Preferred Stellar Masses?

[Robert L. Oldershaw]

Here is something potentially interesting.

Discrete Scale Relativity says that stellar masses should have
preferred peaks at: 0.145 solar masses, and roughly integral masses
thereof, i.e., (n)(0.145 solar masses).

One of the predicted mass peaks comes at 1.99184 x 10^33 g, which is
close to the Sun's mass of 1.98892 x 10^33 g. But it is higher by
about 2.8 x 10^30 g.

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.

So I tried the same idea with a few low-mass binaries.

1. V405 Andromeda: 0.51 solar masses (too low) + 0.21 solar masses
(too high).
But together their total mass = 0.725 solar masses (right on!)

2. Eclips. binary HAT-TR-205-013: 1.04 solar masses (too high) + 0.124
solar masses (too low).
But together their total mass = 1.164 solar masses (right on!)

3. Eclips. binary SDSSJ 121010.1+334722.9: 0.415 s.m.(too low) + 0.158
s.m. (too high).
But together their total mass = 0.573 (98.8% agreement)

This leads to the following definitive prediction. If one could find
a sizeable sample of low-mass eclipsing binaries with masses known to
better than say 5%, and hopefuly better than 3%, then the total masses
for the binary systems should have definite peaks at the preferred
peaks definitively predicted by Discrete Scale Relativity.

If DSR is correct, stellar systems have at least approximately
quantized masses.

Research ongoing, but participation of others would be much welcomed.

RLO
Fractal Cosmology

[Thomas Womack]

In article <mt2.0-4549...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>,

Robert L. Oldershaw <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote:

>This leads to the following definitive prediction. If one could find
>a sizeable sample of low-mass eclipsing binaries with masses known to
>better than say 5%, and hopefuly better than 3%, then the total masses
>for the binary systems should have definite peaks at the preferred
>peaks definitively predicted by Discrete Scale Relativity.

And such samples exist; for example, http://arxiv.org/pdf/1007.4295v3

95 systems, observed with Kepler, and it doesn't have definite peaks
at the preferred peaks.

Tom

[Robert L. Oldershaw]

On Sep 7, 5:13�pm, Thomas Womack <twom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
wrote:

>
> 95 systems, observed with Kepler, and it doesn't have definite peaks
> at the preferred peaks.

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

Thanks for alerting me to this sample.

However, there are two problems with your bottom line.

1. The mass values for individual stars are only given to 2 decimal
places. We would like at least 3, and ideally 4 decimal places, as is
the case for the Solar System and its planetary system.

2. To my knowledge (and certainly not in the paper), no one has added
the M1 and M2 masses and compared the resulting combined mass spectrum
with the predicted spectrum.

3. I believe the Kepler mission focuses on solar mass stars, and the
predicted discretiation shows up most readily for systems in the 0.1
to 1.0 solar mass range. We need a broader range of stellar masses for
a really definitive test, I think.

4. We want the masses determined dynamically. Not extrapolated from
temperature or luminosity heuristics. It's fine to use T or L to aid
in the mass determination as a check, but it should not be the primary
method. Too prone to errors.

So let's not rush to judgement. Rather, let's be scientific . Step 1
is to do the analysis suggested in #2 above. Then we need to look for
higher accuracy dynamical mass estimates for low-mass systems. The
latter may require building the sample one-at-a-time from very careful
experimental work on individual systems, rather than more crude survey
efforts.

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

[wlandsman]

On Wednesday, September 7, 2011 1:52:09 PM UTC-4, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:

>
> If DSR is correct, stellar systems have at least approximately
> quantized masses.

Um, have you ever looked at the color-magnitude diagram of a globular cluster? There are some spectacular ones now, such as the HST observations of NGC 6397 reported in Richer et al. (2008, http://arxiv.org/abs/0708.4030 ) which reaches from the turnoff mass at ~0.8 solar masses down to the hydrogen burning limit at ~0.08 solar masses. Any mass quantization would lead to preferred luminosities (via the main-sequence mass-luminosity relation), which are not seen.
Astronomers can successfully model the mass function of such stellar systems with a continuous function, typically a power-law. --Wayne

[Robert L. Oldershaw]

On Sep 8, 3:22 am, wlandsman <wlands...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 7, 2011 1:52:09 PM UTC-4, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
>
> > If DSR is correct, stellar systems have at least approximately
> > quantized masses.
>

> Um, have you ever looked at the color-magnitude diagram of a globular cluster?   There are some spectacular ones now, such as the HST observations of NGC 6397 reported in Richer et al. (2008,http://arxiv.org/abs/0708.4030) which reaches from the turnoff mass at ~0.8 solar masses down to the hydrogen burning limit at ~0.08 solar masses.   Any mass quantization would lead to preferred luminosities (via the main-sequence mass-luminosity relation), which are not seen.

>      Astronomers can successfully model the mass function of such stellar systems with a continuous function, typically a power-law.  

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

But, again, I think you have to be more aware of the fact that the
masses used to determine the mass function are not determined with the
accuracy and precision needed to really test the prediction.

The main sequence mass-luminosity relation is just a rough, heuristic
guide to stellar masses. 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.

Bottom line: if you do not have dynamically determined masses at the
highest levels of accuracy and resolution currently available, then
you cannot test the prediction adequately.

Also, one would need to consider the binning of the luminosity
distribution quite carefully before one ruled out anything. If your
binning is too crude and luminosity is a less-tan-perfect measure of
total system mass, then you would not expect to see the predicted
quantization. Right?

RLO
Discrete Scale Relativity

[eric gisse]

"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in
news:mt2.0-8541...@hydra.herts.ac.uk:

[...]

> So let's not rush to judgement. Rather, let's be scientific . Step 1
> is to do the analysis suggested in #2 above. Then we need to look for
> higher accuracy dynamical mass estimates for low-mass systems. The
> latter may require building the sample one-at-a-time from very careful
> experimental work on individual systems, rather than more crude survey
> efforts.
>
> Best,
> RLO
> http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

So we are clear, you are not arguing that your theory is one that ALSO
explains stellar lifecycles?

Aren't you getting a little ahead of yourself? You were just arguing a week
or two ago that another 'definitive prediction' was a specific mass range
for neutron stars which turned out to be wrong. You seem to have forgotten
all about that.

[jacob navia]

On Sep 7, 5:13 pm, Thomas Womack<twom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
wrote:
>
> 95 systems, observed with Kepler, and it doesn't have definite peaks
> at the preferred peaks.

The authors themselves say that their mass estimates are quite shaky.

They say (page 11)

<quote>
Comparison to the theoretical mass-radius relation models for stars
below 1.0 M_solar by Baraffe et al. (1998) show preliminary evidence for
better agreement with the models at longer periods, where the rotation
rate of the stars is not expected to be spun-up by tidal locking, al-
though, in the absence of radial-velocity measurements, the errors on
the estimated mass and radius are still quite large. For systems with P
< 1.0 days, the average radius discrepancy is 13.0%, whereas for 1.0 < P
< 10.0 days and P > 10.0 days, the average radius discrepancy is 7.5%
and 2.0%, respectively. Ground-based follow-up, in the form of radial
velocity and multi-wavelength light curves, is needed to derive the mass
and radius of each star in each system to ~1-2%, which we have already
begun to acquire. With accurate masses and radii for multiple
long-period systems, we should be able to defini- tively test the
hypothesis that inflated radii in low-mass binaries are principally due
to enhanced rotation rates.
<end quote>

In other words, their mass-radius estimates disagree with what the
theory (of Baraffe) expects and they have started refining their data.

We should follow those authors and when they publish their corrected
data (they aim for 1-2% precision) we will know for sure.

[Robert L. Oldershaw]

On Sep 8, 4:03�pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> So we are clear, you are not arguing that your theory is one that ALSO
> explains stellar lifecycles?

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

At this point, I am specifically discussing preferred/quantized
stellar masses. This is a manageable topic and involves testable
predictions Let's stick to it so that we might make some positive
progress. This thread is not a debate. It is intended as a
scientific disucssion.

>
> Aren't you getting a little ahead of yourself? You were just arguing a week
> or two ago that another 'definitive prediction' was a specific mass range
> for neutron stars which turned out to be wrong. You seem to have forgotten
> all about that.

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

No, wrong again! I was discussing a definitive prediction about the
RADIUS range of neutron stars. That was the discussion in which you
were telling us about the "175,000 fermi" uranium nucleus radius, I
believe. Remember?

Just because you say something is wrong does not make it wrong. If
you have unbiased scientific arguments that refer specifically to the
topic of this thread, and they are backed up by empirical evidence,
let's hear about it.

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

[brad]

On Sep 7, 1:52�pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...@amherst.edu>
wrote:

> Here is something potentially interesting.
>
> Discrete Scale Relativity says that stellar masses should have
> preferred peaks at: 0.145 solar masses, and roughly integral masses
> thereof, i.e., (n)(0.145 solar masses).
>
> One of the predicted mass peaks comes at 1.99184 x 10^33 g, which is
> close to the Sun's mass of 1.98892 x 10^33 g. �But it is higher by
> about 2.8 x 10^30 g.
>
> 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 wonder what difference it makes to you that the sun has spent ~ 5
billion years radiating mass.

Brad

[wlandsman]

On Thursday, September 8, 2011 11:31:20 AM UTC-4, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:


>
> The main sequence mass-luminosity relation is just a rough, heuristic
> guide to stellar masses. 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.

You don't need to know the masses to figure out that the stellar mass function is *continuous*.

Suppose there was a peak in the stellar mass function at 0.145 Solar masses. We may not exactly know the luminosity corresponding to that mass, but somewhere in the color-magnitude diagram there should be a peak corresponding to the enhanced number of stars of 0.145 solar masses. But there are no such peaks evident, and Richer et al. find that a single power-law mass function fits the all the data between 0.1 and 0.8 solar masses. There are similar color magnitude diagrams for other nearby globular c
lusters.

> Also, one would need to consider the binning of the luminosity
> distribution quite carefully before one ruled out anything. If your
> binning is too crude and luminosity is a less-tan-perfect measure of
> total system mass, then you would not expect to see the predicted
> quantization.

There are 8,537 stars in their "cleaned" color-magnitude diagram (Figure 3), and 2,317 stars in the amazing proper motion cleaned data in Figure 5. These numbers are large enough that one need not worry about the details of luminosity binning.

Of course, one cannot rule out mass quantization at very low levels, and perhaps you wish to modify your theory to predict that "there is a 1% larger number of stars at 0.145 solar masses and multiples thereof" to keep it consistent with existing data. --Wayne

[Robert L. Oldershaw]

On Sep 9, 3:28 am, brad <lbjohnson1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I wonder what difference it  makes to you that the sun has spent ~ 5
> billion years radiating mass.
>
> Brad

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

And I wonder if you have given any thought to how much this changes
the TOTAL mass of the Solar System. Obviously it does not in any
appreciable way.

This total mass of the system is the relevant issue specifically being
discussed in this thread.

Feel free to guesstimate the total mass radiated by the Sun over its
estimated lifetime. I, for one, would be interested in this piece of
inference.

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

[Robert L. Oldershaw]

On Sep 9, 3:29 am, wlandsman <wlands...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> You don't need to know the masses to figure out that the stellar mass function is *continuous*.
>
> Suppose there was a peak in the stellar mass function at 0.145 Solar masses.   We may not exactly know the luminosity corresponding to that mass, but somewhere in the color-magnitude diagram there should be a peak corresponding to the enhanced number of stars of 0.145 solar masses.  But there are no such peaks evident, and Richer et al. find that a single power-law mass function fits the all the data between 0.1 and 0.8 solar masses.    There are similar color magnitude diagrams for other nearby globular
c
> lusters.

I disagree. You assume a rigid, perfect and unproven relationship
between luminosity and mass - one that does not involve any
variability or approximateness.

This may be the way many people think of the M-L relationsip, but it
is a theoretical assumption, not a proven fact.

Yes, there is a well-known correlation between L and M, but it is
heuristic and prone to scatter, as I have already pointed out.

If we want an honest scientific test of the prediction, instead of a
rubber stamp approval of standard assumptions, we need accurate,
dynamically-drived masses, not luminosities.

>
> There are 8,537 stars in their "cleaned" color-magnitude diagram (Figure 3), and 2,317 stars in the amazing proper motion cleaned data in Figure 5.    These numbers are large enough that one need not worry about the details of luminosity binning.

Especially if one has decided what the correct answer is before any
tests are done. If one wants to look for discretization in any
distribution, one must take a great deal of care with the binning and
statistical methods. This is especially true for systems outside well-
controlled lab conditions, where there is a large amount of scatter in
masses, velocities, ages, effective temperatures, ..., ..., ... .

   
>
> Of course, one cannot rule out mass quantization at very low levels, and perhaps you
> wish to modify your theory to predict that  "there is a 1% larger number of stars at
> 0.145 solar masses and multiples thereof" to keep it consistent with existing data.  
> --Wayne

I am not trying to keep things consistent with conventional
assumptions. I predict fundamental discreteness at the same level as
highly excited Rydberg atoms.

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

[wlandsman]

On Friday, September 9, 2011 11:02:27 AM UTC-4, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:

>
> Yes, there is a well-known correlation between L and M, but it is
> heuristic and prone to scatter, as I have already pointed out.

Um, did you actually look at Figure 5 in http://arxiv.org/abs/0708.4030? I find it very exciting that using highly accurate HST photometry, and proper motion cleaned data, that nearly all the scatter seen in earlier observational color magnitude diagrams has been eliminated.

So, my understanding of your explanation of why we don't see any peaks in the luminosity distribution is as follows: There is a mysterious spread in luminosity among stars of equal mass in the globular cluster. This luminosity spread has the remarkable property that a mass function with peaks at specific masses is transformed into a luminosity function that can be fit with a single continuous power-law. In addition, the spread in luminosity must be strongly correlated with the photometric color
, in order to give the extremely tight color-magnitude diagram shown in Richer et al.

Tis a wondrous and magical explanation indeed!

--Wayne

[eric gisse]

"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in

news:mt2.0-25282...@hydra.herts.ac.uk:

> On Sep 8, 4:03 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> So we are clear, you are not arguing that your theory is one that
>> ALSO explains stellar lifecycles?
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> -------------
>
> At this point, I am specifically discussing preferred/quantized
> stellar masses. This is a manageable topic and involves testable
> predictions

There have been plenty of those where you decided that literature
references that discredited your position simply means it is time to
stop responding to the thread and start a new one in a week or two.

>Let's stick to it so that we might make some positive
> progress. This thread is not a debate. It is intended as a
> scientific disucssion.

Are you going to show us how your theory actually predicts quantization
of solar masses? And explain what the atomic analogy is, given the lack
of an obvious one at first glance?

[Mod. note: probably not on this newsgroup, given the charter -- mjh]

Also, when are you going to explain why you believe reality is scale
invariant despite there being literally no evidence for such a thing?

>
>>
>> Aren't you getting a little ahead of yourself? You were just arguing
>> a week or two ago that another 'definitive prediction' was a specific
>> mass range for neutron stars which turned out to be wrong. You seem
>> to have forgotten all about that.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> -------------
>
> No, wrong again! I was discussing a definitive prediction about the
> RADIUS range of neutron stars.

Oh, why did I say mass range? I'm sure you have a theory on that as
well, but not what I intended.

I did give you an example of a neutron star whose size was well outside
your 'definitive prediction'. It was ignored.

> That was the discussion in which you
> were telling us about the "175,000 fermi" uranium nucleus radius, I
> believe. Remember?

Yep. Just because a resource says it is the size of the nucleus doesn't
make it so, I guess.

>
> Just because you say something is wrong does not make it wrong. If
> you have unbiased scientific arguments that refer specifically to the
> topic of this thread, and they are backed up by empirical evidence,
> let's hear about it.
>
> RLO
> http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
>

I promise to be no less biased than you.

Let me ask a simple question: Have you personally done any work on
answering this question for yourself, such as through at least a query
of the vizer database?

Here's another:

Have you taken a look at the extrasolar planet list yet? There's >800 of
them now, and you made this same 'definitive prediction' for them, but I
have not heard the results of your work yet.

[Robert L. Oldershaw]

On Sep 10, 10:36 am, wlandsman <wlands...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> So, my understanding of your explanation of why we don't see any peaks in the luminosity distribution is as follows: There is a mysterious spread in luminosity among stars of equal mass in the globular cluster. This luminosity spread has the remarkable property that a mass function with peaks at specific masses is transformed into a luminosity function that can be fit with a single continuous power-law. In addition, the spread in luminosity must be strongly correlated with the photometric col
or
> , in order to give the extremely tight color-magnitude diagram shown in Richer et al.
> Tis a wondrous and magical explanation indeed!

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

Here is what we need to achieve a convincing scientific test of the
prediction.

1. We would like a sample of 50 to 200 systems, depending on how
accurately the total masses can be determined.

2. We need a sample that covers the mass range of 0.1 solar masses to
2.0 solar masses, and that has decent representation for all portions
of that range, especially in the 0.3 to 1.0 solar masses range.

