Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
White Dwarf Mass Spectrum: New Evidence
134 views
Skip to first unread message
Robert L. Oldershaw
Nov 13, 2012, 3:19:14 AM11/13/12
to
Discrete Scale Relativity definitively predicts that stellar mass functions will have preferred peaks at multiples of 0.145 solar mass.
It is known that white dwarf mass distributions provide excellent samples for the search for the predicted preferred peaks.
A paper just posted to arXiv.org presents some exciting new data:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.2161 .
Figures 1 and 2 of this paper by Isern et al show remarkable peaks in the white dwarf mass spectrum at about 0.30 solar mass, between 0.55 and 0.60 solar mass, between 0.65 and 0.70 solar mass, and roughly 1.0 solar mass.
A distinct preferred peak at about 0.43 solar mass in the white dwarf mass spectrum has already been discovered via eclipsing binaries ( http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.0316 ) and is clearly and highly significantly seen in the very large white dwarf sample from the SDSS survey ( http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.0056 , Figures 7 and 21).
High mass white dwarf samples have preferred peaks at roughly 0.85-0.90 solar mass and roughly 1.0 solar mass (Nalezyty et al, AsAp 420, 507, 2004; discussed at http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw, see "Discrete Stellar Mass Spectrum?).
Summarizing. Discrete Scale Relativity definitively predicts preferred peaks at 0.145, 0.29, 0.43, 0.58, 0.73, 0.87, 1.015, ... solar masss.
In the white dwarf mass spectra published recently we see preferred peaks, and some are large and/or surprisingly narrow, at approximately 0.30, 0.43, 0.55-0.60, 0.65-0.70, 0.85-0.90 and roughly 1.0 solar mass. The accuracy in these data is still a work in progress, but it is improving rapidly.
Discrete Scale Relativity predicted these preferred peaks definitively and can explain them definitively (even if no one would listen).
No other theory known to me can explain the remarkable structure being discovered in the white dwarf mass spectrum.
Robert L. Oldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Please do not hide the 3 lines above. They are there for a reason!
It is known that white dwarf mass distributions provide excellent samples for the search for the predicted preferred peaks.
A paper just posted to arXiv.org presents some exciting new data:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.2161 .
Figures 1 and 2 of this paper by Isern et al show remarkable peaks in the white dwarf mass spectrum at about 0.30 solar mass, between 0.55 and 0.60 solar mass, between 0.65 and 0.70 solar mass, and roughly 1.0 solar mass.
A distinct preferred peak at about 0.43 solar mass in the white dwarf mass spectrum has already been discovered via eclipsing binaries ( http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.0316 ) and is clearly and highly significantly seen in the very large white dwarf sample from the SDSS survey ( http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.0056 , Figures 7 and 21).
High mass white dwarf samples have preferred peaks at roughly 0.85-0.90 solar mass and roughly 1.0 solar mass (Nalezyty et al, AsAp 420, 507, 2004; discussed at http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw, see "Discrete Stellar Mass Spectrum?).
Summarizing. Discrete Scale Relativity definitively predicts preferred peaks at 0.145, 0.29, 0.43, 0.58, 0.73, 0.87, 1.015, ... solar masss.
In the white dwarf mass spectra published recently we see preferred peaks, and some are large and/or surprisingly narrow, at approximately 0.30, 0.43, 0.55-0.60, 0.65-0.70, 0.85-0.90 and roughly 1.0 solar mass. The accuracy in these data is still a work in progress, but it is improving rapidly.
Discrete Scale Relativity predicted these preferred peaks definitively and can explain them definitively (even if no one would listen).
No other theory known to me can explain the remarkable structure being discovered in the white dwarf mass spectrum.
Robert L. Oldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Please do not hide the 3 lines above. They are there for a reason!
Eric Gisse
Nov 13, 2012, 1:42:17 PM11/13/12
to
On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 2:19:35 AM UTC-6, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
Wow, talk about cyclical behavior.
Every time a thread gets to the point where you are backed into a corner and need to respond in some substantive way, you quit until some random shiny catches your eye and you have to post about it.
This newsgroup is not your personal blog.
> Discrete Scale Relativity definitively predicts that stellar mass functions will have preferred peaks at multiples of 0.145 solar mass.
