Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Philip Gasbag - Stuffed
16 views
Skip to first unread message
Robert L. Oldershaw
Jan 20, 2012, 6:28:37 PM1/20/12
to
For context, see sci.astro.research ["Nomads" thread]
On Jan 20, 5:36 pm, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
<hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de> wrote:
>
> Can you name a professional astrophysicist apart from Mike Hawkins (who
> is more of an observer and technician than astrophysicist if you look at
> the work he has been paid for over the last several decades) who still
> claims that stellar-mass primordial black holes make up an appreciable
> fraction of the dark matter?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The authors of the "Nomads" paper are:
L. E. Strigari [Kavli Inst - Stanford]
M. Barnabe [Kvali Inst -Stanford]
P.J. Marshall [Oxford]
R.D. Blandford [Kvali Inst - Stanford]
I quote from the "Discussion and Conclusions" of their paper.
"The existence of these events either implies that we have been lucky
to observe events at all (in particular with the large observed
magnifications), or that the local population of low mass and low
luminosity stellar remnants is larger than is previously predicted."
You might profit from reading the paper, although I cannot guarantee
that.
Robert L. Oldershaw
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity
Fractal Cosmology
PS: I really have no desire to continue discussions with anyone who
claims or implies that they know the answers to scientific questions
before they are answered empirically. I regard the widespread
reliance on assumptions and Platonic models to be a form of religion,
and I am not interested in that. These more or less untestable
postmodern models appear to me to be more faith-based than scientific.
On Jan 20, 5:36 pm, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
<hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de> wrote:
>
> Can you name a professional astrophysicist apart from Mike Hawkins (who
> is more of an observer and technician than astrophysicist if you look at
> the work he has been paid for over the last several decades) who still
> claims that stellar-mass primordial black holes make up an appreciable
> fraction of the dark matter?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The authors of the "Nomads" paper are:
L. E. Strigari [Kavli Inst - Stanford]
M. Barnabe [Kvali Inst -Stanford]
P.J. Marshall [Oxford]
R.D. Blandford [Kvali Inst - Stanford]
I quote from the "Discussion and Conclusions" of their paper.
"The existence of these events either implies that we have been lucky
to observe events at all (in particular with the large observed
magnifications), or that the local population of low mass and low
luminosity stellar remnants is larger than is previously predicted."
You might profit from reading the paper, although I cannot guarantee
that.
Robert L. Oldershaw
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity
Fractal Cosmology
PS: I really have no desire to continue discussions with anyone who
claims or implies that they know the answers to scientific questions
before they are answered empirically. I regard the widespread
reliance on assumptions and Platonic models to be a form of religion,
and I am not interested in that. These more or less untestable
postmodern models appear to me to be more faith-based than scientific.
eric gisse
Jan 20, 2012, 11:23:59 PM1/20/12
to
"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in
news:cb2a606a-42e0-4818...@u2g2000vbe.googlegroups.com:
> For context, see sci.astro.research ["Nomads" thread]
>
> On Jan 20, 5:36 pm, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
> <hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de> wrote:
>>
>> Can you name a professional astrophysicist apart from Mike Hawkins
>> (who is more of an observer and technician than astrophysicist if you
>> look at the work he has been paid for over the last several decades)
>> who still claims that stellar-mass primordial black holes make up an
>> appreciable fraction of the dark matter?
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------
>
> The authors of the "Nomads" paper are:
>
> L. E. Strigari [Kavli Inst - Stanford]
> M. Barnabe [Kvali Inst -Stanford]
> P.J. Marshall [Oxford]
> R.D. Blandford [Kvali Inst - Stanford]
>
> I quote from the "Discussion and Conclusions" of their paper.
>
> "The existence of these events either implies that we have been lucky
> to observe events at all (in particular with the large observed
> magnifications), or that the local population of low mass and low
> luminosity stellar remnants is larger than is previously predicted."
>
> You might profit from reading the paper, although I cannot guarantee
> that.