3. We need the masses to be determined dynamically.

4. We need the masses to be determined to at least the 3% level, or
ideally to the 1-2% level.

I have analyzed the low-mass elipsing binaries data from the Kepler
mission and there are some reasons for optimism, but clearly that
existing data is not quite up to the challenge accept for verifying
the 1.74 solar masses peak. As Jacob Navia pointed out, the Kepler
team hopes to achieve mass estimates at the 1-2% level in the
foreseeable future. This would be delightful if they can really
achieve this.

The test of this prediction requires that the masses of the systems be
determined as directly as possible, i.e., with the fewest possible
questionable assumptions.

I have waited 35 years for an adequate test of this fundamental and
definitive prediction. I would rather wait another few years for
convincing data than to proceed with tests that are not definitive.

If people have suggestions for identifying the required data set, I
would like to hear about that. I am not interested in discussing ways
of testing the prediction that might lead us to false conclusions.

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

[Robert L. Oldershaw]

On Sep 10, 10:39 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Are you going to show us how your theory actually predicts quantization
> of solar masses? And explain what the atomic analogy is, given the lack
> of an obvious one at first glance?
>
> [Mod. note: probably not on this newsgroup, given the charter -- mjh]
>

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

Perhaps I would be allowed to say that your questions are answered in
considerable detail at:

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

RLO
Fractal Cosmology

[eric gisse]

"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in

news:mt2.0-305-...@hydra.herts.ac.uk:

> On Sep 10, 10:36 am, wlandsman <wlands...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> So, my understanding of your explanation of why we don't see any
>> peaks in the luminosity distribution is as follows: There is a
>> mysterious spread in luminosity among stars of equal mass in the
>> globular cluster. This luminosity spread has the remarkable
>> property that a mass function with peaks at specific masses is
>> transformed into a luminosity function that can be fit with a single
>> continuous power-law. In addition, the spread in luminosity must be
>> strongly correlated with the photometric col
> or
>> , in order to give the extremely tight color-magnitude diagram shown
>> in Richer et al. Tis a wondrous and magical explanation indeed!
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> ---------
>
> Here is what we need to achieve a convincing scientific test of the
> prediction.

Yeah right. As if your way was the only way. The wlandsman fellow
suggested the continuous nature of the H-R plot as an excellent test,
and puts forth a question you seriously need to answer. Specifically: If
masses of stars are quantized, why isn't their luminosities?

Besides, this is a familiar song from you. Let's get into the w-w-
wayback machine and visit the era of "just a few months ago" :

"The race is on to discover the mass spectrum and distribution of
planets and unbound planetary-mass objects (UPMOs) using
microlensing techniques in addition to more conventional methods."

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro.research/msg/8b87e1c89ce291dd?
dmode=source

You were then given a link to the exoplanet database, though in a
slightly different context. Regardless, you never seemed to have looked.
At all. You silently dropped your arguments about the planetary mass
spectrum and observations of planets via microlensing.

Now once again, you are arguing that STARS are binned. Same song,
different verse.

The thing is, knowing about exoplanets requires knowing a little bit
about the parent star. Like, the mass via Kepler's 3rd law once the
period of the planet is known. Very basic information.

If you look at the exoplanet database, you can see the primary
information on the stars. Like mass.

Example: http://exoplanet.eu/star.php?st=55+Cnc

55 Cnc has a mass of 0.905 +/- 0.015 M_sun.

Another example: http://exoplanet.eu/star.php?st=WASP-48

1.09 +/- 0.08 M_sun.

Both these examples are a solid standard deviation outside your
proported 'mass spectrum'. This is just two, I have better things to do
than do your research for you. Like stare at the wall.

The question I have, at this point, is "why are you doing absolutely no
work of your own?" There's a massive database of astrophysical objects
out there via the meta-catalog vizer, and the actual object database
simbad. Hell, you could do a few hours of perl scripting and straight up
*DATAMINE* (the site admin might cry at that) all the data out of the
exoplanet database if you can't figure out how to do a query through
SIMBAD or find a helpful catalog in ViZeR. You could even get this
information by clicking and writing it down!

There's absolutely no excuse for you not being able to take an
afternoon, and answer your own question here.

You seem to think you can throw out a bunch of ideas and pick what
sticks.

Your arguments on dark matter didn't stick. Same for planets. Your
convictions haven't changed, and you haven't changed your song, so I
guess you are just waiting for us to forget? I dunno.

Are you going to be the scientist you really want us to believe you are
and do the work? Or is the hurdle of moving your mouse and clicking just
TOO HIGH?

[Robert L. Oldershaw]

On Sep 10, 5:10 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yeah right. As if your way was the only way. The wlandsman fellow
> suggested the continuous nature of the H-R plot as an excellent test,
> and puts forth a question you seriously need to answer. Specifically: If
> masses of stars are quantized, why isn't their luminosities?

Your posts are getting so emotional and rude that I am inclined to
dismiss them because you seem to have lost scientific objectivity
regarding Discrete Scale Relativity.

However, I will answer your criticisms as an excercise and to present
a little balance for curious readers. This will probably be the last
time I do so, unless you adopt a more scientific attitude.

Where is it written in the book of nature that mass and luminosities
must be equally quantized? If the masses of stars are poorly
constrained, when based only on M-L relations, can you be sure that
you and wlandsman are right that luminosities would manifest an
overtly discretized distribution?

>
> Besides, this is a familiar song from you. Let's get into the w-w-
> wayback machine and visit the era of "just a few months ago" :
>
>         "The race is on to discover the mass spectrum and distribution of
>         planets and unbound planetary-mass objects (UPMOs) using    
>         microlensing techniques in addition to more conventional methods."
>

> You were then given a link to the exoplanet database, though in a
> slightly different context. Regardless, you never seemed to have looked.
> At all. You silently dropped your arguments about the planetary mass
> spectrum and observations of planets via microlensing.

Sigh. (1) I have recently published a definitive prediction regarding
the abundance of exoplanets orbiting the lowest mass M-dwarfs. (2)
Discrete Scale Relativity definitively predicts exactly where the main
peak in the exoplanet mass function will occur.

I am keeping track of everything related to exoplanet masses. The
situation looks good for both predictions, but as with the stellar
mass case, while we are close to definitive verification/
falsification, we are not quite there yet.

That is why I am silent on the exoplanet issue. I am waiting for the
necessary data.
When it becomes available, you can be sure that I will report it.

>
> Example:http://exoplanet.eu/star.php?st=55+Cnc
>
> 55 Cnc has a mass of 0.905 +/- 0.015 M_sun.
>
> Another example:http://exoplanet.eu/star.php?st=WASP-48
>
> 1.09 +/- 0.08 M_sun.

Take the mass immediately above. If the actual mass were 1.01 sm or
1.16 sm, both within the error bars, then either mass would be "right
on the money". See the problem with low accuracy mass determinations?
We need at least +/- 0.01, and +/- 0.005 would be a lot safer.

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? That's why we need samples of 50-200
stars. One or two stars is a bit short of that basic requirement.

When the error limits are +/- 0.01 solar masses, and there is
disagreement with DSR predictions, then you would be justified in
pointing that out. Until then, please try to maintain scientific
integrity and objectivity. Let's give this prediction a fair and
unbiased test.

>
> Both these examples are a solid standard deviation outside your
> proported 'mass spectrum'. This is just two, I have better things to do
> than do your research for you. Like stare at the wall.

Why not just sit back and wait for the high accuracy data to become
available and published? I started this thread to introduce the
definitive prediction. I will now wait for the data needed to
adequately test it. Why get all worked up? Nature will pass verdict
in due course.

>
> The question I have, at this point, is "why are you doing absolutely no
> work of your own?"

I would like to bring others into the research on Discrete Scale
Relativity. I do not want to work on this by myself. I believe that
as DSR begins to explain what the old paradigms cannot explain, and as
the LHC continues to show that something is rotten at the very heart
of theoretical physics, then others will join in, especially if low-
hanging fruit is idenified and waiting to be plucked. Get it?

Either drop the rudeness and adopt at least a halfway objective (if
not a cooperative) scientific aittude, or I will regard your posts as
being misinformation from one whose scientific objectivity is in
serious doubt, and ignore them.

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

[Christian Froeschlin]

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.

[eric gisse]

"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in

news:mt2.0-30057...@hydra.herts.ac.uk:

> On Sep 10, 5:10 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Yeah right. As if your way was the only way. The wlandsman fellow
>> suggested the continuous nature of the H-R plot as an excellent test,
>> and puts forth a question you seriously need to answer. Specifically:
>> If masses of stars are quantized, why isn't their luminosities?
>
> Your posts are getting so emotional and rude that I am inclined to
> dismiss them because you seem to have lost scientific objectivity
> regarding Discrete Scale Relativity.
>
> However, I will answer your criticisms as an excercise and to present
> a little balance for curious readers. This will probably be the last
> time I do so, unless you adopt a more scientific attitude.
>
> Where is it written in the book of nature that mass and luminosities
> must be equally quantized?

Nowhere. Nature does not quantize stellar or planetary masses.

>If the masses of stars are poorly
> constrained, when based only on M-L relations, can you be sure that
> you and wlandsman are right that luminosities would manifest an
> overtly discretized distribution?

Yes, because your claim that the quantization is in steps of a tenth of
a solar mass. That's a LOT. There simply has to be a difference in
luminosity, especially in low mass stars.

Besides, wlandsman's reference cites stars below 0.145 solar masses
which by your arguments can't exist.

Moreover, *YOU* have no answer for how luminosity can be continuous
while stellar masses are incredibly discrete.

>
>>
>> Besides, this is a familiar song from you. Let's get into the w-w-
>> wayback machine and visit the era of "just a few months ago" :
>>
>>         "The race is on to discover the mass spectrum and
>> distribution of         planets and unbound planetary-mass objects
>> (UPMOs) using             microlensing techniques in addition to more
>> conventional methods."
>>
>> You were then given a link to the exoplanet database, though in a
>> slightly different context. Regardless, you never seemed to have
>> looked. At all. You silently dropped your arguments about the
>> planetary mass spectrum and observations of planets via microlensing.
>
> Sigh. (1) I have recently published a definitive prediction regarding
> the abundance of exoplanets orbiting the lowest mass M-dwarfs. (2)
> Discrete Scale Relativity definitively predicts exactly where the main
> peak in the exoplanet mass function will occur.

I'm sure you believe what you write.

As with your other predictions, these are likely a continuation of the
theme of you picking out constants which happen to satisfy you. If you
can finally be convinced that reality disagrees (which is hard), you
just pick new constants.

This is not science.

>
> I am keeping track of everything related to exoplanet masses. The
> situation looks good for both predictions, but as with the stellar
> mass case, while we are close to definitive verification/
> falsification, we are not quite there yet.

>600 exoplanets isn't enough?

>
> That is why I am silent on the exoplanet issue. I am waiting for the
> necessary data.
> When it becomes available, you can be sure that I will report it.
>
>>
>> Example:http://exoplanet.eu/star.php?st=55+Cnc
>>
>> 55 Cnc has a mass of 0.905 +/- 0.015 M_sun.
>>
>> Another example:http://exoplanet.eu/star.php?st=WASP-48
>>
>> 1.09 +/- 0.08 M_sun.
>
> Take the mass immediately above. If the actual mass were 1.01 sm or
> 1.16 sm, both within the error bars, then either mass would be "right
> on the money". See the problem with low accuracy mass determinations?
> We need at least +/- 0.01, and +/- 0.005 would be a lot safer.

Why?

Your binning is 0.145 stellar masses wide. When one standard deviation
is half that, there is more than enough useful data to determine whether
there is binning of stellar masses.

>
> 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.

LEARN TO USE STANDARD DEVIATIONS! Saying "off by just a few percent" is
stupidly misleading in just about every case. At this point either you
simply refuse to learn modern statistical analysis (which is dumb) or
you understand the arguments but persist anyway (also dumb). I don't
know or care which it is, but this is another reason why your few
arguments based on observation aren't taken seriously.

Its' just like your "predictions" of fundamental particle masses. Saying
99.99...% correct sounds nice to a layman but when a physicist asks for
the answer in standard deviations, one finds out you are >50 off and
suddenly the prediction isn't all that impressive.

> Well, we do expect some
> uncertainty in the data, right? That's why we need samples of 50-200
> stars. One or two stars is a bit short of that basic requirement.

*shakes head*

The exoplanets existence allow direct observation of the stellar masses
via Kepler's 3rd law, and in every actual planet I've checked on the
exoplanet site there exists a determination of the parent star's mass.
Given there's roughly 600 planets (some multiplanet systems), there is
at least 500 stars with corresponding mass determinations.

This is the type of intellectual laziness that I'm talking about.

>
> When the error limits are +/- 0.01 solar masses, and there is

Really? A hundredth of a solar mass? Methinks you need to learn a little
about error analysis.

Besides, what personal effort have you done to find out whether or not
there exist stars with masses that precisely determined? So far it looks
like 'none'.

> disagreement with DSR predictions, then you would be justified in
> pointing that out. Until then, please try to maintain scientific
> integrity and objectivity. Let's give this prediction a fair and
> unbiased test.

That would have been a fair argument to make if DSR hasn't been
repeatedly falsified. But sure, lets pretend it has a shot.

>>
>> Both these examples are a solid standard deviation outside your
>> proported 'mass spectrum'. This is just two, I have better things to
>> do than do your research for you. Like stare at the wall.
>
> Why not just sit back and wait for the high accuracy data to become
> available and published?

Don't need to. Sufficient data is available now.

> I started this thread to introduce the
> definitive prediction. I will now wait for the data needed to
> adequately test it. Why get all worked up? Nature will pass verdict
> in due course.
>>
>> The question I have, at this point, is "why are you doing absolutely
>> no work of your own?"
>
> I would like to bring others into the research on Discrete Scale
> Relativity. I do not want to work on this by myself.

Decades of non-interest in a theory in a field as wide as astrophysics
ought to be a hint.

> I believe that
> as DSR begins to explain what the old paradigms cannot explain, and as
> the LHC continues to show that something is rotten at the very heart
> of theoretical physics, then others will join in, especially if low-
> hanging fruit is idenified and waiting to be plucked. Get it?

Crying about how physics is rotten is not the hallmark of a researcher
who is to be taken seriously.

>
> Either drop the rudeness and adopt at least a halfway objective (if
> not a cooperative) scientific aittude, or I will regard your posts as
> being misinformation from one whose scientific objectivity is in
> serious doubt, and ignore them.
>
> RLO
> http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
>

I am a grownup, I can be however I want.

Now, I have given you links to the various astrophysical catalogs and
databases. The data you require is right there.

You, on the other hand, have given a cosmic shrug and then threaten
(lol) to regard my posts as 'misinformation'. Whatever on Earth you
think that means...

People would take you a lot more seriously if you'd actually utilize the
resources I didn't need to give you. Because from this apparently-biased
prespective, you don't seem all that interested in figuring out whether
your theory is observationally correct.

[Robert L. Oldershaw]

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

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

[Robert L. Oldershaw]

On Sep 11, 2:39 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> 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

[Thomas Womack]

In article <mt2.0-17722...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>,

Robert L. Oldershaw <rlold...@amherst.edu> 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

[Robert L. Oldershaw]

On Sep 12, 10:05 am, Thomas Womack <twom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
wrote:
> In article <mt2.0-17722-1315495...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>,

> Robert L. Oldershaw <rlolders...@amherst.edu> 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

[eric gisse]

"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in news:mt2.0-

13708-13...@hydra.herts.ac.uk:

> On Sep 11, 2:39 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> 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.

You predict a quantization of stellar masses in binnings of 0.145 M_sun.

Our sun, of course, is 1.00.. M_sun. The solar system beyond that adds
0.001 M_sun to the equation.

So your prediction is off by 0.015 M_sun.

The current mass of the sun is 1.9885(2) x 10^30 kg [1]. So one standard
deviation of error is equal to 0.0002 x 10^30 kg or 0.0001 M_sun. Your
prediction is incorrect by 0.015 M_sun, or 150 standard deviations.

As we have discussed previously, a prediction that is off by 'only' five
standard deviations is widely considered to be absolutely wrong. Your
prediction is off by 150! But you prefer to express error in
percentages, which masks the true level of wrongness.

You know exactly what you are doing, and it is dishonest as well as most
definitely not science.

>
> I notice that you make no mention of this one solid piece of evidence
> that is already available.

My apologies for neglecting the data point that excludes your theory by
150 standard deviations.

>
> 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?

Oh my god, are you kidding me?

What part of "I clicked two planet links at random, and grabbed their
stellar conterpart masses as an example" is THAT FAR out of your ability
to understand?

I see literally zero reason for me to do your research for you. The
point was the data is right there, and you are too lazy to get it and do
an afternoon's worth of basic statistical analysis.

>
> Do the mass estimates for the Solar System qualify as science, in your
> worldview?

Yes.

>
> Do you agree that the Solar System's mass is extremely close to one of
> DSR's predicted discrete masses?

No.

Why? Because you want to use the wedge of 'but it is cloooooose!' to
mask the fact your theory is wrong.

