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
  #31  
Old September 22nd 11, 08:38 AM posted to sci.astro.research
Robert L. Oldershaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 617
Default 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  
Old September 24th 11, 09:02 AM posted to sci.astro.research
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 629
Default 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  
Old September 24th 11, 05:09 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 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

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 05:54 AM.


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.