How the fuck do you think that implies that primordial blackholes are an
appreciable fraction of dark matter? Good god, fail more at reading.
>
> Robert L. Oldershaw
> http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
> Discrete Scale Relativity
> Fractal Cosmology
>
> PS: I really have no desire to continue discussions with anyone who
> claims or implies that they know the answers to scientific questions
> before they are answered empirically.
Yo, fuckwit, 30+ years of integrated telescope time saying you are wrong
means you are WRONG.
> I regard the widespread
> reliance on assumptions and Platonic models to be a form of religion,
> and I am not interested in that. These more or less untestable
> postmodern models appear to me to be more faith-based than scientific.
>
Enjoy posting to USENET for the rest of your nonexistent career. Enjoy
being a fringe jagoff whom nobody takes seriously.
news:cb2a606a-42e0-4818...@u2g2000vbe.googlegroups.com:
> For context, see sci.astro.research ["Nomads" thread]
>
> On Jan 20, 5:36 pm, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
> <hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de> wrote:
>>
>> Can you name a professional astrophysicist apart from Mike Hawkins
>> (who is more of an observer and technician than astrophysicist if you
>> look at the work he has been paid for over the last several decades)
>> who still claims that stellar-mass primordial black holes make up an
>> appreciable fraction of the dark matter?
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------
>
> The authors of the "Nomads" paper are:
>
> L. E. Strigari [Kavli Inst - Stanford]
> M. Barnabe [Kvali Inst -Stanford]
> P.J. Marshall [Oxford]
> R.D. Blandford [Kvali Inst - Stanford]
>
> I quote from the "Discussion and Conclusions" of their paper.
>
> "The existence of these events either implies that we have been lucky
> to observe events at all (in particular with the large observed
> magnifications), or that the local population of low mass and low
> luminosity stellar remnants is larger than is previously predicted."
>
> You might profit from reading the paper, although I cannot guarantee
> that.
appreciable fraction of dark matter? Good god, fail more at reading.
>
> Robert L. Oldershaw
> http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
> Discrete Scale Relativity
> Fractal Cosmology
>
> PS: I really have no desire to continue discussions with anyone who
> claims or implies that they know the answers to scientific questions
> before they are answered empirically.
means you are WRONG.
> I regard the widespread
> reliance on assumptions and Platonic models to be a form of religion,
> and I am not interested in that. These more or less untestable
> postmodern models appear to me to be more faith-based than scientific.
>
being a fringe jagoff whom nobody takes seriously.
Robert L. Oldershaw
Jan 21, 2012, 10:37:42 AM1/21/12
to
On Jan 20, 11:23 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Enjoy posting to USENET for the rest of your nonexistent career. Enjoy
> being a fringe jagoff whom nobody takes seriously.- Hide quoted text -
>
> Enjoy posting to USENET for the rest of your nonexistent career. Enjoy
----------------------------------------------------------------
And would "nobody" take the bark of a barking dog?
xxein
Jan 21, 2012, 6:57:18 PM1/21/12
to
On Jan 21, 10:37 am, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...@amherst.edu>
wrote:
xxein: See? This is where you can get things wrong. Every bark is
different. I have two dogs that occasionally bark for a reason. I
can pretty much differentiate what each is barking about and for what
reason. Believe me.
Now you want to say that every bark is for the same reason? What
reason? What do you have to offer that shows that it is not different
bark for a different reason?
These are your terms and only yours. Deal with it outside of analogy
and learn something useful.
wrote:
different. I have two dogs that occasionally bark for a reason. I
can pretty much differentiate what each is barking about and for what
reason. Believe me.
Now you want to say that every bark is for the same reason? What
reason? What do you have to offer that shows that it is not different
bark for a different reason?
These are your terms and only yours. Deal with it outside of analogy
and learn something useful.
eric gisse
Jan 22, 2012, 6:37:41 AM1/22/12
to
"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in news:770b049a-
631a-4d0f-b11...@do4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
You tell me, Robert. Have you managed to convince anyone from complaining
on USENET?