You made the error of saying this is a 'definitive prediction', and now
you are married to it.

This is probably also why you never actually showed the derivation of
your latest prediction. Now that you know it is wrong, you'll go back
and pick some new constants and come up with a different 'definitive
prediction' that gets a bit closer. Lather, rinse, repeat.

>
> Or will you assure us that it is off by an astronomical number of
> standard deviations?
>
> RLO
> Discrete Scale Relativity
>

Y'see Robert, this is why what you do is not science.

You are given a measurement. We know the measurement, and have enough of
an idea of the random and systematic errors of the measurment to say
that the measurement is true within a margin of error known as a
'standard deviation'.

It is the 20th and 21st century's method (aka the MODERN method) of
parameterizing the error of a measurement. Within literally every
reasonable piece of literature you will ever read, nobody EVER relies on
percentage based estimates of error because they are highly misleading
as I have repeatedly shown you WRT particle physics.

You are, of course, perfectly free to keep going on about 'oh my god it
is so close if I use percentages' but nobody is ever going to take you
seriously because this means you are ignorant (willful or otherwise) of
modern statistical analysis. Given we have had this disucssion before,
the ignorance is now willful and malicious.

Your theory has yet another definitive prediction, it has been compared
to observation, and is wrong by 150 standard deviations. Will you admit
error and move on, or are you going to keep posting about how you have
yet another definitive test of DSR while ignoring the previous ones that
have failed?

[1]

IT IS REALLY GODDAMN HARD to find 'mass of the sun' with error bars.
Turns out what you should look for is the 'heliocentric gravitational
constant' which gives you the quantity GM, which ties into how we can
measure the quantity GM really easily to a dozen significant figures but
are constrained by the 4 or 5 significant figures of the gravitational
constant.

http://asa.usno.navy.mil/SecK/2012/Astronomical_Constants_2012.pdf

[eric gisse]

"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in
news:mt2.0-26019...@hydra.herts.ac.uk:
[...]

> 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?

[jacob navia]

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.

:-)

[Robert L. Oldershaw]

On Sep 12, 2:02 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> 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

[jacob navia]

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

[eric gisse]

"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in news:mt2.0-

2313-13...@hydra.herts.ac.uk:

> On Sep 12, 2:02 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> 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

[eric gisse]

jacob navia <ja...@spamsink.net> wrote in news:mt2.0-11796-1315930764
@hydra.herts.ac.uk:

The times Robert is correct is far less interesting than the times he is
not.

Given the millions upon millions of stellar class objects out in the sky,
and given the fact that their masses are determined - at best - to a
precision of 0.01 M_sun there are going to be a very large amount of
objects that will have masses equal to an integer multiple of literally any
reasonable number you can imagine.

This, however, is textbook numerology and is not science in any sense of
the word. A notion that I am having a difficult time communicating for some
reason.

[Greg Hennessy]

On 2011-09-13, jacob navia <ja...@spamsink.net> wrote:
> 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

And proxima centauri is 0.107 solar mass. Oops, doesn't fit.

[jacob navia]

Le 13/09/11 22:51, eric gisse a écrit :

> jacob navia<ja...@spamsink.net> wrote in news:mt2.0-11796-1315930764
> @hydra.herts.ac.uk:
>
>> 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
>>
>
> The times Robert is correct is far less interesting than the times he is
> not.
>

Strange, I do think otherwise

> Given the millions upon millions of stellar class objects out in the sky,
> and given the fact that their masses are determined - at best - to a
> precision of 0.01 M_sun there are going to be a very large amount of
> objects that will have masses equal to an integer multiple of literally any
> reasonable number you can imagine.
>

I tried alpha centauri because its the next star and thought that its
mass would be known to a good degree of accuracy. And Mr Oldershaw
is right on that one.

> This, however, is textbook numerology and is not science in any sense of
> the word. A notion that I am having a difficult time communicating for some
> reason.

Look, to prove or disprove that theory will be very difficult. I have
been reading, prompted by this discussion, the mass estimates of the
nearest stars, and they are known with a very approximative values.

I remembered that the 50th brightest star in the sky was discovered by
the galileo spacecraft to be actually a binary star, a previously
unknown fact. It was discovered because the star changed its brightness
and the guy that was caring about the camera worried that the camera
had a bug. The spacecraft used that star for orientation.

We know very little about the Universe, let's keep cool. I note a
feeling of frustration in your posts, like an angry teacher telling
the kids not to have fun...

We have no data to really disprove or prove that hypothesis. Star masses
are very approximative and then, there could be unseen companions that
would make things even worse. Proxima centauri was discovered much
later than Alpha centauri A and B. But in any case, the Alpha centauri
system should be settled, and no unseen companion should exist.

[Robert L. Oldershaw]

On Sep 13, 4:51 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The times Robert is correct is far less interesting than the times he is
> not.
>
> Given the millions upon millions of stellar class objects out in the sky,
> and given the fact that their masses are determined - at best - to a
> precision of 0.01 M_sun there are going to be a very large amount of
> objects that will have masses equal to an integer multiple of literally any
> reasonable number you can imagine.
>
> This, however, is textbook numerology and is not science in any sense of
> the word. A notion that I am having a difficult time communicating for some
> reason.

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

So first you were arguing that my predictions could be summarily
falsified by existing data.

Now you say, 'well DSR will be correct in many instances, but that
will just be by random chance'.

I think I know what you will be saying in 10 years.

If you are having a hard time getting your point of view across, maybe
it is because there seems to be no doubt whatsoever in your
pronouncements. Even when they are wildly wrong - like the 175,000
fermi uranium nucleus. People are quite able to recognize deviations
from scientific objectivity and the closed-mindedness that comes with
such deviations.

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

[Robert L. Oldershaw]

On Sep 13, 4:50 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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.

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

When a neutral but excited helium atom ejects its outermost electron
wavefunction in an ionization event, does the remaining helium ion
suddenly lose its mass quantization? I don't think so.

>
> You write stuff like 'helium-3 analoge', but what you say has absolutely
> no meaning to anyone but yourself.

As others begin to see how useful in explaining scientific enigmas the
new paradigm is, that may change. Discrete Scale Relativity is
completely self-consistent and well enough developed to make
definitive predictions. You will of course note that string theory
and even many conventional theories cannot make such definitive
predictions (one thinks of the dark matter, which is just about
everything), let alone pass them.

> > 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.

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

No, wrong again. This is a well-known fact of atomic physics and DSR
says stellar scale phenomena is exactly analogous to atomic scale
phenomena.

>
> In that individual catalog of about 10,000 stars there are 271
> individual stars with a mass of 5 solar masses +/- 10%.

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

No, wrong again. I have never ruled out stars up to masses on the
order of 30 solar masses. This is a simple definitive prediction
derived from DSR, of which you appear to have no working knowledge.
Take the range of masses for atoms. Multiply the lowest and highest
masses by 1.70 x 10^56. There's your predicted stellar mass range.

>
> Instead of just making things up perhaps you could do some research?

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

And instead of making rude and scientifically unsupported attacks, you
could try to make a little effort to understand the theory being
discussed. Questions and criticism are fine, but they should be
constructive and objective.

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

[Thomas Womack]

In article <mt2.0-24603...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>,

jacob navia <ja...@jspamsink.org> wrote:

>Look, to prove or disprove that theory will be very difficult. I have
>been reading, prompted by this discussion, the mass estimates of the
>nearest stars, and they are known with a very approximative values.

That's because determining the mass of an isolated star is difficult.
Determining the masses of the stars in an eclipsing binary is much
easier, which is why the example I gave with a very precise mass value
is in an eclipsing binary. Kepler and Corot have recently found
thousands of such eclipsing binaries.

Tom

[Robert L. Oldershaw]

On Sep 14, 1:22�pm, Thomas Womack <twom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
wrote:
> In article <mt2.0-24603-1315982...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>,

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

I am hoping that someone will comment on the following excellent
research which has already been identified in an earlier post.

(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.

Discrete Scale Relativity definitively predicts that for white dwarfs
below about 0.7 solar masses there will be two peaks: the dominant
peak at 0.580 solar mass, and a minor peak at 0.435 solar mass.

The sample of Tremblay et al is not one or two WDs, it is a huge SDSS
sample that has been carefully analyzed. Although the mass estimates
have a bit more uncertainty than we might wish, the size of the sample
partially compensates for this.

Bottom Line: Discrete Scale Relativity accurately predicts the
positions of the peaks AND their relative sizes.

One might also take a very close look at my post to
sci.physics.research regarding the "Substellar Mass Spectrum". DSR
appears to have successfully predicted the main peak in that mass
range too.

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

[eric gisse]

"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in
news:mt2.0-24603...@hydra.herts.ac.uk:

> On Sep 13, 4:51�pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> The times Robert is correct is far less interesting than the times he
>> is not.
>>
>> Given the millions upon millions of stellar class objects out in the
>> sky, and given the fact that their masses are determined - at best -
>> to a precision of 0.01 M_sun there are going to be a very large
>> amount of objects that will have masses equal to an integer multiple
>> of literally any reasonable number you can imagine.
>>
>> This, however, is textbook numerology and is not science in any sense
>> of the word. A notion that I am having a difficult time communicating
>> for some reason.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> --
>
> So first you were arguing that my predictions could be summarily
> falsified by existing data.
>
> Now you say, 'well DSR will be correct in many instances, but that
> will just be by random chance'.

s/many/some/

I hardly see an incompatibility with what I said. Especially when you
rely upon numerology.

>
> I think I know what you will be saying in 10 years.

The same thing? What is a decade gonna do, do you imagine?

We already have enough stellar mass data to see that your predicted
level of quantization does not exist. The mass-luminosity relation for
main sequence stars does not match your predictions, nor have you a
coherent argument as to the reason why.

We have done enough MACHO surveys [SuperMACHO, OGLE I, II, III] to see
that your explanation for dark matter is false. No, Hawkins' arguments
do not change anything. Then again, it isn't as if you have responded to
my (or other's) criticisms of Hawkins.

There is enough planetary mass data to see there is no major peak at 17
Earth masses, absent a major observational bias that even you can't
articulate.

Plus we have the situation where you are repeatedly handed observational
data which you promptly ignore. Example: Have you attempted to test your
stellar mass quantization hypothesis by examining that database in ViZeR
I gave you?

Now I fully expect that if I am still bothering with USENET in a decade,
you'll still be here talking about NEW! MORE DEFINITIVE PREDICTIONS!
while ignoring all that came before. Just a hunch.

>
> If you are having a hard time getting your point of view across, maybe
> it is because there seems to be no doubt whatsoever in your
> pronouncements. Even when they are wildly wrong - like the 175,000
> fermi uranium nucleus. People are quite able to recognize deviations
> from scientific objectivity and the closed-mindedness that comes with
> such deviations.

The problem with hammering on the one meaningful time I've been wrong in
a discussion with you is the sheer asymmetry of wrongness. I'll made an
idiocy like that every now and then. So will everyone else. The reality
is that me being wrong is only relevant to me, because as can be seen
from the other USENET superstars in sci.physics.*, you can see that
sheer volume of posting doesn't really have much relevance in the world
at large.

At any rate, would you like to revisit your definitive predictions of
neutron star radii? Appearing objective is hard when it is clear that
you made your pronouncements without even trying to do a literature
search.

How about proton mass? You were only off by about, what, 50 standard
deviations? Your subsequent complaints about standard deviations and
other

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

[eric gisse]

"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in

news:mt2.0-24603...@hydra.herts.ac.uk:

> On Sep 13, 4:50 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> ----
>
> When a neutral but excited helium atom ejects its outermost electron
> wavefunction in an ionization event, does the remaining helium ion
> suddenly lose its mass quantization? I don't think so.

What does that have to do with anything? Do you think it is a
controversial statement to say that stars shed matter, and are highly
variable in mass over short to long time scales depending on the object?

The problem with approaches like this is you now demand your theory be a
theory of stellar evolution. Are you VERY SURE you want to go down that
road?

>
>>
>> You write stuff like 'helium-3 analoge', but what you say has
>> absolutely no meaning to anyone but yourself.
>
> As others begin to see how useful in explaining scientific enigmas the
> new paradigm is, that may change.

This is a frequent problem with USENET theorists.

They have a theory. It purportedly solves all the problems of modern
physics. But when tasked to solve the prosaic, like the spectrum of the
Hydrogen atom or Newtonian gravitation, there is inexplicable
resistance.

> Discrete Scale Relativity is
> completely self-consistent and well enough developed to make
> definitive predictions. You will of course note that string theory
> and even many conventional theories cannot make such definitive
> predictions (one thinks of the dark matter, which is just about
> everything), let alone pass them.

I do not care about string theory. Why you keep bringing it up is an
open question.

As for dark matter, that makes a bunch of definitive predictions. One
does not need to know the exact nature of the medium for that.

>
>
>> > 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.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> -
>
> No, wrong again. This is a well-known fact of atomic physics and DSR
> says stellar scale phenomena is exactly analogous to atomic scale
> phenomena.
>
>
>>
>> In that individual catalog of about 10,000 stars there are 271
>> individual stars with a mass of 5 solar masses +/- 10%.
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> No, wrong again. I have never ruled out stars up to masses on the
> order of 30 solar masses. This is a simple definitive prediction
> derived from DSR, of which you appear to have no working knowledge.
> Take the range of masses for atoms. Multiply the lowest and highest
> masses by 1.70 x 10^56. There's your predicted stellar mass range.

Oh, so your numerology predicts no 5*0.145 = 0.725 ? My mistake, it is
hard to keep the numerology straight.

http://cdsarc.u-strasbg.fr/viz-bin/VizieR?-source=V/19

Seven examples near 0.73 from the V/19 catalog. Could look from others,
but why should I do your research for you?

Once again I must ask: Have you made ANY personal effort in doing
research on your own? I gave you this exact catalog a few days ago, so
clearly you didn't check this much.

Besides there's no evidence that there is scale invariance between the
atomic physics and plenty of arguments against it.

Where is the analog for planar orbits from large to small?

Where is the analog for quantized orbits from small to large? No, the
Titus-Bode law is not sufficient.

How do you explain the fact that the constituent parts of stellar scale
systems shed mass easily?

What's the stellar scale analog of electron transitions?

>
>
>>
>> Instead of just making things up perhaps you could do some research?
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> And instead of making rude and scientifically unsupported attacks, you
> could try to make a little effort to understand the theory being
> discussed. Questions and criticism are fine, but they should be
> constructive and objective.
>
> RLO
> http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

How, exactly, have my criticisms been not scientifically supported? I've
taken the time to poke through astronomical catalogs and do general
research that you think is beneath you.

I look at literature and point stuff out. You do not do this. It is as
if you are more interested in the 'having a theory' part of science,
rather than the 'testing a theory' part.

[eric gisse]

"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in

news:mt2.0-23498...@hydra.herts.ac.uk:

> On Sep 14, 1:22 pm, Thomas Womack <twom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
> wrote:
>> In article <mt2.0-24603-1315982...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>,
>> jacob navia  <ja...@jspamsink.org> wrote:
>>
>> >Look, to prove or disprove that theory will be very difficult. I
>> >have been reading, prompted by this discussion, the mass estimates
>> >of the nearest stars, and they are known with a very approximative
>> >values.
>>
>> That's because determining the mass of an isolated star is difficult.
>> Determining the masses of the stars in an eclipsing binary is much
>> easier, which is why the example I gave with a very precise mass
>> value is in an eclipsing binary.  Kepler and Corot have recently
>> found thousands of such eclipsing binaries.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------
>
> I am hoping that someone will comment on the following excellent
> research which has already been identified in an earlier post.

Are you really? Let us find out.

>
> (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.
>
> Discrete Scale Relativity definitively predicts that for white dwarfs
> below about 0.7 solar masses there will be two peaks: the dominant
> peak at 0.580 solar mass, and a minor peak at 0.435 solar mass.

Since the shape of the distribution is essentially a Guassian with a peak
at 0.6 solar masses, with zero evidence for a binning of 0.145 solar
masses, this is actually evidence _against_ your theory rather than _for
it_.

You seem to be picking and choosing the data you wish to believe.

>
> The sample of Tremblay et al is not one or two WDs, it is a huge SDSS
> sample that has been carefully analyzed. Although the mass estimates
> have a bit more uncertainty than we might wish, the size of the sample
> partially compensates for this.

Well that's an interesting perspective. You just finished arguing the
exoplanet data I linked you wasn't all that usable because the 5-10%
uncertainty in the data was 'too high'. That the data doesn't support you
is coincidental, I am sure.

But here you are arguing that a sample with a standard deviation of about
20% (20% for Fig. 7, 16% for Fig. 20) supports your hypothesis?
Fascinating.

>
> Bottom Line: Discrete Scale Relativity accurately predicts the
> positions of the peaks AND their relative sizes.

I have no clue how you can make this claim.

>
> One might also take a very close look at my post to
> sci.physics.research regarding the "Substellar Mass Spectrum". DSR
> appears to have successfully predicted the main peak in that mass
> range too.

