Southworth Det Eclips Binary Catalog

On Friday, November 29, 2013 7:26:30 AM UTC-5, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:

The fact is that no-one except you sees any evidence at all for these

peaks. Even you see them only by cherry-picking the data (which you are

"not willing to discuss") and by changing the criteria with time (now it

is the total mass; it used to be the individual masses). Put all of

this together and the result is that you have convinced no-one. In

fact, what has probably happened is that your unsupported claims have

made people even more sceptical of DSR.
----------------------------------------------------------

Well, I would urge open-minded readers to look at the multiple samples
of published white dwarf mass distributions that I have put at
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw in the page entitled "Stellar
Scale Discreteness?". If you do not see peaks at the predicted mass
multiples, then there must be something obscuring your vision.

Sure the analyses are a bit old and amateurish, but the non-uniform
distribution and evidence for my hypothesis cannot be hand-waved away
completely.

I have also analyzed much larger white dwarf samples from SDSS DR4 and
DR7, among other new samples (and there are several good ones). The
same pattern of peaks at 0.4 - 0.45 solar mass; 0.55 - 0.60 solar
mass; and 0.82 - 0.90 solar mass are present at highly significant
levels.

[Mod. note: please describe the statistical tests that you've done to
reach this conclusion -- mjh]

I will not respond to insulting and ad hominem comments that indicate
unquestioned faith in a negative result and a denial of the existence
of positive results.

RLO
Fractal Cosmology

In article , "Robert L.
Oldershaw" writes:

Well, I would urge open-minded readers to look at the multiple samples
of published white dwarf mass distributions that I have put at
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw in the page entitled "Stellar
Scale Discreteness?". If you do not see peaks at the predicted mass
multiples, then there must be something obscuring your vision.

Your bins are much wider than 0.0145, so the fact that a multiple of
this occurs in a bin with a large number of objects is no surprise.

IIRC, someone (Martin?) did an analysis of the rawer data and found
nothing. So, why you are still making this claim?

In article ,
Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
I am also wondering if anyone will say: "That looks
interesting and worthy of being pursued further". I would ideally like
to get those with more advanced skills in statistics and data
presentation to participate in this research.

Here is the figure (for the 2012 and 2013 data):

http://www.extragalactic.info/~mjh/hist-new.png

This shows the deviation of the total masses from the closest multiple
of 0.145 solar masses, for only the objects published in 2012 and
2013. It doesn't look particularly interesting to me.

Moreover, since we have the error bars, we can do the same test I told
you how to do last time we had this thread. Take the quantity plotted,
divide by the error bars, square the result, add them all together,
and look up in a table of chi^2 significances. The idea that this
histogram shows data all consistent with zero is rejected at better
than the 99.999% confidence level (chi^2 = 562.8 for 32 objects).

Here's how to do it in a few lines of python (astropy is good!):

from astropy.table import Table
t=Table.read('debs.dat',format='ascii')
m1=10.0**t['col7']
m2=10.0**t['col9']
e1=(10.0**t['col8']-1.0)*m1
e2=(10.0**t['col10']-1.0)*m2
m=m1+m2
e=sqrt(e1**2.0+e2**2.0)
d=m % 0.145
d-=0.145*(d0.0725)
chi2=(d/e)**2.0
print chi2.sum()

(restricting to the newer data left as an exercise for the reader)

For the benefit of anyone else reading, just to note that picking a
subset of the data because you happen to like the way it looks, and
without any reason to reject the other data (note: 'it's old' is not a
valid reason), is a deeply unscientific procedure. However, in this
case, it doesn't seem to help you. In fact, the full dataset is a
better fit to your model, though it is still rejected at a very high
confidence level, presumably because the error bars are higher.

That may be an
unreasonable dream, but I have endless hope, plenty of time and the
perseverance of a mule.

Unfortunately, you don't appear to be able to carry out simple
statistical tests or accept the results when others do them for you.
These are far more useful qualities in a scientist than 'the
perseverance of a mule'. Mules are notorious for going in the wrong
direction in spite of all efforts to correct them.

Martin
--
Martin Hardcastle
School of Physics, Astronomy and Mathematics, University of Hertfordshire, UK
Please replace the xxx.xxx.xxx in the header with herts.ac.uk to mail me

On Sunday, December 1, 2013 9:59:20 AM UTC-5, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:


Your bins are much wider than 0.0145, so the fact that a multiple of

this occurs in a bin with a large number of objects is no surprise.


I do not believe that this statement is scientifically correct.



IIRC, someone (Martin?) did an analysis of the rawer data and found

nothing. So, why you are still making this claim?


Martin did an analysis of the Torres binary sample published (I think)
in about 2010. While I sincerely appreciated his efforts, I responded
that I had doubts about that sample/analysis and that I believed that
future and more careful analyses would yield a different answer. That
is the whole point of the new 2012/2013(and counting) sample.