631a-4d0f-b11...@do4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
on USENET?
Robert L. Oldershaw
Jan 22, 2012, 11:09:40 AM1/22/12
to
On Jan 22, 6:37 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> You tell me, Robert.
--------------------------------------------------
On Jan 21, 9:17 am, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
<hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de> wrote:
>
> Let's see---DSR was published long before there were large-scale
> microlensing detections of compact objects. You have claimed to know
> the answer to the question of what the dark matter is before there was
> any empirical answer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Phillip, wrong again.
I have been arguing for 35 years for an alternative cosmological
paradigm for understanding the cosmos and explaining observations.
I have been careful, especially in my published papers, not to claim
absolute knowledge of anything.
My argument has always been that a discrete self-similar [fractal]
model of nature, and the inherent discrete self-similar scaling for
gravitation, should be given serious scientific consideration.
Discrete Scale Relativity makes at least 12 definitive predictions,
see:
http://independent.academia.edu/RobertLOldershaw/Papers/1276071/Predictions_of_Discrete_Scale_Relativity
.
Two of these definitive predictions have been vindicated, and the
others have promising support at this point.
So you are quite wrong in your claim that I have been hypocritical,
although I would not expect you to admit it, just as you will not
admit the well-known fact that serious professional astrophysicists
have been and will be considering primordial black holes as a dark
matter candidate. Just search arxiv.org using the term "primordial
black holes" if you can spare the time.
Discrete Fractal Cosmology
PS: Is there no one else out there in the aether besides Messrs. Gisse
and Helbig?
>
> You tell me, Robert.
--------------------------------------------------
On Jan 21, 9:17 am, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
<hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de> wrote:
>
> Let's see---DSR was published long before there were large-scale
> microlensing detections of compact objects. You have claimed to know
> the answer to the question of what the dark matter is before there was
> any empirical answer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Phillip, wrong again.
I have been arguing for 35 years for an alternative cosmological
paradigm for understanding the cosmos and explaining observations.
I have been careful, especially in my published papers, not to claim
absolute knowledge of anything.
My argument has always been that a discrete self-similar [fractal]
model of nature, and the inherent discrete self-similar scaling for
gravitation, should be given serious scientific consideration.
Discrete Scale Relativity makes at least 12 definitive predictions,
see:
http://independent.academia.edu/RobertLOldershaw/Papers/1276071/Predictions_of_Discrete_Scale_Relativity
.
Two of these definitive predictions have been vindicated, and the
others have promising support at this point.
So you are quite wrong in your claim that I have been hypocritical,
although I would not expect you to admit it, just as you will not
admit the well-known fact that serious professional astrophysicists
have been and will be considering primordial black holes as a dark
matter candidate. Just search arxiv.org using the term "primordial
black holes" if you can spare the time.
Discrete Fractal Cosmology
PS: Is there no one else out there in the aether besides Messrs. Gisse
and Helbig?
Robert L. Oldershaw
Jan 22, 2012, 11:12:19 AM1/22/12
to
On Jan 22, 6:37 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> You tell me, Robert.
--------------------------------------------------
On Jan 21, 9:17 am, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
>
> You tell me, Robert.
--------------------------------------------------
eric gisse
Jan 22, 2012, 6:35:15 PM1/22/12
to
"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in
news:6ea18852-b535-4dcc...@c6g2000vbk.googlegroups.com:
[snip crying]
It looks like you are going to whine in an unmoderated newsgroup every time
the moderated ones don't behave the way you want.
>
> PS: Is there no one else out there in the aether besides Messrs. Gisse
> and Helbig?
>
you would have remembered them. Like that fellow you asked to analyze
binary star data for your DSR "predictions", which you quickly backpedaled
on once the analysis disagreed wtih you.
Perhaps you should try something other than USENET? Oh wait, you have and
failed. Guess you are fucked.