A prediction which has been definitively falsified by direct examination of the distribution of stellar masses, and further directly falsified by the continuous nature of stellar luminosities.
I'm yet to hear a reason from you which explains how there can be a .145 solar difference between two stars yet the luminosity of a group of them can span a continuous rather than discrete spectrum.
>
>
>
> It is known that white dwarf mass distributions provide excellent samples for the search for the predicted preferred peaks.
It is not an "excellent sample".
I've never really hammered too hard on this point but I have discussed it with you before. Well, I say "discussed" but that implies a back and forth that we've never really had.
Eg:
https://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro.research/msg/dfc07e0faed94b76?dmode=source
>
>
>
> A paper just posted to arXiv.org presents some exciting new data:
I'd like to mention that I never see you say "A paper I read from ApJ or MNRAS". It is always some random arXiv offering.
You need to remember that arXiv is not peer reviewed literature and just because something appears in there does not mean it is golden.
>
>
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.2161 .
>
>
>
> Figures 1 and 2 of this paper by Isern et al show remarkable peaks in the white dwarf mass spectrum at about 0.30 solar mass, between 0.55 and 0.60 solar mass, between 0.65 and 0.70 solar mass, and roughly 1.0 solar mass.
The problem here is that you don't actually predict any of this. In fact, you said something a bit different not too long ago:
"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). "
https://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro.research/msg/736fc3e42d5c7456?dmode=source
I don't really expect this to be a problem for you because that's the advantage of numerology. You can just make more stuff up and fit the data however you want.
Plus I note that the white dwarf mass spectrum here is rather continuous.
What is it you told me not too long ago about the subject?
https://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro.research/msg/0dfbb0f3b161e590?dmode=source
"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."
I am unclear as to why you think posting falsifications of your numerology is a good strategy, but here we are...
>
>
>
> A distinct preferred peak at about 0.43 solar mass in the white dwarf mass spectrum has already been discovered via eclipsing binaries ( http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.0316 ) and is clearly and highly significantly seen in the very large white dwarf sample from the SDSS survey ( http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.0056 , Figures 7 and 21).
Oh my god are are you really talking about eclipsing binaries again?
This ENTIRE THREAD was about testing the quantization hypothesis. Your numerology failed completely. You may wish to review:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro.research/browse_frm/thread/efe3ceaafabd57d1/ed35ca2361ed4cd9
You picked an eclipsing binary dataset and when the analysis failed to support your numerology, this is what you had to say:
"This sample does not manifest the predicted quantization."
This is why this is not science anymore. You are picking and choosing datasets that you like. I put the Torres dataset through the program I wrote, published for you, and found a complete falsification (again) of your claims.
Why are you still posting?
Besides, you just posted another falsification. The white dwarf sample is continuous in the mass spectrum with a spectrum that can be described as Gaussian with a peak at 0.6 M_sun.
>
>
>
> High mass white dwarf samples have preferred peaks at roughly 0.85-0.90 solar mass and roughly 1.0 solar mass (Nalezyty et al, AsAp 420, 507, 2004; discussed at http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw, see "Discrete Stellar Mass Spectrum?).
>
>
>
> Summarizing. Discrete Scale Relativity definitively predicts preferred peaks at 0.145, 0.29, 0.43, 0.58, 0.73, 0.87, 1.015, ... solar masss.
You are seeing what you want to see.
There's only one peak of note in the SDSS dataset, and between the that and the Isern, et. al papers you are still missing the majority of your spectrum while not at all even once discussing the fact that the datasets completely falsify your quantization hypothesis.
I honestly don't understand what you seek to accomplish when you post silly things and flee when cornered on points you can't handle. For example, do you yet have a reality-based explanation for the fact that stellar luminosities are continuous?
[snip rest]
Wow, talk about cyclical behavior.
Every time a thread gets to the point where you are backed into a corner and need to respond in some substantive way, you quit until some random shiny catches your eye and you have to post about it.
This newsgroup is not your personal blog.
> Discrete Scale Relativity definitively predicts that stellar mass functions will have preferred peaks at multiples of 0.145 solar mass.
I'm yet to hear a reason from you which explains how there can be a .145 solar difference between two stars yet the luminosity of a group of them can span a continuous rather than discrete spectrum.