Not even close, Robert. Your "interesting" choice of figure that is
arbitrarily constrained to periods of less than a hundred days does exhibit
such a peak, when expressed in a log-normal form. When expressed in a
linear form, the peak fades into irrelevance. Same thing, but even more so,
when the bias distribution of planets is accounted for.

Neither point, of course, compares meaningfully to the fact that the peak
you are biasedly looking at is on the M*sin(i) axis. Not the mass axis.
This is discussed in the paper, along with the fact that the uncertainty in
inclination hits smaller massed planets harder, which apparently was not
read all that carefully or at all.


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

[Robert L. Oldershaw]

On Sep 14, 4:35 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> There is enough planetary mass data to see there is no major peak at 17
> Earth masses, absent a major observational bias that even you can't
> articulate.

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

From a host of inaccurate and misleading statements, I pick out the
one above.

Did you even look at the HARPS preprint that I linked to in a previous
post?

There is clearly a peak that encompasses 8 x 10^-5 solar mass, which
also equals 17 Earth masses, or one Neptune mass.

There have been many reports published saying that, whereas the
initial planetary masses were mostly in the 1-10 Jupiter mass range,
an unbiased sampling of the planetary mass spectrum seems to have the
major peak in the Neptune-mass region.
Now the HARPS group has shown this to be an apparent empirical fact.

Is one allowed to ignore important information if it conflicts with
one's debating position?
In debating - yes. In science - no!

I am only interested in science.

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

[Robert L. Oldershaw]

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

I agree with Jacob Navia's assessment of the proxima centauri
situation (no proof that it is bound), at least until further
developments in its status are reported.

So the "Oops, doesn't fit" conclusion may be inappropriate in this
case.

But the most important issue is that we cannot test the prediction of
quantized stellar masses by considering individual systems, if we want
an answer in our lifetimes. Instead we must search out larger samples
with the requisite accuracy in the mass estimates, like the SDSS white
dwarf sample.

I am hoping that people will get involved and suggest specific samples
of eclipsing binaries, neutron star-containing binaries, white dwarfs,
planetary nebula nuclei, exoplanet systems, etc. that might aid in
testing whether or not stellar scale systems are quantized, in analogy
to atomic scale systems, i.e., discrete self-similarity.

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

[eric gisse]

"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in

news:mt2.0-16660...@hydra.herts.ac.uk:

> On Sep 14, 4:35 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> There is enough planetary mass data to see there is no major peak at
>> 17 Earth masses, absent a major observational bias that even you
>> can't articulate.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> ----------
>
> From a host of inaccurate and misleading statements, I pick out the
> one above.
>
> Did you even look at the HARPS preprint that I linked to in a previous
> post?

"yes"

When I say "yes", I mean "certainly more than you".

>
> There is clearly a peak that encompasses 8 x 10^-5 solar mass, which
> also equals 17 Earth masses, or one Neptune mass.

Only if you are unable to read for comprehension, which is apparently
the case.

I'm kinda unsure how to respond here. Do I copy and paste my previous
response which you didn't read in the hopes that it might be read this
time? Say something that doesn't have a shot of making it past
moderation? Both?

1) The figure you cite as supporting evidence, 11, gives a peak that is
about 20 Earth masses wide on a log-normal graph under the artificial
constraint that of T<100 days.

Figure 10 has the same information without the period constraint, but
with the unfortunate-for-you fact that there is a roughly equivalent
peak near a thousand Earth masses.

You deftly ignore that figure because it doesn't fit the narrative.

2) That figure, also, is expressed M*sin(inclination) rather than mass
given that inclination is a separate observable with a 'significant'
margin of error.

Another point you have ignored. Or not understood.

I may, however, be wrong. Perhaps DSR has a notion of the distribution
of orbital inclination angles or something equally numerological and
irrelevant?

3) Figure 12 shows all the information of Figure 10, with the handy tool
known as 'error bars'. Your dislike of modern statistical analysis
aside, you'll note the expansion of that 20 Earth mass wide peak shows
that the peak is barely even statistically significant without even
taking into consideration the corrected data set.

4) The peak of 17 Earth masses certainly isn't mentioned anywhere in
this paper. At least, not in my cursory reading of the parts of the
paper tasked with citing important results and the spots that ostensibly
support you.

5) Nary a peep out of you about the inherit observational biases against
small mass planets. Which is absurd, given the fact that the only
observational methods have been biased _towards_ high mass planets over
the past 15 years.

For all we know there is a massive data peak at the half Earth mass
range. Since there's no observational data on anything smaller than,
what, 4 Earth masses, it is silly to claim otherwise.

>
> There have been many reports published saying that, whereas the
> initial planetary masses were mostly in the 1-10 Jupiter mass range,
> an unbiased sampling of the planetary mass spectrum seems to have the
> major peak in the Neptune-mass region.

I'm sure that has nothing to do with the fact that gas giants were,
until recently, the only class of object that *was* visible to us.

> Now the HARPS group has shown this to be an apparent empirical fact.

Only if you pick and choose data and figures that you like.

>
> Is one allowed to ignore important information if it conflicts with
> one's debating position?
> In debating - yes. In science - no!

Is this an example of irony, or just raw self-unawareness?

You ROUTINELY ignore data that conflicts with your position. You are
ignoring data from the paper you just cited!

The only way you could reach lower is if you used a part of one graph.
Which, if you think about it, is effectively what you are doing.

>
> I am only interested in science.

Nobody believes you when you say that.

Scientists do not ignore vast datasets that contain the information that
would vindicate their theory, as you are ignoring exoplanet and star
mass distribution data.

What you are doing is the height of intellectual laziness.

Which is something that frustrates me to no end.

Maybe its' the benefit of me growing up in the information age and
getting my education from a university with an internet connection, but
I personally have absolutely no hard time finding free (even without
instituational access) access to incredibly large datasets.

I can pull directly from Sloan, or whatever. The ViZeR catalog has
queryable catalogs that have hundreds of thousands of astronomical
objects in them. And I am able to spend a few minutes, with relative
ease while laying on a floor, querying them and checking against your
predictions.

Why don't you do this? Seriously. All you have to do is expend a shred
of personal effort. I've given you the links, examples of the data which
contradict your theory as a nudge to you.

The phrase "doing your research for you" isn't a joke coming from me.

When you make wild-assed guesses and proclaimations about neutron star
sizes or stellar/planetary/etc mass distrubtions and whatnot which are
revealed to be incorrect by a cursory literature search, what are people
who lurk this newsgroup supposed to assume?

Here are the exoplanet and ViZeR links. Again. Are you going to query
them, or would you just admit you aren't interested in doing any of the
work (when 'work' in astrophysics is 'querying a database' you know you
have it easy) yourself so we can abandon the fiction that you are
willing to do the work yourself.

[Robert L. Oldershaw]

On Sep 15, 3:20 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> You seem to be picking and choosing the data you wish to believe.
>

> I have no clue how you can make this claim.
>

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

(1) Newly reported planet orbiting a double star: The Tatooine System

"Beyond the wow factor, astronomers said the discovery had thrown a
wrench into another well-received theory of how planets can and cannot
form, as so many discoveries of so-called exoplanets have done. “In
other words,” said Sara Seager, a planetary expert at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology who was not part of the
discovery team, “people don’t really know how to form this planet.”

It was long thought, Dr. Seager said, that for its orbit to be stable,
a planet belonging to two stars at once would have to be at least
seven times as far from the stars as the stars were from each other.
According to that, Kepler 16b would have to be twice as far out as it
is to survive.

“This planet broke the rule,” she said. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/16/science/space/16planet.html?hp

See how nature can do things that are quite beyond the limitations of
Platonic idealizations?

(2) Notice that although the mass estimates are still a bit crude, the
reported approximate masses of the stars are 0.69 solar masses and
0.20 solar masses.

When you add these you get 0.89 solar masses, which agrees rather well
with the predicted peak at 0.875 solar masses, given the relevant
uncertainty of the estimate.

Strange? Not to those who understand the new paradigm.


RLO
Discrete Fractal Cosmology

[jacob navia]

Le 15/09/11 23:25, Robert L. Oldershaw a écrit :

> On Sep 14, 2:35 am, Greg Hennessy<greg.henne...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On 2011-09-13, jacob navia<ja...@spamsink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>
>> And proxima centauri is 0.107 solar mass. Oops, doesn't fit.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I agree with Jacob Navia's assessment of the proxima centauri
> situation (no proof that it is bound), at least until further
> developments in its status are reported.
>
> So the "Oops, doesn't fit" conclusion may be inappropriate in this
> case.
>

Apparently a post was lost here. I repeat again:

Its orbit is between 500 and 1 million years if that
can be called "orbit" at all. Many astronomers think that is a small
star moving with the alpha centauri A and B stars but not really
gravitationally bound with it.

After dozens of years of observations no orbit has been really
established.

[eric gisse]

"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in
news:mt2.0-24496...@hydra.herts.ac.uk:

[...]

> I am hoping that people will get involved and suggest specific samples
> of eclipsing binaries, neutron star-containing binaries, white dwarfs,
> planetary nebula nuclei, exoplanet systems, etc. that might aid in
> testing whether or not stellar scale systems are quantized, in analogy
> to atomic scale systems, i.e., discrete self-similarity.
>
> Best,
> RLO
> http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

Robert, would you please explain why you feel it is appropriate for you to
demand others do your research for you when I have repeatedly given you the
links to the resources that contain the data you require?

exoplanet.eu
vizier.u-strasbg.fr

How many times, do you imagine, I have given these links to you either in
actual link form or via ther explicit names?

Would you take a minute from your busy schedule of not doing research to
explain to me why you feel you can make the above request while ignoring
the above resources that at your immediate without-any-meaningful-training-
required disposal?

Or how about simply explaining why others should 'get involved' in *your
research* when you are unwilling to do the same?

[eric gisse]

"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in news:mt2.0-

24496-13...@hydra.herts.ac.uk:

> On Sep 15, 3:20 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> You seem to be picking and choosing the data you wish to believe.
>>
>> I have no clue how you can make this claim.
>>

[snip all]

If you want to make an argument based upon the latest shiny thing you
read in the news that was undoubtably sitting in arXiv for months prior
to popular media picking it up, that's fine.

What is not fine is you ignoring my entire reply to you, regarding how
you are picking and choosing the data you want to believe from a
publication. You didn't even try to respond.

I have a larger reply based on the same thing which you also ignored.
Will that be commented upon? Dunno.

What is also not fine is how you just finished replying to jacob navia

Its' been awhile since I mentioned this, and I feel it is time to
repeat:

People who make a big deal about being 'independent researchers' while
purposefully thumbing their noses at science and how it is done are
doing themselves a disservice. But not nearly as much as a disservice
when they do that in addition to being dishonest in their dealings with
people who talk to them.

Right now you are picking and choosing the data you want based upon the
notion that it supports you. Data that does not support you is ignored.

Major errors in the assumptions beind how you are using the data are
also being ignored.

You need to remember two things:

1) I am not an active researcher in the scholarly sense. This is a hobby
that interests me, but does not have any effect on my current
professional aims.

2) You are. All this applies to you.

So when you you ignore arguments, act deliberately ignorant of
statistical technique, and otherwise act unprofessional, I would like
you to remember that people who do a literature search or a google
groups search will invariably see this thread and make judgements
accordingly.

[Mod. note: I've allowed this, but we should go no further either into
discussions of people's personal failings or of how to be an amateur
scientist -- neither of which is on-topic for the group. -- mjh]

[matty hbnkjb]

Okay, I've been following this thread for a while now, it's been
entertaining and I must say I was intrigued about the idea of
quantised stellar masses - but not very hopeful. I agree with Eric in
that Robert should have done some easy preliminary work that may or
may not have supported his idea. But, nonetheless, I've taken 20 mins
from my own research time to put together a histogram of ~5300 stellar
masses from the catalogue of Piskunov (1980) which lists "Masses and
Ages of Stars in 68 Open Clusters". I agree that the catalogue is is
quite old, but I've chosen masses which were listed as having >95%
confidence and with over 5300 instances I thought maybe it would give
some hint of a quantised distribution - if there is one.... The
following link should lead you to the plot, ticks on the x axis are
0.145M_solar steps and the objects are binned in 0.02M_solar bins.

http://i919.photobucket.com/albums/ad35/qualitang/RLO.jpg

This is by no means an exhaustive study - merely 20 mins work - which
should have at least been attempted by the topic starter. If the
author has difficulty managing databases I'd be happy to offer some
guidance.

I like that new ideas are put forward, and I think that falsifying
such theories is just as good science as supporting them.

Matt.

[Thomas Womack]

In article <mt2.0-20041...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>,

matty hbnkjb <thequal...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I like that new ideas are put forward, and I think that falsifying
>such theories is just as good science as supporting them.

On the other hand, Thomas Huxley's quote

'Life is too short to occupy oneself with the slaying of the slain
more than once'

would seem relevant at this depth in the thread.

Tom

[Robert L. Oldershaw]

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

Many thanks for the effort you have put in. I have copied the
histogram.

I want to emphasize what is needed to really test the prediction of
quantized stellar masses, and I think I can say with a high degree of
confidence that stellar masses estimated in 1980 are definitely not
going to do it for us.

1. Emphasis should be on the 0.10 to 1.50 solar mass range because
here the relative separations between predicted peaks should be the
largest.

2. I cannot over-emphasize the importance of the accuracy of any mass
estimates used to test the prediction. I would be surprised if the
accuracy of the Piskunov estimates are as good as 10%. We need the
best mass analyses that are possbile with TODAY'S technology and
analysis methods. We really need accurate +/- 0.01 solar mass
estimates.

3. Mass estimates based on stellar evolution models (using luminosity,
effective temperatures and surface gravities) have to be handled with
care. Yes, they are in the right ballpark. But are they as accurate
as their authors claim? Sometimes yes and sometimes I think not.

4. When a system has the properties that allow a dynamically-derived
mass estimate, then we are a lot more sure of the estimate's accuracy,
and less likely to be fooled by unforeseen systematic errors.

Most importantly, this prediction will take time to test adequately,
and the quality of the testing will improve with time. I urge people
not to rush to judgement, and to understand that initially there are
going to be some contradictory results. In the long run we will have
a definitive scientific answer.

RLO
Discrete Scale Relativity

[Robert L. Oldershaw]

On Sep 16, 2:05 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Or how about simply explaining why others should 'get involved' in *your
> research* when you are unwilling to do the same?

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

I believe that science is, and definitely should be, a cooperative
adventure in trying to better understand nature.

A bold challenge has been presented: the prediction of quantization in
the astrophysical realm.

I can understand people's negative first reaction to this idea. But
as they see the beginnings of empirical support for this bold
conjecture, I think any scientist would want to "get involved" at some
level. Anywhere from just watching the debate to vigorously ferreting
out data that bear upon the verification/falsification issue. Those
who defend the old paradigm come-hell-or-high-water are also playing a
useful role.

To me this is a main part of the joy of science.

The urge to share ideas with others is a fundamental part of the human
nature.

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

[Mod. note: again, can I please urge posters to focus on scientific
questions rather than on their personal motivations or on the
sociology of science. Further continuation of this branch of the
thread is discouraged -- mjh]

[eric gisse]

"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in

news:mt2.0-26555...@hydra.herts.ac.uk:

Do you have an actual argument or is this more of a "I don't want to
believe the data" thing?

> We need the
> best mass analyses that are possbile with TODAY'S technology and
> analysis methods. We really need accurate +/- 0.01 solar mass
> estimates.

Thousands of stars have had their masses measured. You have direct
access to the VizeR and exoplanet sites. The exoplanet stars have the
star's mass gravitationally or spectroscopically determined.

This catalog, for example, has a spectroscopic surface gravity error bar
that wanders around the 1-5% range. Take HD142022 A for example. It has
a fractional error of 0.0092. Since the determination is 0.90 M_sun,
that corresponds to an error of about 0.01 M_sun - exactly what you've
been asking for.

http://vizier.u-strasbg.fr/viz-bin/VizieR?-source=J/A%2BA/415/1153
(which links to http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0504154 )

This catalog, of course, is (obviously) available in the VizeR database
and was not all that hard to find. It has 162 stars with well determined
masses. This is likely one of the data sources for exoplanet.eu, I am
yet to follow up on the exoplanet.eu refs (not doing your research for
you).

This particular sample set has been available since 2005. Apparently
your desire to make groundbreaking discoveries has not extended to the
depths of a literature search at any point in the past 6 years or so.

The error bars are all substantially smaller than the effect you wish to
measure. There is no excuse for you putting forth no personal effort of
your own here.

>
> 3. Mass estimates based on stellar evolution models (using luminosity,
> effective temperatures and surface gravities) have to be handled with
> care. Yes, they are in the right ballpark. But are they as accurate
> as their authors claim? Sometimes yes and sometimes I think not.

*snort*

Are you serious?

Kinematic determinations are trivial. Kepler's 3rd law is centuries old.
You have the better part of a thousand exoplanets for that maneuver.

Spectroscopic determinations are easy. Spectroscopy measures Doppler
shifts in known lines (HIGHLY accurate), and a simple optical
determination gives the size of the star at that point. Apply a little
Newtonian gravitation and you have the mass of the star known to a few
percent.