Robert L. Oldershaw
Jan 22, 2012, 8:59:15 PM1/22/12
to
There is a new paper at AsAp this week presenting the latest in
precision determinations of the total masses of eclipsing binary
stars.
Authors are Torres [remember that name?] et al
Title is "Absolute dimensions of eclipsing binaries. XXIX....SX
CMa...and HW CMa."
http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.3974
1. Total mass of SX CMa = (30)(0.145 solar mass) at the 99.84% level.
2. Total mass of HW CMa = (24)(0.145 solar mass) at the 99.37% level.
I predict, definitively, that as the precision in the total masses of
these systems becomes better, then the closer the total mass values
will come to discrete, quantized multiples of 0.145 solar masses.
I do not claim that this prediction is proven yet.
However, I do think that enough empirical evidence has accumulated in
the last 6 months to warrant serious scientific consideration of this
hypothesis of quantized stellar masses. If the hypothesis is true,
then its potential importance is self-evident.
Fractal Cosmology
precision determinations of the total masses of eclipsing binary
stars.
Authors are Torres [remember that name?] et al
Title is "Absolute dimensions of eclipsing binaries. XXIX....SX
CMa...and HW CMa."
http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.3974
1. Total mass of SX CMa = (30)(0.145 solar mass) at the 99.84% level.
2. Total mass of HW CMa = (24)(0.145 solar mass) at the 99.37% level.
I predict, definitively, that as the precision in the total masses of
these systems becomes better, then the closer the total mass values
will come to discrete, quantized multiples of 0.145 solar masses.
I do not claim that this prediction is proven yet.
However, I do think that enough empirical evidence has accumulated in
the last 6 months to warrant serious scientific consideration of this
hypothesis of quantized stellar masses. If the hypothesis is true,
then its potential importance is self-evident.
Fractal Cosmology
Jacko
Jan 22, 2012, 10:51:50 PM1/22/12
to
Umm maybe dark matter remains dark becuse it does not iteract with EM. So no attomic charge quanta states can maintain electron/proton orbits. Maybe when a method could be found to project the mass gravity effect diffusly about the objects charge EM solidity effect, then the net density would create lift in a similar way to a goodyear blimp.
Not that I'm calling you a blimp :D as I think the missing fractional dimension when quantized to a whole number of dimensions does have merit in statistics of matter density.
Cheers Jacko
Not that I'm calling you a blimp :D as I think the missing fractional dimension when quantized to a whole number of dimensions does have merit in statistics of matter density.
Cheers Jacko
Robert L. Oldershaw
Jan 23, 2012, 11:53:37 AM1/23/12
to
There was a new paper at AsAp last week presenting the latest in
Title is "Absolute dimensions of eclipsing binaries. XXIX....SX
CMa...and HW CMa."
http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.3974
1. Total mass of SX CMa = (30)(0.145 solar mass) at the 99.84% level.
Details: 2.239 +/- 0.014 solar mass and 2.104 +/- 0.018 solar mass =
4.343 solar mass.
Discrete Scale Relativity's = 4.35 solar mass.
2. Total mass of HW CMa = (24)(0.145 solar mass) at the 99.37% level.
Details: 1.721 +/- 0.011 solar mass + 1.781 +/- 0.012 solar mass =
3.502 solar mass.
Discrete Scale Relativity's prediction = 3.48 solar mass.
I predict, definitively, that as the precision in the total masses of
these systems becomes better, then the closer the total mass values
will come to discrete, quantized multiples of 0.145 solar masses.
I do not claim that this prediction is proven yet.
However, I do think that enough empirical evidence has accumulated in
the last 6 months to warrant serious scientific consideration of this
hypothesis of quantized stellar masses, which can and does make
definitive predictions. If the hypothesis is true, then its potential
precision determinations of the total masses of eclipsing binary
stars.
Authors are Torres [remember that name?] et al.
stars.