>
>
>
> It is known that white dwarf mass distributions provide excellent samples for the search for the predicted preferred peaks.
I've never really hammered too hard on this point but I have discussed it with you before. Well, I say "discussed" but that implies a back and forth that we've never really had.
Eg:
https://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro.research/msg/dfc07e0faed94b76?dmode=source
>
>
>
> A paper just posted to arXiv.org presents some exciting new data:
You need to remember that arXiv is not peer reviewed literature and just because something appears in there does not mean it is golden.
>
>
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.2161 .
>
>
>
> Figures 1 and 2 of this paper by Isern et al show remarkable peaks in the white dwarf mass spectrum at about 0.30 solar mass, between 0.55 and 0.60 solar mass, between 0.65 and 0.70 solar mass, and roughly 1.0 solar mass.
"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). "
https://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro.research/msg/736fc3e42d5c7456?dmode=source
I don't really expect this to be a problem for you because that's the advantage of numerology. You can just make more stuff up and fit the data however you want.
Plus I note that the white dwarf mass spectrum here is rather continuous.
What is it you told me not too long ago about the subject?
https://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro.research/msg/0dfbb0f3b161e590?dmode=source
"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."
I am unclear as to why you think posting falsifications of your numerology is a good strategy, but here we are...
>
>
>
> A distinct preferred peak at about 0.43 solar mass in the white dwarf mass spectrum has already been discovered via eclipsing binaries ( http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.0316 ) and is clearly and highly significantly seen in the very large white dwarf sample from the SDSS survey ( http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.0056 , Figures 7 and 21).
This ENTIRE THREAD was about testing the quantization hypothesis. Your numerology failed completely. You may wish to review:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro.research/browse_frm/thread/efe3ceaafabd57d1/ed35ca2361ed4cd9
You picked an eclipsing binary dataset and when the analysis failed to support your numerology, this is what you had to say:
"This sample does not manifest the predicted quantization."
This is why this is not science anymore. You are picking and choosing datasets that you like. I put the Torres dataset through the program I wrote, published for you, and found a complete falsification (again) of your claims.
Why are you still posting?
Besides, you just posted another falsification. The white dwarf sample is continuous in the mass spectrum with a spectrum that can be described as Gaussian with a peak at 0.6 M_sun.
>
>
>
> High mass white dwarf samples have preferred peaks at roughly 0.85-0.90 solar mass and roughly 1.0 solar mass (Nalezyty et al, AsAp 420, 507, 2004; discussed at http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw, see "Discrete Stellar Mass Spectrum?).
>
>
>
> Summarizing. Discrete Scale Relativity definitively predicts preferred peaks at 0.145, 0.29, 0.43, 0.58, 0.73, 0.87, 1.015, ... solar masss.
There's only one peak of note in the SDSS dataset, and between the that and the Isern, et. al papers you are still missing the majority of your spectrum while not at all even once discussing the fact that the datasets completely falsify your quantization hypothesis.
I honestly don't understand what you seek to accomplish when you post silly things and flee when cornered on points you can't handle. For example, do you yet have a reality-based explanation for the fact that stellar luminosities are continuous?
[snip rest]
craig.m...@gmail.com
Nov 14, 2012, 2:58:10 AM11/14/12
to
On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 3:19:35 AM UTC-5, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
> Discrete Scale Relativity definitively predicts that stellar mass functions will have preferred peaks at multiples of 0.145 solar mass.
>
....
> Discrete Scale Relativity definitively predicts that stellar mass functions will have preferred peaks at multiples of 0.145 solar mass.
>
> A paper just posted to arXiv.org presents some exciting new data:
This is not data. This is a simple stellar population synthesis model, with no observed data.
> Figures 1 and 2 of this paper by Isern et al show remarkable peaks in the white dwarf mass spectrum at about 0.30 solar mass, between 0.55 and 0.60 solar mass, between 0.65 and 0.70 solar mass, and roughly 1.0 solar mass.
narrow spike at ~ 0.30 Msun, which is entirely due to the presence of He white dwarfs in binary systems. This is a well known result and its extreme thinness is probably caused by the simplicity of the model used here."