Do you have a technical argument, or is this more a "I was bluffing"
maneuver designed to buy time so you don't have to suffer the
indignities of actually doing science?

Mass-Luminosity relations are as old as time, and reasonably accurate
for main sequence stars. Corner cases and EOL'd stars need not apply, of
course.

This, of course, brings up the still unanswered question of why you
think masses of stars are discrete even though their luminosities are
not in any way.

You need to give *reasons* for you to not believe the results. Not
generic, waffling "sometimes yes sometimes no" complaints about the
surveys that you cannot articulate.

>
> 4. When a system has the properties that allow a dynamically-derived
> mass estimate, then we are a lot more sure of the estimate's accuracy,
> and less likely to be fooled by unforeseen systematic errors.

Unforseen systematic errors such as....?

I'm sure you have an actual argument about 'unforseen systematic
errors' that the principle authors of papers on the subject know nothing
about, given your extensive body of published literature about
spectroscopy. And that your arguments are both relevant, and to the
point.

That it looks like you are injecting false uncertainty into a well known
method in order to create an excuse to avoid the death of your theory is
just a coincidence.

>
> Most importantly, this prediction will take time to test adequately,
> and the quality of the testing will improve with time. I urge people
> not to rush to judgement, and to understand that initially there are
> going to be some contradictory results. In the long run we will have
> a definitive scientific answer.
>
> RLO
> Discrete Scale Relativity

Yes, why rush. This is a new theory.

Wait, no it isn't. As you've emphasized, you've been working on this for
30+ years.

Spectroscopy is older than that by a decent margin. You have had decades
to do a literature search and learn the method, which you apparently
have not done.

The mass-luminosity question should have come to mind at some point in
your lifetime, given the continuous nature of the relation is as old as
the entire field of astronomy. Thirty years to work on it and no answer
to a basic question is a rather telling failure.

The first optical determination of an extrasolar planet's orbit was 15
years ago. The increase in planet count has been steady ever since. Why
did it take until 2011?

No, Robert, it will NOT take time to test. This argument could have been
made in 1996, but not in 2011. You've squandered your time while waiting
for everyone else to do your work for you. The work is done, and your
theory is wrong.

[eric gisse]

"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in news:mt2.0-26555-
13161...@hydra.herts.ac.uk:

> On Sep 16, 2:05 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Or how about simply explaining why others should 'get involved' in *your
>> research* when you are unwilling to do the same?
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I believe that science is, and definitely should be, a cooperative
> adventure in trying to better understand nature.

So will people who take the bold step of doing your research for you get
co-author status on papers?

>
> A bold challenge has been presented: the prediction of quantization in
> the astrophysical realm.
>

Then to avoid overlap of effort, could you explain to us what efforts you
have already done towards verifying this prediction on your own?

Given the age of many suitable catalogs, you have had years to work on
this. Could you show us which ones you have looked at, or maybe even some
published works based upon them?

[...]

[Robert L. Oldershaw]

On Sep 9, 10:55 am, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...@amherst.edu>
wrote:

Here is an interesting example that I just found.

http://schwab.tsuniv.edu/papers/aj/precise_orbitsV/reprint.pdf
Published in Astronomical Journal 140, 1381, 2010

Fekel and Williamson analyze 2 bright double-lined spectroscopic
binaries and get some fairly high quality data.

HD 434 has M1 of 0.9907+/-0.0084 + M2 of 0.8071+/-0.0063 = 1.7978
solar mass.

41 Sex has M1 0f 1.1637+/-0.0060 + M2 0f 0.5836+/-0.0019 = 1.7473
solar mass.

The predicted Discrete Scale Relativity peak that is relevant in this
mass range = 1.740 solar mass.

So we have one system that fits rather well with the DSR prediction
and one that clearly differs from the predicted peak by 0.06 solar
mass.

41 Sex is nearly in 3-for-3 agreement with peaks at 1.16, 0.58 and
very close to 1.74.

The bottom line for me is that there is high quality mass data out
there and if it were collected and analyzed, it might offer the test
we hope for. But I wonder if anyone has already complied a sample or
catalog of high quality mass estimates for stars in the 0.1 to 2.0
solar mass range? I keep hoping someone will identify a "perfect"
sample.

RLO

[eric gisse]

"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in news:mt2.0-

31206-13...@hydra.herts.ac.uk:

> On Sep 9, 10:55 am, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...@amherst.edu>
> wrote:
>
> Here is an interesting example that I just found.

Why don't you stop wasting your time on arXiv n' such, and look at the
damn VizeR catalog?

>
> http://schwab.tsuniv.edu/papers/aj/precise_orbitsV/reprint.pdf
> Published in Astronomical Journal 140, 1381, 2010
>
> Fekel and Williamson analyze 2 bright double-lined spectroscopic
> binaries and get some fairly high quality data.
>
> HD 434 has M1 of 0.9907+/-0.0084 + M2 of 0.8071+/-0.0063 = 1.7978
> solar mass.

Adding the error quadratically, that gives a system mass 1.7978 +/-
0.0105 M_sun.

The nearest bin of an integer multiple of 0.145 M_sun is 12*0.145 =
1.74.

You are off by 1.7978 - 1.74 = 0.0578 M_sun

0.0578 M_sun = 5.5 standard deviations

Your theory is wrong by more than 5 standard deviations in yet another
example.

Since freshman statistics confuses you, I'll once again remind you that
a theory/model that is wrong by 5 standard deviations is almost
universally considered "wrong".

>
> 41 Sex has M1 0f 1.1637+/-0.0060 + M2 0f 0.5836+/-0.0019 = 1.7473
> solar mass.

Same song, different verse.

System mass 1.7473 +/- 0.0063 M_sun.

DSR predicts 1.74. Only off by a bit more than one standard deviation.

Congratulations Robert! You finally found a well determined data point
that is off by only one standard deviation and change.

>
> The predicted Discrete Scale Relativity peak that is relevant in this
> mass range = 1.740 solar mass.
>
> So we have one system that fits rather well with the DSR prediction
> and one that clearly differs from the predicted peak by 0.06 solar
> mass.

Remember what I said about you picking and choosing data that you like?
This is yet another example.

Besides, being wrong by a standard deviation does not mean the system
"fits rather well". Since you don't know what a standard deviation
means, I'll tell you: For a random (Gaussian) measurement error, there
is a 2/3 chance that the measurement lies within the value enclosed by
one standard deviation.

How do you seriously interpret that as a success?

>
> 41 Sex is nearly in 3-for-3 agreement with peaks at 1.16, 0.58 and
> very close to 1.74.

That's nice. Focus on the example that's wrong by a mere standard
deviation. Say no more about the one that's wrong by more than five -
you don't really want to talk about that anymore.

Of couse, never again mention the Sun which disagrees with you by 100+
standard deviations.

>
> The bottom line for me is that there is high quality mass data out
> there and if it were collected and analyzed, it might offer the test
> we hope for.

That would require you to do some effort, or luckbox into having someone
doing all the work for you. So I guess we'll never know.

> But I wonder if anyone has already complied a sample or
> catalog of high quality mass estimates for stars in the 0.1 to 2.0
> solar mass range? I keep hoping someone will identify a "perfect"
> sample.
>
> RLO
>

Gosh Robert, the V/119, 121, and 124 catalogs in VizeR has statistics on
a collective ~5,000 eclipsing binary systems complete with mass data on
each component. It took about 5 minutes to find these.

If only you exercised a little tiny bit of personal effort at any point
in the weeks of me citing VizeR to you specifically, or you expending a
little bit of effort at any point in the last decade, you would have
this information.

Have you, at any point in the past two weeks, even looked at the VizieR
catalog? It has literally EVERYTHING you are asking for.

[Robert L. Oldershaw]

On Sep 17, 4:54 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...@amherst.edu> wrote in news:mt2.0-
> 31206-1316246...@hydra.herts.ac.uk:

>
>
> Have you, at any point in the past two weeks, even looked at the VizieR
> catalog? It has literally EVERYTHING you are asking for.

Yes. Not! See below.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SEARCH FOR THE PERFECT TEST SAMPLE

I have been searching for adequate test systems and the results have
not been too encouraging. Older data appear to give mass estimates
that are uncertain at the 5-10% level, at best, and we need 1-3%.

Some authors show that published mass estimates for the same system
are different, and sometimes the error bars do not even overlap.
According to some, this is theoretically impossible, and yet there it
is, many times over.

On the bright side I have found some very interesting systems. I
would like to show you 5 systems of different types. Obviously these
systems do not constitute a test of the prediction. I show you these
systems to suggest that this quest for adequate data may pay off in
major dividends.

1. DOUBLE-PULSAR SYSTEM: Lyne et al, Nature, 2005 (available at
arxiv.org).

Total mass of both pulsars = 2.588(3) solar mass.
There is a predicted DSR peak at 2.61 solar mass.
This is 99.25% agreement (off by 0.02 solar mass).

2. SDSS J010657.39-100003.3 [detached white dwarf + m dwarf; 2011
data]

0.17 sm + 0.43 sm = 0.60 solar mass.
There is a predicted DSR peak at 0.580 solar mass.
This is 96.55% agreement (off by 0.02 solar mass).

3. CM Dra [low-mass eclipsing binary, double M dwarf; 2009 data

0.2310(+/-0.0009)sm + 0.2141(+/-0.0010)sm = 0.4451 solar mass.
There is a predicted DSR peak at 0.435 solar mass.
This is 97.70% agreement (off by 0.01 solar mass).

4. SDSSJ 121010.1+334722.9 [eclipsing binary, white dwarf + m dwarf;
2011 data]

0.415 (+/- 0.010) solar mass + 0.158 (+/- 0.006) solar mass = 0.573
solar mass.
There is a DSR peak at 0.580 solar mass.
This is 98.8% agreement (off by 0.007 solar mass).

5. QUADRUPOLE SYSTEM: BD-225866 [Shkolnik et al, ApJ, 2010]

Aa = 0.5881 solar mass
Ab = 0.5881 solar mass
Ba = 0.49 solar mass
Bb = 0.44 solar mass

Three of the four stars have a deviation of < 0.01 solar mass from
predicted DSR peaks at 0.580, and 0.435 solar mass.

I will continue to look for appropriate test samples that really have
the accuracy that is claimed. The data above is merely suggestive,
and is not claimed to be anything more.

On the other hand, the potential importance of a positive test result
clearly justifies a calm, careful and thorough test.

Sure beats snipe hunts for mythical particles!

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

[eric gisse]

"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in

news:mt2.0-13710...@hydra.herts.ac.uk:

> On Sep 17, 4:54 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...@amherst.edu> wrote in news:mt2.0-
>> 31206-1316246...@hydra.herts.ac.uk:
>>
>>
>> Have you, at any point in the past two weeks, even looked at the
>> VizieR catalog? It has literally EVERYTHING you are asking for.
>
> Yes. Not! See below.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> ---------
>
> SEARCH FOR THE PERFECT TEST SAMPLE
>
> I have been searching for adequate test systems and the results have
> not been too encouraging. Older data appear to give mass estimates
> that are uncertain at the 5-10% level, at best, and we need 1-3%.

We'll see.

Not about the data. That stuff exists, and has existed for years at the
required precision or better.

The real question is how earnest your search for data truly is.

>
> Some authors show that published mass estimates for the same system
> are different, and sometimes the error bars do not even overlap.
> According to some, this is theoretically impossible, and yet there it
> is, many times over.

Error bars are one sigma results, so depending on the difference it
could be entirely possible just with varying degrees of "likely". Or
there were systematics that were corrected. Or someone got a better
measure of inclination.

>
> On the bright side I have found some very interesting systems. I
> would like to show you 5 systems of different types. Obviously these
> systems do not constitute a test of the prediction. I show you these
> systems to suggest that this quest for adequate data may pay off in
> major dividends.
>
> 1. DOUBLE-PULSAR SYSTEM: Lyne et al, Nature, 2005 (available at
> arxiv.org).
>
> Total mass of both pulsars = 2.588(3) solar mass.

Why you think a pulsar is at all relevant to your theory is anyone's
guess. Stars shed rather large amounts of matter before becoming one.

Careful how you answer because you then have to account for Type 1a
supernovae.

> There is a predicted DSR peak at 2.61 solar mass.
> This is 99.25% agreement (off by 0.02 solar mass).

Barely within one standard deviation.

Would it murder you to learn statistical analysis? Significant figures,
standard deviations, percentages. The usage of all these seems to
confound you.

>
> 2. SDSS J010657.39-100003.3 [detached white dwarf + m dwarf; 2011
> data]
>
> 0.17 sm + 0.43 sm = 0.60 solar mass.
> There is a predicted DSR peak at 0.580 solar mass.
> This is 96.55% agreement (off by 0.02 solar mass).

You have no idea how far off you are because the measurement is a best
fit guess.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.2354

>
> 3. CM Dra [low-mass eclipsing binary, double M dwarf; 2009 data
>
> 0.2310(+/-0.0009)sm + 0.2141(+/-0.0010)sm = 0.4451 solar mass.
> There is a predicted DSR peak at 0.435 solar mass.
> This is 97.70% agreement (off by 0.01 solar mass).

Students who refuse to use standard deviations would likely not pass
their laboratory coursework. Authors who refuse to use standard
deviations would get their papers canned, likely without comment
considering the size of the mistake.

The system has a mass of 0.4451 M_sun, with a combined (quadratic) error
of 0.0013 M_sun.

0.435 M_sun is off by 0.0101 M_sun, which translates to 7.5 standard
deviations.

A prediction that is off by 7 standard deviations is what is known as
"wrong as hell".

>
> 4. SDSSJ 121010.1+334722.9 [eclipsing binary, white dwarf + m dwarf;
> 2011 data]
>
> 0.415 (+/- 0.010) solar mass + 0.158 (+/- 0.006) solar mass = 0.573
> solar mass.

0.573 +/- 0.012 M_sun

Here's a question of the ages. Do you know what I mean when I say I add
the error quadratically, and why I say it?

> There is a DSR peak at 0.580 solar mass.
> This is 98.8% agreement (off by 0.007 solar mass).

Congratulations you got one under a standard deviation. Was bound to
happen.

>
> 5. QUADRUPOLE SYSTEM: BD-225866 [Shkolnik et al, ApJ, 2010]
>
> Aa = 0.5881 solar mass

2> Ab = 0.5881 solar mass

> Ba = 0.49 solar mass
> Bb = 0.44 solar mass

No error bars, different amounts of significant figures nice quality
data.

>
> Three of the four stars have a deviation of < 0.01 solar mass from
> predicted DSR peaks at 0.580, and 0.435 solar mass.

Oh, so it is individual stars that have masses that are quantized too,
not just the system sum? I admire the flexibility of your numerology.

Might wanna go back and look at how not-at-all close the previous
examples are when you break them up that way.

>
> I will continue to look for appropriate test samples that really have
> the accuracy that is claimed. The data above is merely suggestive,
> and is not claimed to be anything more.

I haven't the faintest idea where you are looking. Seems like
news.google.som rather than VizieR...

Try J/other/A+ARV/18.67/table5

23 eclipsing binary (+ 2 trinary) systems with masses determined to
roughly 2% or better.

>
> On the other hand, the potential importance of a positive test result
> clearly justifies a calm, careful and thorough test.
>
> Sure beats snipe hunts for mythical particles!
>
> RLO
> http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

The numbers do not agree with you. Why don't you put a number down on
how many stars need to disagree with you by 3 or more standard
deviations before you realize that playing numerology with a continuous
mass distribution is going to get you nowhere?

Stars blow up. They have life cycles. They shed matter into the void.

Why on Earth you think this is quantized in any remotely observable
degree is anyone's guess, but it is most certainly wrong.

[Robert L. Oldershaw]

On Sep 18, 5:42 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The numbers do not agree with you. Why don't you put a number down on
> how many stars need to disagree with you by 3 or more standard
> deviations before you realize that playing numerology with a continuous
> mass distribution is going to get you nowhere?

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

Do you think the peaks and gaps in the white dwarf mass spectrum that
seem to agree uniquely with the predicted Discrete Scale Relativity
quantized masses are due to "random chance", or fudging? You can see
several histograms at http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw ("Stellar
Scale Discreteness?"), and then there are the newer SDSS mass
histograms.

Maybe the paradigm within which you judge everything has serious
errors, and misses key principles about how nature works.

Have you considered that possibility?

Most of your pronouncements are based on assumptions. Are we not
allowed to consider other sets of assumptions?


:)
RLO
Discrete Scale Relativity

[eric gisse]

"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in

news:mt2.0-19368...@hydra.herts.ac.uk:

> On Sep 18, 5:42�am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> The numbers do not agree with you. Why don't you put a number down on
>> how many stars need to disagree with you by 3 or more standard
>> deviations before you realize that playing numerology with a
>> continuous mass distribution is going to get you nowhere?
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> ---------
>
> Do you think the peaks and gaps in the white dwarf mass spectrum that
> seem to agree uniquely with the predicted Discrete Scale Relativity
> quantized masses are due to "random chance", or fudging?

