical mass estimate for the binary system = 2.70 +/- 0.11 solar masses, and is found on page 7 of the above linked preprint. The closest DSR prediction is (19)(0.145 sm) = 2.755 solar mass. However the error bars encompass 2 separate DSR predicted values at 2.610 and 2.755 solar mass. Um, no. The error bar does NOT emcompass two seperate "predictions". Your "prediction" (I say "prediction" because you don't actually predict anything) of the mass of the system is what is known as being WRONG. The nearest divisor of 0.145 into 2.70 m_sun is 19. That gives a mass of 2.755 M_sun, but the actual binary system has a mass of 2.70 +/- 0.11 M_sun. You just posted a 5 standard deviation falsification of your numerology. Nice job, Robert! Keep posting falsifications, and you might even realize what everyone already has. Bottom Lines: This is still an interesting system. It has an unusual set of subsystems. Hardly. Its' a binary system consisting of a main sequence star and a compact companion. It has a very unusual eccentricity. That's the only interesting thing about it. But the dynamical mass estimate falls far short of what would be needed to test the DSR predictions. *snort* Look at that clever wording. The fact of the matter is your numerology is wrong by five standard deviations, Robert. This falsifies your numerology. Remember what you were saying not so long ago about epicycles and admitting a theory doesn't work? Perhaps in the future the dynamical mass estimate for the total binary system can be refined enough to offer more useful information. Like what? The system strucuted in a way that relativistic tests aren't meaningfully possible. You won't be able to dig a success out of this one, either, so there's really nothing for your numerology to look forward to here. RLO http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
Quantized Stellar Masses?
On Oct 6, 3:41*am, "Robert L. Oldershaw"
wrote: ----------------------------------------- CLARIFICATION Some have barked at me for what they try to convince others is an attempt to hide from negative results - specifically the Torre et al mass results. For what its worth, here is my response ----------------------------------------------------------- You specifically requested Martin Hardcastle analyze the Torres eclipsing binary sample. Then once he does that, you pan the results and go on your merry way. And now you are saying you have only identified one star that disagrees with you? Isn't that textbook crank behavior? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ordinarily I would ignore this abusive type of post. However, so that readers are not mislead by things that you know full well are misleading innuendos, I will set the matters straight with facts. Martin Hardcastle did analyze the Torre et al sample and find that it did not agree with DSR predictions. I clearly said in print that I accepted his analysis for that sample. I also pointed out the reasons that I felt that this sample could not be the final word on the matter. Other samples do support the DSR predictions. The small unofficial sample reported above represents the systems that (1) were analyzed and reported on arxiv.org during the month of September, or were drawn to my attention during that period by articles published in the scientific literature during the month of September, and (2) met the requirements that I have identified for a fair and unbiased test of the predicted quantization of the total masses of star systems. The Solar System, which is the one system for which we have definitive mass data for all components, agrees with the Discrete Scale Relativity predictions excellently, as anyone can see by reading the initial post in this thread. Your comment that the Sun's mass is in conflict with DSR predictions indicates your "misunderstanding" of the fundamental prediction clearly set out in the initial post. The prediction concerns the quantization of the TOTAL mass of the bound systems. It would seem that your comments about the Sun's mass are misleading in a very calculated and unscientific manner. I have no intention of answering any more of your abusive and unscientific posts. RLO http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
Quantized Stellar Masses?
On Oct 6, 3:41*am, "Robert L. Oldershaw"
wrote: ---------------------------------------------------- Yet Another New System Of Interest. Just published in the Astrophysical Journal Supplement , 197(1), 2011 "Kepler - 14b ..." by Buchhave et al http://iopscience.iop.org/0067-0049/197/1/3 or http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.5510 This appears to be a 3 component system. Kepler-14A has a mass of 1.512 +/- 0.043 solar mass Kelper-14B has a mass of 1.39 solar mass (not sure of error limits) Kepler-14b has a mass of 0.0084 +/- 0.0002 solar mass None of these systems by itself is in very good agreement with the DSR predicted peaks, but when you add them together the story is very different. Estimated Total System Mass = 2.91 solar mass. 20 times the predicted Stellar Mass Unit of 0.145 solar mass = 2.90 solar mass. Relative error = 0.003 Agreement = 99.7% Did I make any mistakes on this one? RLO Discrete Scale Relativity |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
Quantized Stellar Masses?
"Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote in news:mt2.0-
: On Oct 6, 3:41*am, "Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote: ----------------------------------------- CLARIFICATION Some have barked at me for what they try to convince others is an attempt to hide from negative results - specifically the Torre et al mass results. AW YEAH! Going back to the classics! Its' been awhile since I heard a dog reference. Here I was thinking you finally realized how silly those sounded coming from an adult. For what its worth, here is my response ----------------------------------------------------------- You specifically requested Martin Hardcastle analyze the Torres eclipsing binary sample. Then once he does that, you pan the results and go on your merry way. And now you are saying you have only identified one star that disagrees with you? Isn't that textbook crank behavior? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Ordinarily I would ignore this abusive type of post. However, so that readers are not mislead by things that you know full well are misleading innuendos, I will set the matters straight with facts. Both you and your imagined supporters have had ample time to pick apart both my analysis and Martin Hardcastle's. The resounding lack of technical arguments against either analysis makes one wonder what you are talking about with this "misleading innuendo" nonsense. The methodology, analysis, code, and data used have all been crystal clear. You've had weeks to ask for clarification, and you've been nothing but dismissive of the whole thing to the point where it is clear you are not interested in dissenting data. Martin Hardcastle did analyze the Torre et al sample and find that it did not agree with DSR predictions. I clearly said in print that I accepted his analysis for that sample. I also pointed out the reasons that I felt that this sample could not be the final word on the matter. Other samples do support the DSR predictions. You do not have "other samples". You have carefully picked individual data points. The Torres, et. al. sample has 95 binary systems, which when put together against the count you think supports you, outnumbers it 5 to 1. Even more if you count the fact they are binary (and a few trinary) systems. This, of course, is merely one sample. I gave you the analysis of a 12,000 star sample, a quarter of which met your ridiculously overdone requirements. That also conclusively disagreed with you. I am highly curious to know why you think your "other samples" take precedence over a 5:1 majority of systems that disagree with you by using the rules of which you agreed to. The small unofficial sample reported above represents the systems that (1) were analyzed and reported on arxiv.org during the month of September, or were drawn to my attention during that period by articles published in the scientific literature during the month of September, and (2) met the requirements that I have identified for a fair and unbiased test of the predicted quantization of the total masses of star systems. I'd like to remind you that your requirements continue to be silly, and reek of being specifically crafted to exclude the large amounts of data previously published which has been shown to discredit your numerology. The Solar System, which is the one system for which we have definitive mass data for all components, agrees with the Discrete Scale Relativity predictions excellently, as anyone can see by reading the initial post in this thread. Yes, examine the "initial post", in which you repeat your preferred mode of analysis: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.a...b6a91038d2f1c? dmode=source "However, when you add the mass of the planetary system and get a total system mass, the value is 1.99158 x 10^33 g. This agrees with one of the predicted peaks at the 99.987% level." I'll just leave that here, so we can visit it again in a moment... Your comment that the Sun's mass is in conflict with DSR predictions indicates your "misunderstanding" of the fundamental prediction clearly set out in the initial post. The prediction concerns the quantization of the TOTAL mass of the bound systems. It would seem that your comments about the Sun's mass are misleading in a very calculated and unscientific manner. You forgot to link to the post you thought was unscientific. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.a...870e714d91633? dmode=source I note you never actually responded to that one either. Funny how every time someone does an analysis which inevitibly ends up not supporting you, it is either ignored or dismissed. Regardless, since you aren't counting the planetary masses in your "successful prediction" list, I didn't see the need to do it either. But for giggles, let's do that. But let's do it correctly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standar...onal_parameter The solar system minus sun adds up to 177,718,531 km^3 s^-2 The sun is 132,712,440,018 km^3 s^-2 Since the error in G completely and undeniably dominates the measurement of MG, i'm not including errors in MG here. Including that in the analysis is an exercise for the reader. The CODATA value of G is currently [1] 6.67384(80) x 10^-11 m^2 kg^-1 s^-2 Multiply the total of MG by (1000 m / km)^3 and divide by the value of G. You get 1.99121(48) x 10^30 kg. Now you claim the total mass of the solar system is an integer multpile of 0.145 solar masses. One solar mass is 1.98855(24) x 10^30 kg. So the mass of the solar system, in solar masses, is 1.99121 / 1.98855 = 1.00134 M_sun But what's the uncertainty in the measurement? Since you have such personal trouble with the concept, I'll propagate the uncertainty for you. The fractional uncertainty in x = y/z is &x / x = &y/y + &z/z , which you can verify yourself if you open literally any textbook on error analysis. [Mod. note: normally these will actually say that the fractional errors add in quadrature, i.e. (&x/x)^2 = (&y/y)^2 + (&z/z)^2 . Not that it makes a big difference in this case -- mjh] So for our case, the error in the mass of the solar system in solar masses is 0.00036, so the mass of the solar system is 1.00134(36) M_sun. You claim that it is the nearest integer multiple of 0.145 M_sun. That is 1.015 M_sun. The difference between what you predict and what is observed is 0.01355 M_sun. Since the error in our knowledge of the solar system's mass is 0.00036 M_sun, this means you are wrong by 37.6 standard deviations. Yes, off by more than 37 standard deviations with a full accounting of the solar system. Why is it you prefer the unscientific fractional percentage estimate of error rather than the scientific standard deviation? Your method seems to make your numerology look better than it is because you never take into account error of measurement. Then again, I suppose that would be the point, wouldn't it? You'd never post you are wrong by 37 standard deviations, but rather you'd post how you are off by only a few fractions of a percent. Deliberately using misleading error analysis in a journal article would get the article retracted by the editors if found out after publication, and you'd never get another publication in that journal ever again. If you tried to submit one with an equivalently misleading analysis, the same result would happen. Would it be safe to assume this is why you haven't had a publication in ApJ or any other journal of note in 25 years? Guess we'll never know. I have no intention of answering any more of your abusive and unscientific posts. If showing you that your numerology does not match observation as you claim is both unscientific and abusive, then I feel obligated to point out to you that you are going to have a difficult time convincing any scientist. You might not answer my posts anymore, but I know you read them and so do others. If you are comfortable with me posting a critical analysis unopposed every time you post your latest nonsense, then that's fine as it makes it clear to everyone that you have no answer to my criticisms. [1] http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?bg |
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 06:45 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 |