On Thursday, November 15, 2012 9:44:12 AM UTC-6, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:The solar system falsifies your claims by about 50 standard deviations after adding up the known masses of the solar system and including their known errors. Saying things agree with you when they really don't is dishonest.
> On Thursday, November 15, 2012 2:24:25 AM UTC-5, craig.m...@gmail.com wrote:
> > It's vitally important to note that the sharp peak at ~0.7 Msun in the author's distributions are due to double white dwarf systems. In other words, two white dwarfs in one binary system. It is not some special quantization of the individual masses. As the authors point out, the sharpness of the distribution at ~0.3 and ~0.7 Msun is probably due to the artificial simplicity of their model.
> > P.S. Bear in mind also that this is a conference proceedings paper, which means the standard of review and completeness are usually not the same as for formally reviewed journal articles.
> Thank you for your comments, and here is my reply.
> 1. If you have been following the discussion at SAR about discrete stellar mass spectra you would be well aware that I have repeatedly emphasized that the *total* mass of the system reflects the underlying discreteness much better than the individual masses of a binary/multiple system. If you go to http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw and look at #1 of the "Technical Notes", you will find a worked out example for the very well-known and accurately characterized Solar System.
Eclipsing binaries from a dataset you chose also falsifies your claims.
You are failing on both tactics and strategy here, Robert.
The tactic of repeating yourself and your arguments using examples known to be false is not working. The strategy of pushing your numerology on forums and USENET has gained you literally nothing despite years of effort as you are no more respected and your theories taken no more seriously than Archimedes Plutonium.
Perhaps you need to try a fact-based approach?
It does not appear you actually read his reply.
> 2. Yes, the authors say the *sharpness* of the peaks may be an artifact, but that does not detract from the location of the peaks, which is the most relevant consideration here.
Personally I'm a bit annoyed with myself because I didn't read the paper you cited except in the neighborhood of the data you claimed supported you so I didn't realize that the data set was synthetic.
Did you know, or did you gloss over that too?
You say stuff like "definitive predictions" but when they are falsified you simply shrug and move on like nothing happened.
> 3. Your criticism seems a bit nit-picking, and shows no effort to acknowledge the aspects of white dwarf mass spectra that are favorable to the definitive predictions of Discrete Scale Relativity.
So why, again, are you surprised?
Why is it you are not doing any actual data analysis of your own?
Why are you still arguing when nobody is interested in what you have to say anymore?
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.