I don't know, have you done any meaningful data analysis?

> You can see
> several histograms at http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw ("Stellar
> Scale Discreteness?"), and then there are the newer SDSS mass
> histograms.

Since there are known stars with masses around 0.73 solar masses, and
the stellar abundancies aren't even jokingly within sight of nuclear
abundancies, what's your point?

>
> Maybe the paradigm within which you judge everything has serious
> errors, and misses key principles about how nature works.
>
> Have you considered that possibility?

The possibility of what? That stars are discrete units that still manage
to shed non-discrete amounts of matter in addition to being luminuous in
a continuous fashion?

Can't say it survived my internal processing for more than a moment.

>
> Most of your pronouncements are based on assumptions. Are we not
> allowed to consider other sets of assumptions?

USENET theorists frequently ask this question, but do not seem to
consider the possibility that their theory will be rejected.

[Robert L. Oldershaw]

On Sep 18, 5:33�pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The possibility of what? That stars are discrete units that still manage
> to shed non-discrete amounts of matter in addition to being luminuous in
> a continuous fashion?

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

Can you prove that second part? Or is it just what you are taught and
so that is what you repeat?

If we are being scientific, we would have to say discretized ejections
of mass/energy have not been ruled out for Stellar Scale systems.
This is much harder to test than the quantized total mass of the
systems.

RLO
Fractal Cosmology

[Mod. note: we do know quite a lot about the solar wind, you know -- mjh]

[eric gisse]

"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in

news:mt2.0-26561...@hydra.herts.ac.uk:

> On Sep 18, 5:33�pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> The possibility of what? That stars are discrete units that still
>> manage to shed non-discrete amounts of matter in addition to being
>> luminuous in a continuous fashion?
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> -------
>
> Can you prove that second part? Or is it just what you are taught and
> so that is what you repeat?

* Solar wind, unless you think the Sun (which disagrees with your theory
by 100+ standard deviations) pops out wind in 0.145 solar mass
increments or something equally inane.

Or do you think the Sun is the only example of a star with solar wind?

* Type 1a Supernovae. A binary system of a white dwarf and some main
sequence star, in which the dwarf pulls matter off the star until it
detonates.

* Wolf-Rayet stars. They frequently shed substantial amounts of matter
in their life cycle.

>
> If we are being scientific, we would have to say discretized ejections
> of mass/energy have not been ruled out for Stellar Scale systems.
> This is much harder to test than the quantized total mass of the
> systems.

I am sure you have a carefully constructed number that is right outside
currently known (to you) observation that allows you to make that claim.

[Robert L. Oldershaw]

On Sep 19, 2:51 am, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...@amherst.edu>
wrote:

>
> [Mod. note: we do know quite a lot about the solar wind, you know -- mjh]

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

And have we quantitatively measured and integrated the mass/energy
content that is emitted on time scales of about:

(10^-8 sec)(5.2 x 10^17) = 5.2 x ^9 sec = roughly 167 years?

I don't think so. Again you are just assuming how hypothetical
measurements will work out.

Remember the Maunder Minimum period?
Remember the 22-year solar magnetic cycle?

There is more about the Sun's physics that we don't know than what we
pretend to know with absolute assurance.

RLO
Discrete Scale Relativity

[Robert L. Oldershaw]

On Sep 19, 3:58�am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:

> oops, snipped

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

1. Do atoms shed mass/energy when thet get excited? Obviously.

2. Do atomic nuclei shed mass/energy when they get excited?
Obviously.

3. Can you prove observationally that the mass/energy shed by all
sorts of Stellar Scale systems (sherically and/or in jets and in the
case of supernova as entire ejected pulsars), when integrated
quantitatively over suitable time frames, is not quantized?

No, you certainly cannot. Unless you are talking about the Platonic
world of pseudo-reality.

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

[Robert L. Oldershaw]

On Sep 19, 11:58 am, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...@amherst.edu>
wrote:

NEW SYSTEM OF INTEREST

From today's (9/20/11) arxiv.org postings.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.3722

A triple system: M dwarf + M dwarf + Brown dwarf

0.37 solar mass + 0.30 solar mass + 0.060 solar mass

Total mass = 0.73 solar mass

Discrete Scale Relativity Peak = 0.735 solar mass

0.735 - 0.73/0.735 times 100 = 0.7% error = 99.3% agreement.

If one did not know about the BD, one might conclude that the total
mass was in "conflict" with DSR. But when the BD is included, we get
a nice fit.

How many other "conflicting" systems have low luminosity companions
that have gone unaccounted for in the total system mass?

Inch by inch, system by system, ....

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

[eric gisse]

"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in news:mt2.0-

23333-13...@hydra.herts.ac.uk:

> On Sep 19, 11:58 am, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...@amherst.edu>
> wrote:
>
> NEW SYSTEM OF INTEREST
>
> From today's (9/20/11) arxiv.org postings.
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.3722
>
> A triple system: M dwarf + M dwarf + Brown dwarf
>
> 0.37 solar mass + 0.30 solar mass + 0.060 solar mass
>
> Total mass = 0.73 solar mass
>
> Discrete Scale Relativity Peak = 0.735 solar mass
>
> 0.735 - 0.73/0.735 times 100 = 0.7% error = 99.3% agreement.

LEARN WHAT A STANDARD DEVIATION IS.

>
> If one did not know about the BD, one might conclude that the total
> mass was in "conflict" with DSR. But when the BD is included, we get
> a nice fit.

Um, no. You were previously asserting that the stars themselves as well
as the systems are discrete. So much for that.

>
> How many other "conflicting" systems have low luminosity companions
> that have gone unaccounted for in the total system mass?
>
> Inch by inch, system by system, ....

Is this what you are doing now?

The data set YOU requested disagrees with you. This "oh now there must
be invisible companions that fix all the observations" nonsense won't
fly.

Besides, when are you going to comment on the thousands and thousands of
individual stars that disagree with you?

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

[Phillip Helbig---undress to reply]

In article <mt2.0-4549...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, "Robert L.
Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> writes:

> So I tried the same idea with a few low-mass binaries.
>
> 1. V405 Andromeda: 0.51 solar masses (too low) + 0.21 solar masses
> (too high).
> But together their total mass = 0.725 solar masses (right on!)
>
> 2. Eclips. binary HAT-TR-205-013: 1.04 solar masses (too high) + 0.124
> solar masses (too low).
> But together their total mass = 1.164 solar masses (right on!)
>
> 3. Eclips. binary SDSSJ 121010.1+334722.9: 0.415 s.m.(too low) + 0.158
> s.m. (too high).
> But together their total mass = 0.573 (98.8% agreement)
>
> This leads to the following definitive prediction. If one could find
> a sizeable sample of low-mass eclipsing binaries with masses known to
> better than say 5%, and hopefuly better than 3%, then the total masses
> for the binary systems should have definite peaks at the preferred
> peaks definitively predicted by Discrete Scale Relativity.

Take ALL binary systems with known masses and see how your prediction
stands up. What you're doing sounds like "I have a theory that all
people are blond: Owen Wilson, Pamela Anderson, Agnetha Fältskog---see,
my theory is looking good". We have known the masses of some stars for
a long time. Any effect like the one you claim would have been noticed
long before.

[Phillip Helbig---undress to reply]

In article <mt2.0-26019...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, "Robert L.
Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> writes:

> 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.

Finally.

Here is an honest attempt at trying to explain to you what you are doing
wrong. Please consider it. When you read about something which, at
first glance, seems to validate DSR, you post here, proclaim the theory
as now looking more likely, and criticise the Followers of the Old
Paradigm. However, when you read about something at odds with DSR, you
you proclaim: "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". You have to bring the same
scepticism to both types of data. (This is also the main mistake Mike
Hawkins makes.)

> Is anyone looking for systems that agree with DSR's predictions? Or
> is there only interest in conflicting data?

Then you take cheap shots at others.

[Eric Flesch]

Note this salient new arXiv preprint out just today -- they are
measuring star masses with Kepler (which they say they can do with
"exquisite accuracy"), and although the stellar mass profile differs
from expected, there is no hint of quantization or preferred peaks
:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4723 -- "Ensemble Asteroseismology of
Solar-Type Stars with the NASA Kepler Mission"

Abstract includes:
We find that the distribution of observed masses of these stars shows
intriguing differences to predictions from models of synthetic stellar
populations in the Galaxy.

[Robert L. Oldershaw]

On Sep 23, 3:03 am, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply <

>
> Take ALL binary systems with known masses and see how your prediction
> stands up. What you're doing sounds like "I have a theory that all

> people are blond: Owen Wilson, Pamela Anderson, Agnetha F�ltskog---see,

> my theory is looking good". We have known the masses of some stars for
> a long time. Any effect like the one you claim would have been noticed

> long before.- Hide quoted text -
------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you take a look at the early posts in this thread, you will see
that I take pains to define the types of samples that I think will be
required to adequately test the predicted quantization.

I will not repeat everything again, but I will say that I demand new
samples preferable analyzed after 2010, with an error on the order of
+/- 0.01 solar mass, with systems analyzed individually and with much
more care and skepticism about mass-luminosity relations than was
common not long ago, and with a heavy emphasis on the 0.10 to 1.50
solar mass range.

Well, I guess I did repeat just about everything, but check the
earlier posts for further details. Maybe I am asking for a lot, but
that is what I think it will take to free us from the bias of past
assumptions and give us a fair and definitive test of the predicted
quantization.

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

[Robert L. Oldershaw]

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

Sorry, but in spite of the semantic exhortations ("exquisite
accuracy") I see nothig in this paper that seriously challenges the
predicted quantization in the stellar mass function.

The mass region of 0.10 to 1.00 solar mass in woefully under-
represented.

There is no mass data given in the paper.

Just a crude histogram. If the analysis is crude, and the error bars
are wider than is required how can you draw the conclusion that you do
above?

I think the Kepler people are eventually going to provide high quality
data that will eventually test the predicted stellar scale
quantization, but there is none of that in this paper.

And take heart. If the stellar mass spectrum is quantized, it is not
the end of the world. It is the beginning of new knowledge.

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

[eric gisse]

Phillip Helbig---undress to reply <hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de>
wrote in news:mt2.0-24770...@hydra.herts.ac.uk:

This has been done by someone else at his request. His theory was
disproved again. Personally I'm tired of repeating the disproofs and
having them ignored because he doesn't like the answer.

Note how he alternates back and forth between 'only the mass of the
whole system counts' versus 'the components and the system must both be
quantized', mostly depending on whether or not his latest singular
example fits one or the other.

Link:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro.research/msg/bc91b2a005218c47?
dmode=source

Note the data sample was about eclipsing binaries specifically with a
highly significant sample, and how his theory is conclusively disproved
in yet another way.

[eric gisse]

"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in news:mt2.0-

17043-13...@hydra.herts.ac.uk:

> On Sep 23, 3:03 am, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply <
>>
>> Take ALL binary systems with known masses and see how your prediction
>> stands up. What you're doing sounds like "I have a theory that all

>> people are blond: Owen Wilson, Pamela Anderson, Agnetha Fältskog---

see,
>> my theory is looking good". We have known the masses of some stars
for
>> a long time. Any effect like the one you claim would have been
noticed
>> long before.- Hide quoted text -
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
>
> If you take a look at the early posts in this thread, you will see
> that I take pains to define the types of samples that I think will be
> required to adequately test the predicted quantization.

What you think is irrelevant.

Your theory could be adequately tested using stars with 0.1 M_sun
errors. You have been given samples that have errors 5-10 times better
than that.

The reason why has been explained to you multiple times.

Is there a particular statistics motivated reason for your argument, or
is it more along the lines of "If I ask for things that I don't think
exist, nobody can falsify my theory!" ?

>
> I will not repeat everything again, but I will say that I demand new
> samples preferable analyzed after 2010, with an error on the order of
> +/- 0.01 solar mass, with systems analyzed individually and with much
> more care and skepticism about mass-luminosity relations than was
> common not long ago, and with a heavy emphasis on the 0.10 to 1.50
> solar mass range.

Your latest demand is irrelevant as *IT HAS ALREADY BEEN SATISFIED*.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro.research/msg/bc91b2a005218c47?
dmode=source

The analysis has been done. The errors on the eclipsing binaries are all
around 0.01 M_sun for each star, or less. Your theory has been falsified
by the expectations you did not think would be met, and now you need to
deal with that rather than ignoring it.

The goalpost shifting is unacceptable. You were the one who demanded
that sample set be analyzed, and now that it disproves your theory you
suddenly beg for more information?

The mass-luminosity relation has been directly verified across multiple
samples. You are free to read the literature, if you can be bothered.

>
> Well, I guess I did repeat just about everything, but check the
> earlier posts for further details. Maybe I am asking for a lot, but
> that is what I think it will take to free us from the bias of past
> assumptions and give us a fair and definitive test of the predicted
> quantization.
>
> RLO
> http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
>

No, the only thing you are doing is changing the goal posts. *YOU*
demanded the data set be used. *YOU* clearly didn't even bother to read
the discussion of how the results were obtained and *YOU* didn't even
think about my discussion of how one obtains the mass of a star
spectroscopically.

Do you even have an argument against the spectroscopic determinations,
or are you just complaining because your theory has been crushed in yet
another way?

How about an explanation as to how your theory has quantized mass but
continuous luminosity at all massses?

You do this every time your theory is falsified. Either discuss the
results and the methodology, or suck it up.

Personally I'm sick and tired of this. You have not mustered a single
argument against the falsifications other than "I don't like it". I can,
and will, repeat the falsifications until you either go away or
acknowledge and deal with them.

[eric gisse]

"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in news:mt2.0-
17043-13...@hydra.herts.ac.uk:

> On Sep 23, 12:43 pm, Eric Flesch <e...@flesch.org> wrote:
>> Note this salient new arXiv preprint out just today -- they are
>> measuring star masses with Kepler (which they say they can do with
>> "exquisite accuracy"), and although the stellar mass profile differs
>> from expected, there is no hint of quantization or preferred peaks
>> :http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4723 --  "Ensemble Asteroseismology of
>> Solar-Type Stars with the NASA Kepler Mission"
>>
>> Abstract includes:
>>  We find that the distribution of observed masses of these stars
shows
>> intriguing differences to predictions from models of synthetic
stellar
>> populations in the Galaxy.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Sorry, but in spite of the semantic exhortations ("exquisite
> accuracy") I see nothig in this paper that seriously challenges the
> predicted quantization in the stellar mass function.

Naturally.

In figure 3, I see a peak at roughly 1.4 solar masses or so which wildly
contradicts your claim of a <1 M_sun peak.

Of course you don't see it, because it doesn't agree with your
numerology.

>
> The mass region of 0.10 to 1.00 solar mass in woefully under-
> represented.

Who cares? Your numerology asserts that all stars have quantized masses
rather than just some of them. Please stop using irrelevant arguments as
a reason to dismiss a falsification of your data.

>
> There is no mass data given in the paper.

So what?

Did you examine the references in figure 3 at all, or did you skip
straight to the crying? I demand an answer to this.

DID YOU EVEN LOOK AT THE REFERENCES GIVEN, OR DID YOU SKIP STRAIGHT TO
CRYING?

Let's ask another question.

Assuming the mass data was given, what would you do with it?

You've done nothing with any of the data you've been given so far. Even
the data I've given to you and shown you how it wildly disproves your
theory! You've done exactly nothing, so why do you care whether the data
is right there for you to ignore or not?

>
> Just a crude histogram. If the analysis is crude, and the error bars
> are wider than is required how can you draw the conclusion that you do
> above?

The same way you do with the SDSS white dwarf data, as all your
"complaints" apply. The only thing that is different is you believe the
data supports you, which is why you aren't complaining about it.

>
> I think the Kepler people are eventually going to provide high quality
> data that will eventually test the predicted stellar scale
> quantization, but there is none of that in this paper.

No, Robert, you don't think that. Previous data is already published,
and you've ignored it.

You've made no effort to look up the literature references that has the
mass data, so it doesn't matter what is released because you will make
no effort in analyzing it.

>
> And take heart. If the stellar mass spectrum is quantized, it is not
> the end of the world. It is the beginning of new knowledge.
>
> RLO
> http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

Except it isn't, as you have been shown multiple times.

You like to tut-tut about how it isn't the end of the world and all that
unless *YOUR* theory is shown to be wrong.

Where's the same level of "oh well, moving on!" for your theory? Don't
try to pass yourself off as being objective when you do things like
that.

[Eric Flesch]

On Fri, 23 Sep 11, "Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote:
>And take heart. If the stellar mass spectrum is quantized, it is not
>the end of the world. It is the beginning of new knowledge.

Your exhortations sound strange indeed, that you think others are so
invested in this topic. "Projection", I believe it's called.

Eric

[Robert L. Oldershaw]

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

Well, if you look past all the bluster, this thread is about a simple
scientific prediction and the testing of that prediction.

I am amazed at how much heat can be generated from such a simple
exercise in standard scientific methodolgy.

As new higher quality mass estimates become available, I wil be sure
to make people aware of them, even if they falsify my predictions.