Continuing from the paper: "The secondary peak appearing at ~ 0.7 Msun is caused by the merger of two He white dwarfs and is a consequence of the assumption that these objects evolve to form a CO white dwarf."
So the model is simple (by the authors' own admission) and the results are pretty basic stellar evolution. I don't understand what these modeling efforts have to do with discrete scale relativity.
CM
Robert L. Oldershaw
Nov 14, 2012, 2:59:35 AM11/14/12
to
On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 1:42:39 PM UTC-5, Eric Gisse wrote:
> Wow,
In your untutored Platonic world that may be the case, but in the physical world of nature the white dwarf mass spectrum has a lot of structure, as repeatedly noted by astrophysicists who specialize in white dwarf research. Moreover, the agreement between that structure and the preferred peaks predicted by Discrete Scale Relativity has steadily increased.
The low-mass white dwarf eclipsing binary sample I referred you to above has a definite peak at about 0.43 solar mass. Perhaps you cannot see it because that would support Discrete Scale Relativity and so would be totally unacceptable to you?
Robert L. Oldershaw
> Wow,
>
> Besides, you just posted another falsification. The white dwarf sample is continuous in the mass spectrum with a spectrum that can be described as Gaussian with a peak at 0.6 M_sun.
>
---------------------------------------------------
> Besides, you just posted another falsification. The white dwarf sample is continuous in the mass spectrum with a spectrum that can be described as Gaussian with a peak at 0.6 M_sun.
>
In your untutored Platonic world that may be the case, but in the physical world of nature the white dwarf mass spectrum has a lot of structure, as repeatedly noted by astrophysicists who specialize in white dwarf research. Moreover, the agreement between that structure and the preferred peaks predicted by Discrete Scale Relativity has steadily increased.
The low-mass white dwarf eclipsing binary sample I referred you to above has a definite peak at about 0.43 solar mass. Perhaps you cannot see it because that would support Discrete Scale Relativity and so would be totally unacceptable to you?
Robert L. Oldershaw
Eric Gisse
Nov 14, 2012, 6:24:38 AM11/14/12
to
On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 2:00:12 AM UTC-6, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 1:42:39 PM UTC-5, Eric Gisse wrote:
>
>
>
> > Wow,
>
> >
>
> > Besides, you just posted another falsification. The white dwarf sample is continuous in the mass spectrum with a spectrum that can be described as Gaussian with a peak at 0.6 M_sun.
>
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> In your untutored Platonic world that may be the case, but in the physical world of nature the white dwarf mass spectrum has a lot of structure, as repeatedly noted by astrophysicists who specialize in white dwarf research. Moreover, the agreement between that structure and the preferred peaks predicted by Discrete Scale Relativity has steadily increased.
Please stop shifting the goal posts. You predict, within the context of numerology, a discrete spectrum. Not just one with "structure".
> On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 1:42:39 PM UTC-5, Eric Gisse wrote:
>
>
>
> > Wow,
>
> >
>
> > Besides, you just posted another falsification. The white dwarf sample is continuous in the mass spectrum with a spectrum that can be described as Gaussian with a peak at 0.6 M_sun.
>
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> In your untutored Platonic world that may be the case, but in the physical world of nature the white dwarf mass spectrum has a lot of structure, as repeatedly noted by astrophysicists who specialize in white dwarf research. Moreover, the agreement between that structure and the preferred peaks predicted by Discrete Scale Relativity has steadily increased.
If you want to go down the "structure" road it is another falsification because the peaks in white dwarf masses don't follow elemental abundances either. Of course I may be incorrect - can you please point out the published literature in which you correctly predict the white dwarf mass spectrum?
>
>
>
> The low-mass white dwarf eclipsing binary sample I referred you to above has a definite peak at about 0.43 solar mass. Perhaps you cannot see it because that would support Discrete Scale Relativity and so would be totally unacceptable to you?
On a general note, there is a curious lack of data analysis from you. You never do your own work. Why is that? You are very clear on what you believe the reality is, but not once have you actually taken a dataset and put your name on an analysis. Why don't you want to put your name on an analysis?