Title is "Absolute dimensions of eclipsing binaries. XXIX....SX
CMa...and HW CMa."
http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.3974
1. Total mass of SX CMa = (30)(0.145 solar mass) at the 99.84% level.
4.343 solar mass.
Discrete Scale Relativity's = 4.35 solar mass.
2. Total mass of HW CMa = (24)(0.145 solar mass) at the 99.37% level.
3.502 solar mass.
Discrete Scale Relativity's prediction = 3.48 solar mass.
I predict, definitively, that as the precision in the total masses of
these systems becomes better, then the closer the total mass values
will come to discrete, quantized multiples of 0.145 solar masses.
I do not claim that this prediction is proven yet.
However, I do think that enough empirical evidence has accumulated in
the last 6 months to warrant serious scientific consideration of this
definitive predictions. If the hypothesis is true, then its potential
eric gisse
Jan 23, 2012, 8:12:24 PM1/23/12
to
"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in news:0a970fdc-
0307-4047-83f...@o9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
> There was a new paper at AsAp last week presenting the latest in
> precision determinations of the total masses of eclipsing binary
> stars.
>
>
> Authors are Torres [remember that name?] et al.
>
>
> Title is "Absolute dimensions of eclipsing binaries. XXIX....SX
> CMa...and HW CMa."
>
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.3974
>
>
> 1. Total mass of SX CMa = (30)(0.145 solar mass) at the 99.84% level.
>
> Details: 2.239 +/- 0.014 solar mass and 2.104 +/- 0.018 solar mass =
> 4.343 solar mass.
>
> Discrete Scale Relativity's = 4.35 solar mass.
What are the error bars?
>
>
> 2. Total mass of HW CMa = (24)(0.145 solar mass) at the 99.37% level.
>
> Details: 1.721 +/- 0.011 solar mass + 1.781 +/- 0.012 solar mass =
> 3.502 solar mass.
>
> Discrete Scale Relativity's prediction = 3.48 solar mass.
What are the error bars?
[...]
0307-4047-83f...@o9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
> There was a new paper at AsAp last week presenting the latest in
> precision determinations of the total masses of eclipsing binary
> stars.
>
>
> Authors are Torres [remember that name?] et al.
>
>
> Title is "Absolute dimensions of eclipsing binaries. XXIX....SX
> CMa...and HW CMa."
>
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.3974
>
>
> 1. Total mass of SX CMa = (30)(0.145 solar mass) at the 99.84% level.
>
> Details: 2.239 +/- 0.014 solar mass and 2.104 +/- 0.018 solar mass =
> 4.343 solar mass.
>
> Discrete Scale Relativity's = 4.35 solar mass.
>
>
> 2. Total mass of HW CMa = (24)(0.145 solar mass) at the 99.37% level.
>
> Details: 1.721 +/- 0.011 solar mass + 1.781 +/- 0.012 solar mass =
> 3.502 solar mass.
>
> Discrete Scale Relativity's prediction = 3.48 solar mass.
[...]
Robert L. Oldershaw
Jan 23, 2012, 8:43:39 PM1/23/12
to
On Jan 23, 8:12 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Details: 2.239 +/- 0.014 solar mass and 2.104 +/- 0.018 solar mass =
> > 4.343 solar mass.
>
> > Discrete Scale Relativity's = 4.35 solar mass.
>
> What are the error bars?
>
> > 2. Total mass of HW CMa = (24)(0.145 solar mass) at the 99.37% level.
>
> > Details: 1.721 +/- 0.011 solar mass + 1.781 +/- 0.012 solar mass =
> > 3.502 solar mass.
>
> > Discrete Scale Relativity's prediction = 3.48 solar mass.
>
> What are the error bars?
>
---------------------------------------
>
> > Details: 2.239 +/- 0.014 solar mass and 2.104 +/- 0.018 solar mass =
> > 4.343 solar mass.
>
> > Discrete Scale Relativity's = 4.35 solar mass.
>
> What are the error bars?