Lately, almost every time such a new analysis was posted to arxiv.org
over the last 2 weeks, the results were quite supportive of the
predicted quantization. Maybe we have seen an improbable sequence of
positive results, or maybe this is a valid trend.

I am just going to sit back and let nature, via the impressive work of
observational astrophysicists, educate us. I will also continue to
ignore those whose emotions are occluding their scientific
objectivity.

Lastly, I am well aware that very few people are reading the posts in
this thread at SAR. Larger numbers may be followng the related action
at sci.physics.research.

Stay calm,
RLO
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

[eric gisse]

"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in

news:mt2.0-18731...@hydra.herts.ac.uk:

> On Sep 24, 4:06�am, Eric Flesch <e...@flesch.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Sep 11, "Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote:
>> >And take heart. �If the stellar mass spectrum is quantized, it is
>> >not the end of the world. �It is the beginning of new knowledge.
>>
>> Your exhortations sound strange indeed, that you think others are so
>> invested in this topic. �"Projection", I believe it's called.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> -----------
>
> Well, if you look past all the bluster, this thread is about a simple
> scientific prediction and the testing of that prediction.

Which conviniently neglects to mention that you are the sole source of
the bluster.

Notice how *I* was the one who ended up doing the actual work, which you
are yet to directly acknowledge or discuss.

>
> I am amazed at how much heat can be generated from such a simple
> exercise in standard scientific methodolgy.

You've put literally no work into this exercise, and when the work was
done by others you reject the results even when the work was done on a
dataset you requested.

The only reason 'heat' is being generated is because you have stopped
behaving like a scientist.

>
> As new higher quality mass estimates become available, I wil be sure
> to make people aware of them, even if they falsify my predictions.

No, you won't.

First off, you have no idea how to analyze data. You continue to post
"99.8%" and other such nonsense while ignoring both the accepted
scientific standard for data analysis, and the reasons why it is
accepted. I don't care anymore whether you just don't like the standard,
or don't understand because the result is the same.

At this point, it is flagrantly dishonest behavior.

>
> Lately, almost every time such a new analysis was posted to arxiv.org
> over the last 2 weeks, the results were quite supportive of the
> predicted quantization. Maybe we have seen an improbable sequence of
> positive results, or maybe this is a valid trend.

What scientific behavior.

You've been handed a 12k star dataset that disproves your theory using
mass errobars that are at your absurd requirement or better, and you
ignore it.

You begged Martin Hardcastle to analyze a dataset you deemed worthy, and
it disproved your theory.

You are unable to articulate an actual imagined problem with either data
set, so here you are babbling nonsense about how a few singular data
samples have been 'quite supportive' of your theory while completely
ignoring the thousands of thousands that disprove your theory.

>
> I am just going to sit back and let nature, via the impressive work of
> observational astrophysicists, educate us.

Unless the work contradicts you, of course.

Notice how quickly you changed your tune after the eclipsing binary data
set smashed your theory. Did you really think his analysis would
contradict mine in any meaningful sort?

Notice how your arguments against the Kepler analysis all applied harder
to your beloved SDSS data set, and how it didn't even agree with your
mass quantization claims.

I wonder if you'll simply stop talking about it in the hopes we'll
forget.

> I will also continue to
> ignore those whose emotions are occluding their scientific
> objectivity.

You can cry and cry about my motivations and 'objectivity' all you want,
but I produced work that was so good that you couldn't find a single
argument against it.

How many hours did you look at what I did before you realized it was
solid and had to find another argument? I published the data set source,
the methodology, and the analysis. You even saw the discussion between
myself and Martin Hardcastle about how to better perform the analysis,
and the result of that.

It is, by the way, more work than you have *ever done* in at least a
decade. I'll stand by that claim for years to come.

Crying about me without naming names is just sad, because everyone who's
reading this knows you are referring to me.

But speaking of 'scientific objectivity', has anyone other than yourself
supported the notion that star masses are quantized?

Since the answer is likely 'no', I'd like to know how you can be
objective since this is your theory and you've invested 30 years of work
and emotional energy into it.

>
> Lastly, I am well aware that very few people are reading the posts in
> this thread at SAR. Larger numbers may be followng the related action
> at sci.physics.research.

They'll see the same thing here as there:

You ignore technical points that do not favor your theory. You do not
have answers to simple questions. You do not appear capable of answering
questions about what references you have read to make the determinations
you make. etc.

I have a crazy idea. Stop dancing around me, directly respond to my
technical work and questions. Because what will eventually happen is
that I'll have repeated the falsifications of your theory so many times
that it will be the first and only thing people look at when they search
your theory on google.

Why? Because I'll start laying down the key words google will index, and
can finally start using the fact that USENET is archived by a bunch of
websites for my own purposes.

Do you honestly think people are going to give your theory a second,
much less first, serious look if they see what you've been doing here?

[Eric Flesch]

On Sat, 24 Sep 1, "Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote:
>As new higher quality mass estimates become available, I wil be sure
>to make people aware of them, even if they falsify my predictions.

Thinking about the ramifications of your "predictions", you seem to be
uniting the realms of the microscopic with the macroscopic, for
stellar masses to be quantized. So I guess I'll put it into the
"David Bowie" realm of cosmology, which goes:

"Open my window, and what do I see?
Crack in the sky and a hand reaching down to me."

[Robert L. Oldershaw]

On Sep 24, 12:10 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...@amherst.edu>
wrote:

> On Sep 24, 4:06 am, Eric Flesch <e...@flesch.org> wrote:> On Fri, 23 Sep 11, "Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote:

> > >And take heart.  If the stellar mass spectrum is quantized, it is not
> > >the end of the world.  It is the beginning of new knowledge.

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

Here is a well-studied system that is a uniquely low-mass planetary
system and is perhaps an instructive case.

I refer to the Gl 581 system.

See: http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.2505 .

We have a star (M3V classification) that is unusually low-mass for a
planetary system.

It's mass is estimated to be about 0.31 +/- 0.02 solar mass.

DSR predicts at discrete peak at 0.29 solar mass which is low but
within the error bars.

The key point for this system is that if it had a massive planet of
say 10 or more Jupiter masses, then this would push the predicted and
estimated system masses unacceptably further apart.

However, even though there are 4 planets, their collective mass totals
at only 28-30 Earth masses.

These very rare low-mass planetary systems offer a potentially fertile
ground for verifying/falsifying the predicted quantization in the
stellar mass function.

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

[eric gisse]

"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in

news:mt2.0-11203...@hydra.herts.ac.uk:

[snip all]

> These very rare low-mass planetary systems offer a potentially fertile
> ground for verifying/falsifying the predicted quantization in the
> stellar mass function.
>
> RLO
> http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
>

Thousand of stars falsify your numerology. Finding a few that agree changes
literally nothing.

[Robert L. Oldershaw]

On Sep 25, 2:41�pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [snip all]
> literally nothing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

NEW SYSTEM OF INTEREST

This is a new eclipsing binary with a Cepheid component.

Posted to arxiv.org on 9/27/11
http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.5414 Pietrzynski et al.

Cepheid mass = 3.74 +/- 0.06 solar mass
Discrete Scale Relativity = 26 times 0.145 = 3.77 solar mass.

Secondary mass = 2.64 +/- 0.04 solar mass.
Discrete Scale Relativity = 18 times 0.145 = 2.61 solar mass.

TOTAL SYSTEM MASS = 6.38 solar mass.
Discrete Scale Relativity prediction = 6.38 solar mass.

Agreement: perfecto!

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

[Robert L. Oldershaw]

On Sep 25, 4:32 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The only reason 'heat' is being generated is because you have stopped
> behaving like a scientist.

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

(1) Discrete Scale Relativity is much more than "numerology", as you
pejoratively refer to it.

(2) The stellar systems that will verify or falsify DSR's definitive
prediction of quantization in the total masses of star and star/planet
systems are the ones that will be carefully analyzed dynamically at
the 1-3% level and have credible mass estimates posted to arxiv.org in
the next 6 to 12 months.

(3) From Sept 7th (start of thread) until present, I find:

16 systems in good or excellent agreement with the DSR prediction.
1 system in fair agreement
1 system in poor agreement

(4) The substellar mass function also provides a strong potential for
testing DSR's predicted quantization. Within a year or two we will,
for the first time in history, have a decent empirical knowledge of
the substellar MF between 1 x 10^-5 solar mass and 0.10 solar mass.
DSR definitively predicts distinct peaks at 8 x 10^-5 solar mass and
0.016 solar mass, with the dominant peak at 8 x 10^-5 solar mass. No
other paradigm or theory has ever made, or could make, such
predictions, and no other theory could explain those peaks in a non-ad
hoc manner if they are found.

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

[Phillip Helbig---undress to reply]

In article <mt2.0-13828...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, "Robert L.

There are more stars in the sky than grains of sand on the beach. There
are many stars whose masses are known. Do you REALLY think that
pointing out ONLY those examples which conform to your ideas
demonstrates ANYTHING AT ALL other than your own delusion?

[eric gisse]

"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in news:mt2.0-

13828-13...@hydra.herts.ac.uk:

> On Sep 25, 2:41 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> [snip all]
>> literally nothing.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------

Ignoring falsifications of your numerology sure will make them go away!

You still haven't made a technical reply of any depth to my
falsifications of your numerology. Are you still composing a reply, or
are you just not all that concerned with how reality disagrees with you?

>
> NEW SYSTEM OF INTEREST
>
> This is a new eclipsing binary with a Cepheid component.
>
> Posted to arxiv.org on 9/27/11
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.5414 Pietrzynski et al.

Fascinating.

Not the Cepheid, that's an impressive but merely incremental improvement
over previous mass estimates.

The fascinating bit is how you are using a spectroscopic mass
determination as support of your numerology even though you've been
routinely arguing against it because it is 'theoretical' or some such
nonsense.

I'd like to know if you read the paper past the abstract.

Why can't you be at least a little bit self consistent when you complain
about results that disagree with your numerology?

>
> Cepheid mass = 3.74 +/- 0.06 solar mass
> Discrete Scale Relativity = 26 times 0.145 = 3.77 solar mass.
>
> Secondary mass = 2.64 +/- 0.04 solar mass.
> Discrete Scale Relativity = 18 times 0.145 = 2.61 solar mass.
>
> TOTAL SYSTEM MASS = 6.38 solar mass.
> Discrete Scale Relativity prediction = 6.38 solar mass.

With a measurement error of 0.07 M_sun. I'm noticing a pattern!

When the observations discredit your numerology, you DEMAND that they
all be to a hundredth of a solar mass accurate.

But when the answer supports your numerology, that requirement
mysteriously relaxes. Others have commented on this before...

What's up with that?

>
> Agreement: perfecto!

Unless one considers the ~12,000 solitary stars that discredit your
theory, or the ~150 OTHER eclipsing binaries which discredit your
theory.

Do you seriously think people are going to look at your single result
and care in the slightest when there are thousands of other examples
that tear your numerology to shreds?

Do you yet have an answer as to why the Sun disagreees with you by a
hundred standard deviations?

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

[David Staup]

"Phillip Helbig---undress to reply" <hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de> wrote

in message news:mt2.0-27997...@hydra.herts.ac.uk...

> There are more stars in the sky than grains of sand on the beach. There
> are many stars whose masses are known. Do you REALLY think that
> pointing out ONLY those examples which conform to your ideas
> demonstrates ANYTHING AT ALL other than your own delusion?

can you calculate the number of known systems that would conform by chance?

[Mod. note: yes. That's what statistical tests like chi^2 are for --
if you have a well-defined sample of objects to start with -- mjh]

[Robert L. Oldershaw]

On Sep 28, 5:22 pm, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply

>
> There are more stars in the sky than grains of sand on the beach.  There
> are many stars whose masses are known.  Do you REALLY think that
> pointing out ONLY those examples which conform to your ideas
> demonstrates ANYTHING AT ALL other than your own delusion?

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

Apparently you had not yet read my other post of 9/28/11.

Here is a quote from it.

"2) The stellar systems that will verify or falsify DSR's definitive
prediction of quantization in the total masses of star and star/
planet
systems are the ones that will be carefully analyzed dynamically at
the 1-3% level and have credible mass estimates posted to arxiv.org
in
the next 6 to 12 months.

(3) From Sept 7th (start of thread) until present, I find:

16 systems in good or excellent agreement with the DSR prediction.
1 system in fair agreement
1 system in poor agreement "

I have been monitoring and commenting on ALL relevant systems. The
fact that 16 of 18 newly analyzed systems that meet the selection
criteria agree with the Discrete Scale Relativity prediction of
quantized total masses for stellar binaries and planetary systems is
something that you need to think about objectively.

Can you find data published or posted to arxiv.org during the 9/7 to
9/28 period that meet the required sensitivity and that support your
assumptions and falsify my prediction?

Please do accuse me of proceeding in an improper manner, unless you
(1) accurately know what I am doing and (2) can show specific
scientific errors.

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

[Phillip Helbig---undress to reply]

In article <mt2.0-27997...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, "Robert L.

Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> writes:

> (3) From Sept 7th (start of thread) until present, I find:
>
> 16 systems in good or excellent agreement with the DSR prediction.
> 1 system in fair agreement
> 1 system in poor agreement

What you need to do is define your sample first then look whether the
distribution is as you predict. Someone in this thread did the work for
you, with the result that DSR is disproved. End of story.

[David Staup]

"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in message
news:mt2.0-27997...@hydra.herts.ac.uk...
[Mod. note: entire quoted article snipped -- mjh]

would the total kenetic energy of any system have the potential to affect
your theory?

[eric gisse]

"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in

news:mt2.0-27997...@hydra.herts.ac.uk:

> On Sep 25, 4:32 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> The only reason 'heat' is being generated is because you have stopped
>> behaving like a scientist.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> ---------------
>
> (1) Discrete Scale Relativity is much more than "numerology", as you
> pejoratively refer to it.

If by 'much more' you meant to say 'not much more', then I'll agree with
you.

From Wiki:

"Scientific theories are sometimes labeled "numerology" if their
primary inspiration appears to be a set of patterns rather than
scientific observations. This colloquial use of the term is quite
common within the scientific community and it is mostly used to
dismiss a theory as questionable science."

Do you have actual scientific observations? Rhetorical question as the
answer is a clear "no".

Every "prediction" you make is based upon numbers generated either by
arbitrary relationships between unrelated systems or arbitrary choices
of numbers from another arbitrary equation.

This is made perfectly clear if one actually reads your papers. Actual
manipulation of the field equations you claim your theory is based off
of is nonexistent.

Try to remember that I've read your stuff, Robert. I'm not making it up
as I go along.

>
> (2) The stellar systems that will verify or falsify DSR's definitive
> prediction of quantization in the total masses of star and star/planet
> systems are the ones that will be carefully analyzed dynamically at
> the 1-3% level and have credible mass estimates posted to arxiv.org in
> the next 6 to 12 months.

Let's break this nugget down:

"definitive prediction" : This means you have to explain why such a wide
body of observation disagrees with your theory rather than shrugging and
locating another one that barely does.

Nobody is impressed when you post another one sigma result. In fact,
every time you do it, you show that you are missing the point.

"total masses of star and star/planet systems" : You like to oscillate
between 'star' and 'star system' depending whether the current
observation you are looking at happens to agree with you.

As for planetary systems, you've been given the exoplanet database. Have
you tried doing an analysis yet, or are you continuing being
impressively lazy?

"carefully analyzed dynamically" : Spectroscopic determinations are just
as valid, especially since you'll cite them when they agree with you.

Unless they don't agree, then they are crap and full of systematic
errors that you can't identify.

"1-3% level" : More arbitrary numbers. With a decent data set, your
numerology could be tested at the 0.1 M_sun level.

Which does not even address the fact that your arbitrary requirement has
been met or surpassed for the eclipsing binary database you yourself
demanded someone analyze for you because of your laziness disability.

"next 6 to 12 months" : The data you require has been published from 1
to 10 years ago. Thanks for being the posterchild of 'a month in the lab
saves a day in the library'.

>
> (3) From Sept 7th (start of thread) until present, I find:
>
> 16 systems in good or excellent agreement with the DSR prediction.
> 1 system in fair agreement
> 1 system in poor agreement

What flagrant dishonesty. Look at how you count the stars that agree and
completely ignore the far, far larger amount that disagree.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro.research/browse_frm/thread/efe3
ceaafabd57d1#

3,000 stars to 5% or better. A third of the data set disagrees with you
at 1 standard deviation or better.

185 stars to 1% or better. Only 3 agree with you, the rest disagree at
one standard deviation or better.

Of course you reject the result, but naturally you've put no personal
effort into checking the database yourself as evidenced by the
incredibly lazy request that Martin Hardcastle analyze the eclipsing
binary set *I GAVE YOU*.

I am currently looking at the paper "Accurate masses and radii of
normal stars: Modern results and applications" by Torres, Andersen
andGimenez.

[...]

An independent analysis of the data would be most welcome. [1]

Of course once the analysis is done, you start blasting chaffe into the
air and hope people don't notice your numerology is falsified. Again.
[2]

>
> (4) The substellar mass function also provides a strong potential for
> testing DSR's predicted quantization.