With all this white dwarf nonsense, why don't you put all this data in one plot and show us the peaks so we can see the conclusive evidence as well as you imagine you do? Please be sure to include margin of error and the amount of points in the sample, as several of the papers you linked didn't include directly include that information.
The part that is unacceptable to me is how you focus on things that you think agree with you and then get mad when people point out the things that don't.
For example, you have known for years that the luminosity of stars is continuous and that microlensing observations don't support your claims.
Yet you parade around the MOA group data & white dwarf results like a lifeline, and never once do you look closely at the results.
This ceased to be science a long time ago. This is nothing more than standard fare USENET crank posting. The falsifications of your numerology are clear, unambiguous, replicated in the literature, and you have no corresponding argument. Yet when this is pointed out, you flee the argument and start up a new thread about something else like white dwarfs which also don't support you but lets you reset the clock on the game for a few more days until the cycle begins again.
That's what is unacceptable.
>
>
>
> Robert L. Oldershaw
Robert L. Oldershaw
Nov 14, 2012, 1:00:15 PM11/14/12
to
On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 2:58:47 AM UTC-5, craig.m...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> This is not data. This is a simple stellar population synthesis model, with no observed data.
----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> This is not data. This is a simple stellar population synthesis model, with no observed data.
Correct. That specific paper is based mainly around a "toy model" of the white dwarf mass spectrum where you consider single star masses and the total masses of binary white dwarf systems.
However, it is self-evident that the model is based on the authors considerable experience with actual mass data, and elementary logic is all that is needed to convince oneself that the peaks in the toy model correspond to peaks in the total mass spectrum. Just ask yourself: if those model peaks did not correspond one-to-one with physical data, would the authors embarrass themselves by posting the preprint? Obviously, not; they would have gone back to the drawing board to work on a revised model.
The fact of the matter is that Discrete Scale Relativity predicted 6 specific preferred masses that would show up as preferred peaks in low-mass white dwarf mass spectra. There is considerable evidence for each of these peaks if you look at an appropriate white dwarf sample.
For example:
(1) If you want to see the 0.73 solar mass peak or the 0.29 solar mass peak, you need total mass spectra of binary white dwarfs.
(2) If you want to see the little peak at 0.43 solar mass (He-3 analogue) then you need samples wherein that small peak is not buried in the low-mass side of the major peak at 0.55-0.60 solar mass (He-4 analogue).
I claim that as our analysis of the mass spectra of white dwarf stars continues to improve, Discrete Scale Relativity's predictions will be vindicated to an increasing degree.
Robert L. Oldershaw
"Seen any WIMPs lately? How about SUSY,
or strings, or extra-dimensions, or..."
Eric Gisse
Nov 15, 2012, 2:22:52 AM11/15/12
to
On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 12:00:37 PM UTC-6, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
[snip all]
"However, it is self-evident that the model is based on the authors considerable experience with actual mass data, and elementary logic is all that is needed to convince oneself that the peaks in the toy model correspond to peaks in the total mass spectrum"
Wait, seriously?
Why don't you do an ACTUAL ANALYSIS of the data instead of misrepresenting models of data as data itself? You have access to the exact datasets - I've given you the vizier catalog data multiple times before. Please stop being lazy and do your own research.
"I claim that as our analysis of the mass spectra of white dwarf stars continues to improve, Discrete Scale Relativity's predictions will be vindicated to an increasing degree."
"will be", as opposed to "are". At least you acknowledge you have no evidence.
Why do you keep thinking your numerology will be "vindicated" even though all evidence is against it?
Where's your electron substructure? Where's your ultracompacts? Where's your quantized stellar masses? All of those predictions - falsified.
Why do you not dedicate any effort to convincing people that your numerology hasn't been falsified?
Where's your data analysis?
Where are your publications countering the falsifications which have been published for years?
[snip all]
"However, it is self-evident that the model is based on the authors considerable experience with actual mass data, and elementary logic is all that is needed to convince oneself that the peaks in the toy model correspond to peaks in the total mass spectrum"
Why don't you do an ACTUAL ANALYSIS of the data instead of misrepresenting models of data as data itself? You have access to the exact datasets - I've given you the vizier catalog data multiple times before. Please stop being lazy and do your own research.
"I claim that as our analysis of the mass spectra of white dwarf stars continues to improve, Discrete Scale Relativity's predictions will be vindicated to an increasing degree."