>
> > 2. Total mass of HW CMa = (24)(0.145 solar mass) at the 99.37% level.
>
> > Details: 1.721 +/- 0.011 solar mass + 1.781 +/- 0.012 solar mass =
> > 3.502 solar mass.
>
> > Discrete Scale Relativity's prediction = 3.48 solar mass.
>
> What are the error bars?
>
Discrete Scale Relativity can predict or retrodict the masses of
elementary particle masses, atomic masses, and stellar scale masses at
roughly the the 1-2% level.
The reason for this level of uncertainty is the fact that the critical
discrete self-similar scaling laws of DSR are derived empirically, and
there is inherent uncertainty in the empirical data upon which the
scale transformation laws are based.
Even with this uncertainty in the predictions, they can be tested
definitively if the accuracy of the data, such as the total masses of
bound stellar systems like eclipsing binaries [+ any planets], are
sufficiently good.
DSR can also make and pass unique qualitative predictions, like its
successful predictions of pulsar-planets and a huge population of
unbound planetary-mass objects.
Discrete Fractal Cosmology
eric gisse
Jan 23, 2012, 8:53:11 PM1/23/12
to
"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in news:cf4329e4-
dacf-4f10-b08...@o13g2000vbf.googlegroups.com:
> There is a new paper at AsAp this week presenting the latest in
> precision determinations of the total masses of eclipsing binary
> stars.
>
>
> Authors are Torres [remember that name?] et al
I remember it well. They published a large sample of eclipsing binaries
whose masses I tested for binning and found that there was no chance of
your binning being correct. Then you begged and whined for someone else to
repeat my analysis, and that was done, and you silently dropped the
subject.
>
>
> Title is "Absolute dimensions of eclipsing binaries. XXIX....SX
> CMa...and HW CMa."
>
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.3974
>
>
> 1. Total mass of SX CMa = (30)(0.145 solar mass) at the 99.84% level.
SW CMa, you typoed it twice. Time for new glasses, Robert?
It appears you still don't know what the hell a standard deviation is. No
wonder nobody pays attention to your ramblings anymore. No wonder you can't
get a paper published. No wonder you are scraping the bottom of the barrel
in unmoderated forums because you can't even get your shit past basic
moderation.
But lets look at your latest "examples".
Page 6, table 4.
The SW CMa system:
Primary: 2.239 +/- 0.014 M_sun
Secondary: 2.104 +/- 0.018 M_sun
2.239 / 0.145 = 15.44
16*0.145 = 2.32 M_sun
2.32 - 2.239 = 0.081 M_sun
0.081 / 0.014 = 5.8 standard deviations.
My, that's not even close to being correct. Off by nearly 6 standard
deviations on the primary.
2.104 / 0.145 = 14.51
15*0.145 = 2.175 M_sun
2.175 - 2.104 = 0.071 M_sun
0.071 / 0.018 = 3.94
Not even close here either. Off by 4 standard deviations.
>
>
> 2. Total mass of HW CMa = (24)(0.145 solar mass) at the 99.37% level.
>
Off by 1.7 standard deviations on the primary, 3.4 on the secondary.
Wrong again.
>
> I predict, definitively, that as the precision in the total masses of
> these systems becomes better, then the closer the total mass values
> will come to discrete, quantized multiples of 0.145 solar masses.
The precision on mass determinations is a few percent or better depending
on the circumstance. More than enough to determine the validity of your
statement.
In fact, you've claimed before that 5% would be sufficient. Now 2% isn't
sufficient enough, even though 2% of 1.5 M_sun = 0.03 M_sun, nearly 5x
smaller than the effect you are trying to measure.
If the point you are trying to make is that you are so incompetent that you
can't find a signal that is five times larger than the measurement noise
you are trying to measure, then for once I will agree with you.
>
>
> I do not claim that this prediction is proven yet.