Let's confine this discussion to the specific sample I identified in
the first post of this thread, and stay focused on the issue of what
THAT sample says and what it does not say. Is that possible!?!?

I am making a real effort to be polite and objective. Could you do the
same?

On Sunday, December 1, 2013 3:57:51 AM UTC-5, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:

[Mod. note: please describe the statistical tests that you've done to

reach this conclusion -- mjh]

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

To be completely honest I have mostly relied on the statistical
analyses of the professional astrophysicists doing the actual research
and analyses.

For example when they say they see a definite peak in the 0.4 to 0.45
solar mass bin, in the 0.55 to 0.6 solar mass bin and the 0.82 to 0.9
solar mass bin, and when these reported peaks continue to show up in
different samples, and when no other extraneous peaks show up
prominently, then I take them at their word. The fact that their
conclusions seem intuitively obvious to me also gives me confidence.

[Mod. note: if a professional astrophysicist has made the claims that
you were making, please give references to the relevant publication in
a refereed journal -- mjh]

On Sunday, December 1, 2013 11:22:50 AM UTC-5, Martin Hardcastle wrote:
In article ,



Firstly, thanks again for your efforts.

The histogram looks interesting to me. If you widen the bins, due to
small sample size, the results are more clear.

It is also instructive to compare the number of systems with
deviations between about -0.02 solar mass and about +0.02 solar mass
(about 16, I think) and compare that with the COMBINED distributions
[-0.05 to -0.7 solar mass] and [0.05 to 0.07 solar mass] (4-6?).

Is that not an interesting piece of information? You will have to tell
me because of my putative incompetence in matters statistical.

I will have to spend more time tonight studying your post. Off to
lunch with my 96-year-old father who still play a decent game of golf!

In article , "Robert L.
Oldershaw" writes:

It is also instructive to compare the number of systems with
deviations between about -0.02 solar mass and about +0.02 solar mass
(about 16, I think) and compare that with the COMBINED distributions
[-0.05 to -0.7 solar mass] and [0.05 to 0.07 solar mass] (4-6?).

Presumably 0.7 is a typo for 0.07.

Where to the numbers 0.05, and o.07 come from? Why these and not
others?

In article , "Robert L.
Oldershaw" writes:

For example when they say they see a definite peak in the 0.4 to 0.45
solar mass bin, in the 0.55 to 0.6 solar mass bin and the 0.82 to 0.9
solar mass bin, and when these reported peaks continue to show up in
different samples, and when no other extraneous peaks show up
prominently, then I take them at their word. The fact that their
conclusions seem intuitively obvious to me also gives me confidence.

But your unit is 0.145 solar masses! Again, if the bin width is larger
than your unit, then ANY bin you choose will have at least one of your
multiples in it.

On Sunday, December 1, 2013 11:22:50 AM UTC-5, Martin Hardcastle wrote:
In article ,


I have now had a chance to look over your post of 12/1 11:22 AM and I have the following comments.

My histogram looks slightly different from yours. This is possibly due
to: (1) I reject 2 systems with very large error bars, and (2) my
binning is a bit different from yours. It is instructive to use bins
that are roughly 0.02 solar mass wide. This gives a smoother
presentation of the data and shows more clearly what is going on. If
we had 400 systems, this might not be necessary, but with 36 systems I
think it is. Also the 16 centrally located deviations, as opposed to
the measly 4 deviations in the outer wings seems to defy your
interpretation of the data.

You say 32 systems, but I count 38-2=36. Are you including arXiv
submitted papers?

I strongly disagree with your characterization of my choice of the
newer data for a valid sample. Science improve; that is its very
nature. The mass distribution of stellar masses (and most other
measured parameters in science) will improve in precision, and
especially in ACCURACY, with time. This is self-evident and has a vast
historical body of supporting evidence. I think you are wrong on this
issue and that I am clearly right.

Your criticism of mules is extreme and incorrect. (:-) They are
stubborn but not hopelessly errant and can be guided. There
persistence is admirable. I think the criticism might better fit
cosmologists who are notoriously "often wrong but never in doubt" and
constantly charge off in wrong directions, unguided by an empirical
compass. One famous scientist (AE) often said he had the tough hide
and stubbornness of a mule. These can be useful qualities in times of
adversity.

On Sunday, December 1, 2013 3:52:47 PM UTC-5, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:

But your unit is 0.145 solar masses! Again, if the bin width is larger

than your unit, then ANY bin you choose will have at least one of your

multiples in it.
---------------------------------------

I just looked at all the samples presented at my website. THE BIN
WIDTHS ARE 0.05 SOLAR MASS. This is sufficient to show where white
dwarf mass peaks are AND where they are NOT.

The published histograms usually have slightly narrower binning.

PLEASE STOP POSTING FALSE AND MISLEADING INFORMATION!