Why do you keep thinking your numerology will be "vindicated" even though all evidence is against it?
Where's your electron substructure? Where's your ultracompacts? Where's your quantized stellar masses? All of those predictions - falsified.
Why do you not dedicate any effort to convincing people that your numerology hasn't been falsified?
Where's your data analysis?
Where are your publications countering the falsifications which have been published for years?
craig.m...@gmail.com
Nov 15, 2012, 2:24:04 AM11/15/12
to
On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 1:00:37 PM UTC-5, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 2:58:47 AM UTC-5, craig.m...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >
>
> > This is not data. This is a simple stellar population synthesis model, with no observed data.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Correct. That specific paper is based mainly around a "toy model" of the white dwarf mass spectrum where you consider single star masses and the total masses of binary white dwarf systems.
> However, it is self-evident that the model is based on the authors considerable experience with actual mass data, and elementary logic is all that is needed to convince oneself that the peaks in the toy model correspond to peaks in the total mass spectrum.
You are making unsubstantiated assumptions. If you read the paper in detail, you would find that the authors are investigating the mass distribution near and just below 1 Msun, and are largely unconcerned with the distribution far below 1 Msun. The authors admit that the model is quite simplistic and may not represent reality.
> On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 2:58:47 AM UTC-5, craig.m...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >
>
> > This is not data. This is a simple stellar population synthesis model, with no observed data.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Correct. That specific paper is based mainly around a "toy model" of the white dwarf mass spectrum where you consider single star masses and the total masses of binary white dwarf systems.
> However, it is self-evident that the model is based on the authors considerable experience with actual mass data, and elementary logic is all that is needed to convince oneself that the peaks in the toy model correspond to peaks in the total mass spectrum.
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.
[ As a side note, you often criticize other results for making unexplained assumptions. Why don't you hold this paper to the same standards? ]
The model is the result of the stellar evolution codes described in the paper. In other words, basic mass distributions, white dwarf equation of state, stellar physics, binary evolution, and so on.
"Discrete scale relativity" has no place in those results, because it never entered in as one of the inputs.
CM
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.
Robert L. Oldershaw
Nov 15, 2012, 10:43:50 AM11/15/12
to
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.
>
>
> 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.
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.
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.
Robert L. Oldershaw
Discrete Self-Similar Cosmology
�If at first an idea does not sound absurd, then there is no hope for it.�
A. Einstein
Eric Gisse
Nov 16, 2012, 3:11:37 AM11/16/12
to
On Thursday, November 15, 2012 9:44:12 AM UTC-6, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
> 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.
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?
>
>
>
> 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?
>
>
> 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?
craig.m...@gmail.com
Nov 16, 2012, 3:28:06 AM11/16/12
to
On Thursday, November 15, 2012 10:44:12 AM UTC-5, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
> 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.
....
> 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.
> 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. ...
Nevertheless, the discreteness in these systems, according to the simplistic toy model, is simply due to mergers of single white dwarf systems into doubles. This is documented in the referred-to paper and its citations. The presence of peaks has nothing to do with "discrete scale relativity."
> 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.
> 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.
"As a side note, you often criticize other results for making unexplained assumptions. Why don't you hold this paper [and other papers you claim to be 'favorable' to DSR ] to the same standards?"
Don't you think it deserves an answer?
When it comes to results that disfavor or appear to exclude your theory, you have discount them "premature" or "far more uncertain" or based on "models" with "assumptions." (your words)
And yet this paper is "premature" (by virtue of being an unrefereed conference proceedings), it is "uncertain" (by virtue of its simplistic toy model with unquantified errors) and is based on models with "assumptions" (by virtue of the pieces that go into the model). So why do you not discount this paper as well?
As a theorist, don't you owe it to your theory to attack it as hard as possible, in order to scrub out the problems? [ rather than considering everything favorable. ]
CM
Robert L. Oldershaw
Nov 16, 2012, 4:42:37 PM11/16/12
to
On Friday, November 16, 2012 3:28:28 AM UTC-5, craig.m...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I don't view it as my job to be your cheerleader.
But you apparently do view it is your job to be an anti-cheerleader and present things in as negative a light as possible.