That's because it has, in fact, been proven false. Repeatedly. You just
added
>
>
> However, I do think that enough empirical evidence has accumulated in
> the last 6 months to warrant serious scientific consideration of this
> hypothesis of quantized stellar masses. If the hypothesis is true,
> then its potential importance is self-evident.
That empirical evidence, Robert? Every time you post a few examples, your
hypothesis is excluded by several standard deviations. You might not know
what that means but scientists do, which is why nobody pays attention to
you anymore.
Now you can bitch and scream all you want but you've lost. You being too
stupid to know it just makes me laugh.
dacf-4f10-b08...@o13g2000vbf.googlegroups.com:
> There is a new paper at AsAp this week presenting the latest in
> precision determinations of the total masses of eclipsing binary
> stars.
>
>
> Authors are Torres [remember that name?] et al
whose masses I tested for binning and found that there was no chance of
your binning being correct. Then you begged and whined for someone else to
repeat my analysis, and that was done, and you silently dropped the
subject.
>
>
> Title is "Absolute dimensions of eclipsing binaries. XXIX....SX
> CMa...and HW CMa."
>
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.3974
>
>
> 1. Total mass of SX CMa = (30)(0.145 solar mass) at the 99.84% level.
It appears you still don't know what the hell a standard deviation is. No
wonder nobody pays attention to your ramblings anymore. No wonder you can't
get a paper published. No wonder you are scraping the bottom of the barrel
in unmoderated forums because you can't even get your shit past basic
moderation.
But lets look at your latest "examples".
Page 6, table 4.
The SW CMa system:
Primary: 2.239 +/- 0.014 M_sun
Secondary: 2.104 +/- 0.018 M_sun
2.239 / 0.145 = 15.44
16*0.145 = 2.32 M_sun
2.32 - 2.239 = 0.081 M_sun
0.081 / 0.014 = 5.8 standard deviations.
My, that's not even close to being correct. Off by nearly 6 standard
deviations on the primary.
2.104 / 0.145 = 14.51
15*0.145 = 2.175 M_sun
2.175 - 2.104 = 0.071 M_sun
0.071 / 0.018 = 3.94
Not even close here either. Off by 4 standard deviations.
>
>
> 2. Total mass of HW CMa = (24)(0.145 solar mass) at the 99.37% level.
>
Wrong again.
>
> I predict, definitively, that as the precision in the total masses of
> these systems becomes better, then the closer the total mass values
> will come to discrete, quantized multiples of 0.145 solar masses.
on the circumstance. More than enough to determine the validity of your
statement.
In fact, you've claimed before that 5% would be sufficient. Now 2% isn't
sufficient enough, even though 2% of 1.5 M_sun = 0.03 M_sun, nearly 5x
smaller than the effect you are trying to measure.
If the point you are trying to make is that you are so incompetent that you
can't find a signal that is five times larger than the measurement noise
you are trying to measure, then for once I will agree with you.
>
>
> I do not claim that this prediction is proven yet.
added
>
>
> However, I do think that enough empirical evidence has accumulated in
> the last 6 months to warrant serious scientific consideration of this
> hypothesis of quantized stellar masses. If the hypothesis is true,
> then its potential importance is self-evident.
hypothesis is excluded by several standard deviations. You might not know
what that means but scientists do, which is why nobody pays attention to
you anymore.
Now you can bitch and scream all you want but you've lost. You being too
stupid to know it just makes me laugh.
Robert L. Oldershaw
Jan 24, 2012, 11:08:30 AM1/24/12
to rlold...@amherst.edu
On Jan 23, 8:43 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw"
Woofy "the barking dog" Gisse is misleading people again.
He knows full well that the DSR predictions regarding quantized
stellar masses involve the TOTAL MASSES of bound stellar systems like
eclipsing binaries.
This important fact was repeated many times during the
sci.astro.research discussions on this topic, and again it was
expressly emphasized here.
Woofy is not interested in intellectual accuracy if it conflicts with
his very limited worldview. Most recently he misleadingly posts a
statistical analysis of INDIVIDUAL members of the stellar systems, and
claims falsification of the prediction.