*snort*

Why do you think this will make any difference?

Planets, eclipsing binaries, main sequence stars, white dwarfs...none of
them exhibit your numerology's quantization. Is clinging onto a dead
theory the behavior of a scientist?

> Within a year or two we will,
> for the first time in history, have a decent empirical knowledge of
> the substellar MF between 1 x 10^-5 solar mass and 0.10 solar mass.
> DSR definitively predicts distinct peaks at 8 x 10^-5 solar mass and
> 0.016 solar mass, with the dominant peak at 8 x 10^-5 solar mass. No
> other paradigm or theory has ever made, or could make, such
> predictions, and no other theory could explain those peaks in a non-ad
> hoc manner if they are found.

Really, no theory explains planet or star formation?

At least you have enough respect for this newsgroup to not bring up that
silly SDSS dataset that ends up disagreeing with you if one actually
reads the damn thing.

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


[1] :
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro.research/msg/c8e4a8af0616e746?
dmode=source
[2] :
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro.research/msg/6c230c852aad8a14?
dmode=source

[Robert L. Oldershaw]

On Sep 29, 4:55 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The fascinating bit is how you are using a spectroscopic mass
> determination as support of your numerology even though you've been
> routinely arguing against it because it is 'theoretical' or some such
> nonsense.
>
> I'd like to know if you read the paper past the abstract.

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

The Abstract says, and I quote:

"We derive the dynamical masses for both stars with an accuracy of
1.5%, ...

I read the abstract - quite carefully, in fact.

Apparently you did not.

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

[Robert L. Oldershaw]

On Sep 29, 6:05 am, David Staup <dst...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> can you calculate the number of known systems that would conform by chance?
>
> [Mod. note: yes. That's what statistical tests like chi^2 are for --
> if you have a well-defined sample of objects to start with -- mjh]

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

I am hoping that others who can maintain their scientific objectivity
will begin to test the definitive predictions in a fair and unbiased
way.

It is best when the experimentalists operate somewhat independently
from the theoreticians, who have a "stake" in the outcome. All I ask
is that the test be fair and unbiased and done following the caveats I
have identified.

To repeat those caveats one more time: all system components must be
included in the total mass, dynamical mass determinations are highly
desired, +/- 0.01 solar mass resolution is desired but there is some
flexibility here, systems should be analysed individually with the
best available methods. Finally, I am very wary of statistical
methods used to circumvent these caveats. The only convincing tests
for me are ones that are the most direct, and the least dependent on
any assumptions.

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

[Robert L. Oldershaw]

On Sep 29, 6:08 am, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply

>
> What you need to do is define your sample first then look whether the
> distribution is as you predict.  Someone in this thread did the work for
> you, with the result that DSR is disproved.  End of story.

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

My response to David Staup defines what, for me, constitutes the
scientific criteria for a fair test of the prediction.

The Torres et al. sample cannot be used as the final word. It is
weighted to stars above 1.0 solar mass and the mass estimate errors
are only marginally acceptable. Their work can be cited as possible
evidence against the prediction, but I do not accept that this one
questionable sample can falsify the prediction.

You seem to want to "end" the story as soon as possible.

Does my little 16 out of 18 sample mentioned above count for anything,
in your opinion?

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

[Robert L. Oldershaw]

On Sep 29, 6:14 am, David Staup <dst...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...@amherst.edu> wrote in messagenews:mt2.0-27997...@hydra.herts.ac.uk...

> [Mod. note: entire quoted article snipped -- mjh]
>
> would the total kenetic energy of any system have the potential to affect
> your theory?

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

Good point! In relativistic theory, and Discrete Scale Relativity, is
merely a further generalization of General Relativity (+ EM in
Einstein-Maxwell field eqns), the total energy of a system includes
the masses and momenta of all subsystems.

Since the prediction of quantized stellar systems is very
controversial, I have decided to keep things as straight forward and
simple as possible for now.

If the predicted mass quantization can be demonstrated as a first
approximation, then we would be motivated to look for even more
stringent total energy quantization.

One step at a time is the best strategy.

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

[eric gisse]

"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in

news:mt2.0-15585...@hydra.herts.ac.uk:

> On Sep 29, 6:05 am, David Staup <dst...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>> can you calculate the number of known systems that would conform by
>> chance?
>>
>> [Mod. note: yes. That's what statistical tests like chi^2 are for --
>> if you have a well-defined sample of objects to start with -- mjh]
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I am hoping that others who can maintain their scientific objectivity
> will begin to test the definitive predictions in a fair and unbiased
> way.

I find it odd how this has an operational definition being exclusive to
data and analyses that do not agree with you.

>
> It is best when the experimentalists operate somewhat independently
> from the theoreticians, who have a "stake" in the outcome. All I ask
> is that the test be fair and unbiased and done following the caveats I
> have identified.

Done repeatedly. I am bored of including the links.

You've identified the core issue though! You have a stake in this. A
huge emotional stake spanning decades. That's why you can't accept that
your numerology has been falsified.

>
> To repeat those caveats one more time: all system components must be
> included in the total mass,

Unless one of the components obeys your numerology. We've seen that
distinction made a few times by you.

> dynamical mass determinations are highly
> desired

Unless the result agrees with you.

>, +/- 0.01 solar mass resolution is desired but there is some
> flexibility here,

Of course. According to you, systems that agree with you with the error
bars being six or more times larger are acceptable.

Systems with error bars of 0.01 M_sun or smaller, which disagree with
you, of course are just too imprecise.

You just posted an example that flies in the face of your idiotic
demands. A measurement error of 0.06 M_sun and whose mass was
spectroscopically determined. But since it agrees with you, you allow
it.

Don't you see how ridiculous you look when you do that stuff?

> systems should be analysed individually with the
> best available methods.

Unless that analysis uses elementary statistics. Then it is highly
suspect.

> Finally, I am very wary of statistical
> methods used to circumvent these caveats.

Why? The methods are published, well documented, taught in experimental
physics courses, and all over the internet for you to ignore at your
leisure.

Funny how the only 'statistical method' you accept is percentage
agreement.

> The only convincing tests
> for me are ones that are the most direct, and the least dependent on
> any assumptions.

What convinces you is largely irrelevant. You are already a believer in
the numerology.

What matters is whether you can convince others. The scientific
community learned to use statistical analysis years ago. Why don't you
just learn the methods rather than complaining over and over?

[eric gisse]

"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in

news:mt2.0-26667...@hydra.herts.ac.uk:

Why don't you just come out and say you'll refuse to consider data that
does not agree with you? My analysis was objective. I never cherry
picked data. I even used the stupidly burdensome requirement that the
masses be known to 1% / 0.01 M_sun or better, and your theory was still
falsified with available data.

You don't even apply the same "selection criteria" to your own data so
why should anyone else?

Besides, you've had the exoplanet.eu data for awhile. Are you trying to
analyze it or what?

>
> Can you find data published or posted to arxiv.org during the 9/7 to
> 9/28 period that meet the required sensitivity and that support your
> assumptions and falsify my prediction?

This is a stupid requirement that is specifically crafted to exclude
years and years of data that destroys your theory.

You demanded an analysis be run on the eclipsing binary data YOU FOUND
IN arXiv. That I gave the VizieR database to you which had that in it,
apparently slipped your mind.

Where was your requirement when you thought the data was going to
support you?

>
> Please do accuse me of proceeding in an improper manner, unless you
> (1) accurately know what I am doing and (2) can show specific
> scientific errors.

Well, you don't know what you are doing.

The specific scientific errors have been shown rather repeatedly by
different people to no effect so I am unsure as to who you think you are
fooling.

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

[eric gisse]

"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in news:mt2.0-

15585-13...@hydra.herts.ac.uk:

> On Sep 29, 6:08 am, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
>>
>> What you need to do is define your sample first then look whether the
>> distribution is as you predict.  Someone in this thread did the work
for
>> you, with the result that DSR is disproved.  End of story.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> My response to David Staup defines what, for me, constitutes the
> scientific criteria for a fair test of the prediction.

How in the blathering hell is "only data published within the last
month, and only dynamically determined" in any way scientific?

Please, take a moment to justify that. I get strong amounts of amusement
watching you scalpel down data to a manner that only agrees with you.

>
> The Torres et al. sample cannot be used as the final word.

Of course not. It disagrees with you, even though it satisfies every one
of your "I am ignorant of modern statistics" based requirements.

> It is
> weighted to stars above 1.0 solar mass

*blinks*

It is too late to argue your numerology only applies to low mass stars.

You do not get a mulligan.

> and the mass estimate errors
> are only marginally acceptable.

The stars in the Torres catalog are all known to like 2% or better.
There are 61 stars within the catalog that are known to 0.01 M_sun or
better, and you still aren't satisfied.

Since the data does not support you, it is only "marginally acceptable".
Funny how the error bars that are acceptable are variable in a direct
relation to how well the data supports you. Notice how 80% of the Torres
catalog is within the 0.06 M_sun limit which you'll cite if a star
within it supports your numerology?

> Their work can be cited as possible
> evidence against the prediction, but I do not accept that this one
> questionable sample can falsify the prediction.

Of course you don't accept it. Its' only another 95 stars that falsify
your theory.

Give us a number, Robert. How many stars would it take to falsify your
theory?

>
> You seem to want to "end" the story as soon as possible.

You seem to want to drag it out for another 30 years.

Have you even collected the exoplanet data yet, or are you waiting for
someone to do it for you?

>
> Does my little 16 out of 18 sample mentioned above count for anything,
> in your opinion?

Why should the cherry picking of data by a non-objective person count
for a damn thing?

What are the error bars on the stars you think agree with you? Star for
star I can find at least 15 stars that disagree with you for every 1
that does. More, if I hold myself to the same error bars that you hold
supporting data against.

[eric gisse]

"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in

news:mt2.0-15585...@hydra.herts.ac.uk:

> On Sep 29, 4:55 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> The fascinating bit is how you are using a spectroscopic mass
>> determination as support of your numerology even though you've been
>> routinely arguing against it because it is 'theoretical' or some such
>> nonsense.
>>
>> I'd like to know if you read the paper past the abstract.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> -----------------
>
> The Abstract says, and I quote:
>
> "We derive the dynamical masses for both stars with an accuracy of
> 1.5%, ...
>

What do you imagine dynamical means in this context?

> I read the abstract - quite carefully, in fact.

But not the paper, which was my point.

Section 3:

"Adopting these ephemerides the spectroscopic orbit (systemic
velocity, velocity amplitudes, eccentricity, periastron passage
and mass ratio) plus a Fourier series of order six (which
approximates the pulsations of the Cepheid primary component) were
fitted to the radial velocity data."

By the way, aren't you worried about those systematic errors which you
were using as a reason to ignore spectroscopic mass determinations that
disagree with you?

You never did specify them. Now would be an excellent time, so you can
help us understand how they do not apply when the data agrees with you.

Speaking of "not reading the paper", I'd like to bring up some other
things that the paper does that you've been bizzarely selective in
arguing about.

The uncertainty in the mass of the system was obtained via Monte Carlo
simulations. Since you just posted about how concerned you are about
error analysis using methods you don't understand (you phrased it
different) I'm wondering why you aren't rejecting this result.

Now taking that error bar at face value, the system has a mass
uncertainty of sqrt(0.04^2 + 0.06^2) = 0.072 M_sun. Haven't you been
arguing this WHOLE TIME about how you'll only accept data that falsifies
your numerology if the error bars are of the 0.01 M_sun size?

Finally, I am highly amused that you are citing the "OGLE-LMC-CEP1812"
star system. This system comes from the OGLE data set, which in case
you've already repressed it, is the result of a series of sky searches
for MACHOS which also just happened to exclude your numerology by an
incredibly high margin.

It is an impressive feat to say a data point simultaneously supports and
does not support your numerology, so I applaud the mental gymnastics you
have performed.

>
> Apparently you did not.

Would you like to revise that estimate?

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

[Robert L. Oldershaw]

On Sep 29, 6:07 am, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...@amherst.edu>
wrote:
>
> Apparently
------------------------------------------------------------------

TODAY'S SYSTEM OF INTEREST [9/29/11]

http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.6339 by Kilic et al.

This may be a white dwarf binary, detached, non-eclipsing.

Not a particularly good test system at this point, but much potential
for the future.

Primary: white dwarf with M = 0.30 +/- 0.02 soolar mass.
Discrete Scale Relativity: M = 0.29 solar mass.

Secondary: white dwarf with M =/> 0.30 solar mass? No main sequence
star seen, so it appears to be compact or ultracompact. The mass is
poorly constrained, but the authors say: "J1630 is best explained by a
binary system containing a 0.30 solar mass white dwarf with a M =/>
0.30 white dwarf companion..."

So the primary, like the majority of white dwarfs, is in good
agreement with DSR predictions.

If the companion's mass estimate can be refined in future efforts,
then J1630 might be a very promising test system. A good system to
keep an eye on. A "mini test" within the overall test of quantized
stellar system masses.

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

[Robert L. Oldershaw]

On Sep 29, 6:16 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Do you have actual scientific observations?

Yes.

Discrete Scale Relativity is a reasonably complete paradigm in terms
of its conceptual foundations and implications.

The scaling equations were published in 1985 and have not needed to be
adjusted.

At http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw you will find a list of 40
successful retrodictions.

The new paradigm has made successful predictions (like pulsar-planets,
a vast population of unbound planetary-mass systems, and self-
similarity between the frequency spectra of specific variable stars
and specific excited atoms undergoing specific transitions).

Someday I suspect that you will want to study the new paradigm in
considerable detail.

RLO
Discrete Scale Relativity

[eric gisse]

"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in news:mt2.0-

21316-13...@hydra.herts.ac.uk:

> On Sep 29, 6:16 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Do you have actual scientific observations?
>
> Yes.
>
> Discrete Scale Relativity is a reasonably complete paradigm in terms
> of its conceptual foundations and implications.
>
> The scaling equations were published in 1985 and have not needed to be
> adjusted.
>
> At http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw you will find a list of 40
> successful retrodictions.
>
> The new paradigm has made successful predictions (like pulsar-planets,
> a vast population of unbound planetary-mass systems, and self-
> similarity between the frequency spectra of specific variable stars
> and specific excited atoms undergoing specific transitions).

Of course you think the predictions are successful. You have been
handling the mental gymnastics of simultaneous confirmation and
falsification for years now.

"Gap in the stellar mass function at about 0.73 M_sun."

Strike 1. There is no gap. The stellar mass function is a continuous
distribution through the entire main sequence, which is an observational
claim rather than a numerology based claim.

"Decreased upper limit for masses of single stars."

Strike 2. Complete nonsense. You like to say each integer multiple of
0.145 M_sun corresponds to atomic number of an element in the periodic
table. Which puts an upper bound on the largest stars of about 20 solar
masses if I remember correctly. The real upper limit is in the
neighborhood of 150 M_sun. Where are the 600 atomic weight atoms?

"Mass of the proton."

Strike 3. You are wrong by 40 standard deviations.

And just for fun, strike 4: "The global 160 minute g-mode oscillation of
the Sun."

The Sun has a mass that disagrees with your numerology 100 standard
deviations. The data point that falsifies your theory cannot
simultaneously also support it.

I'm done going through your list of failures because time is finite.

I'm willing to bet an examination of your other claims, especially 1-8,
will show that most if not all of them are completely wrong.

I am, however, curious to know how on Earth you can make any of those
claims given that you have not once in your life done a statistical
analysis of published data.

Let me guess - through 1-8 you are relying on someone else who did the
work for you, and you then convinced yourself that your numerology
agrees?

>
> Someday I suspect that you will want to study the new paradigm in
> considerable detail.

Why, is science going to be abandoned in the future?

Numerology is not science.


>
> RLO
> Discrete Scale Relativity
>

[Robert L. Oldershaw]

On Sep 30, 2:53 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> How in the blathering hell is "only data published within the last
> month, and only dynamically determined" in any way scientific?
>
> Please, take a moment to justify that. I get strong amounts of amusement
> watching you scalpel down data to a manner that only agrees with you.

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

In science, technical and analytical capabilities are always
advancing.

My argument, given in this thread several times, is that we are only
now entering a period in which some of Discrete Scale Relativity's
definitive predictions can be tested at an acceptable level of
confidence.

A good example is the Kepler exoplanet project which is cranking out
lots of new high quality data, from wich we will learn many new
things.

Another excellent example is the Spektr-R radio telescope launched by
the Russians, and which acheived first light this week with all
systems working. This remarkable new system will be sure to generate
interesting new observations.

As a final example, out of many that could be chosen, I emphasize my
contention that the microlensing projects are on the verge of playing
a major role in astrophysics again. As evidence for the
appropriateness of that contention I would cite the amazing new
results of the MOA collaboration, which appears to have discovered 0.2
trillion unbound planetary-mass objects, and the brand new project by
Griest et al to look for primordial black holes in the Kepler data.

So, you see, science is always moving forward. That is why I
emphasize using new data to test Discrete Scale Relativity in a fair
and far more definitive maner than was available in the past.

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