>
> I don't view it as my job to be your cheerleader.
> This seems like a crucial question:
> "As a side note, you often criticize other results for making unexplained assumptions. Why don't you hold this paper [and other papers you claim to be 'favorable' to DSR ] to the same standards?"
>
I do. Is that clear enough? I am not saying this paper is definitive proof of DSR's predictions.
What I am saying is that the overall white dwarf mass data and the research that interprets that data are gradually uncovering evidence for preferred peaks at the 6 specific masses definitively predicted by Discrete Scale Relativity. This is SCIENCE: definitive predictions made BEFORE the results were known, and now the gradually improving testing of those predictions.
Is it so impossible to accept that DSR might be right about this. Would any level of empirical evidence lead you to change your mind? Or is your starting axiom that DSR MUST be wrong - end of story?
Robert L. Oldershaw
"How can physics live up to its true greatness except by a new revolution in outlook which dwarfs all its past revolutions? And when it comes, will we not say to each other, 'Oh, how beautiful and simple it all is! How could we ever have missed it for so long!'." - John Archibald Wheeler
PS: How about the proposed new population of stellar-mass black holes in GCs that is discussed in the other thread? Nice, eh?
Eric Gisse
Nov 17, 2012, 1:49:25 PM11/17/12
to
On Friday, November 16, 2012 3:42:59 PM UTC-6, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
> On Friday, November 16, 2012 3:28:28 AM UTC-5, craig.m...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >
>
> > I don't view it as my job to be your cheerleader.
>
>
>
> But you apparently do view it is your job to be an anti-cheerleader and present things in as negative a light as possible.
>
>
>
>
>
> > This seems like a crucial question:
>
> > "As a side note, you often criticize other results for making unexplained assumptions. Why don't you hold this paper [and other papers you claim to be 'favorable' to DSR ] to the same standards?"
>
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> I do. Is that clear enough? I am not saying this paper is definitive proof of DSR's predictions.
You have never, ever even once been half as critical of papers you think support you than you are of papers which do not.
> On Friday, November 16, 2012 3:28:28 AM UTC-5, craig.m...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >
>
> > I don't view it as my job to be your cheerleader.
>
>
>
> But you apparently do view it is your job to be an anti-cheerleader and present things in as negative a light as possible.
>
>
>
>
>
> > This seems like a crucial question:
>
> > "As a side note, you often criticize other results for making unexplained assumptions. Why don't you hold this paper [and other papers you claim to be 'favorable' to DSR ] to the same standards?"
>
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> I do. Is that clear enough? I am not saying this paper is definitive proof of DSR's predictions.
I have documented your biases many times in which you will select datapoints with awful errors while dismissing data that's a factor of ten higher in quality.
For example, you reject literally all microlensing data out of hand, with the specific exception of the MOA group data which you think supports you. Even though the methodology is the same, and even though the MOA group also shows your ultracompacts do not exist.
This argument is kinda boring TBH, considering how many times I've made it and you've ignored it.
>
>
>
> What I am saying is that the overall white dwarf mass data and the research that interprets that data are gradually uncovering evidence for preferred peaks at the 6 specific masses definitively predicted by Discrete Scale Relativity. This is SCIENCE: definitive predictions made BEFORE the results were known, and now the gradually improving testing of those predictions.
>
>
>
> Is it so impossible to accept that DSR might be right about this. Would any level of empirical evidence lead you to change your mind? Or is your starting axiom that DSR MUST be wrong - end of story?
Rather than wasting our time with posting the latest nonsense about white dwarfs you should probably consider dealing with the fact that your original ApJ paper has had its' predictions falsified rather clearly.
Nobody is amused by constant attempts at turning the falsifications back on the person who made the complaint like you are doing here. It is a waste of time and became tedious quite awhile ago.
>
>
> PS: How about the proposed new population of stellar-mass black holes in GCs that is discussed in the other thread? Nice, eh?
Your tactic is very clear. You keep trying to inject artificial hope for your numerology every time a transient or small population of something is discovered. Unfortunately you never do basic computations that establish the validity of the claim.
I can add up everything you've ever posted that's actually visible and still not even clear 1% of the dark matter mass budget in this galaxy.
0 new messages