Perhaps he thinks most of you are too clueless to see his biased and
misleading tricks.
I would urge you to be very skeptical of any and all of Woofy's
barking dog pronouncements.
He thinks barking loudly constitutes authority and sound reasoning.
>
> DSR can also make and pass unique qualitative predictions,
> like its
> successful predictions of pulsar-planets and a huge population of
> unbound planetary-mass objects.
>
----------------------------------------------
> DSR can also make and pass unique qualitative predictions,
> like its
> successful predictions of pulsar-planets and a huge population of
> unbound planetary-mass objects.
>
Woofy "the barking dog" Gisse is misleading people again.
He knows full well that the DSR predictions regarding quantized
stellar masses involve the TOTAL MASSES of bound stellar systems like
eclipsing binaries.
This important fact was repeated many times during the
sci.astro.research discussions on this topic, and again it was
expressly emphasized here.
Woofy is not interested in intellectual accuracy if it conflicts with
his very limited worldview. Most recently he misleadingly posts a
statistical analysis of INDIVIDUAL members of the stellar systems, and
claims falsification of the prediction.
Perhaps he thinks most of you are too clueless to see his biased and
misleading tricks.
I would urge you to be very skeptical of any and all of Woofy's
barking dog pronouncements.
He thinks barking loudly constitutes authority and sound reasoning.
Androcles
Jan 24, 2012, 12:35:59 PM1/24/12
to
"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in message
news:87b8cb24-a4d1-4c31...@dp8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
Woofy Gisse is famous for barking up the right tree at the wrong squirrel.
Robert L. Oldershaw
Jan 24, 2012, 9:29:25 PM1/24/12
to
On Jan 24, 12:35 pm, "Androcles" <H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Jan.2012> wrote:
> =========================================
> Woofy Gisse is famous for barking up the right tree at the wrong squirrel.
---------------------------------------------------
> =========================================
> Woofy Gisse is famous for barking up the right tree at the wrong squirrel.
Some might find it interesting to compare:
The Old Paradigm (brought to you by the Church of Platonic Dogma, of
which Woofy Gisse is a low-level grunt, and Phil Helbig is a lapsed
altar boy)
and
The New Paradigm (based on fractals and nonlinear dynamical systems).
http://independent.academia.edu/RobertLOldershaw/Papers/1236795/Towards_A_New_Paradigm
eric gisse
Jan 25, 2012, 3:55:18 AM1/25/12
to
"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in
news:5e495fd5-d12d-4af1...@c20g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
> On Jan 24, 12:35 pm, "Androcles" <H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Jan.2012> wrote:
>
>> ========================
> at the wrong squirrel .
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> Some might find it interesting to compare:
>
> The Old Paradigm (brought to you by the Church of Platonic Dogma, of
> which Woofy Gisse is a low-level grunt, and Phil Helbig is a lapsed
> altar boy)
>
Do you actually read what you write, look at it, and say "yes, this is how
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> Some might find it interesting to compare:
>
> The Old Paradigm (brought to you by the Church of Platonic Dogma, of
> which Woofy Gisse is a low-level grunt, and Phil Helbig is a lapsed
> altar boy)
>
I want to represent myself" ?
eric gisse
Jan 25, 2012, 3:58:00 AM1/25/12
to
"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in news:87b8cb24-
a4d1-4c31-ba2...@dp8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
> On Jan 23, 8:43 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw"
>>
>> DSR can also make and pass unique qualitative predictions,
>> like its
>> successful predictions of pulsar-planets and a huge population of
>> unbound planetary-mass objects.
>>
> ----------------------------------------------
>
> Woofy "the barking dog" Gisse is misleading people again.
Well Robert, resorting to name calling is one way to deal with me. I guess
the option where you grow a sack isn't in the cards?
>
> He knows full well that the DSR predictions regarding quantized
> stellar masses involve the TOTAL MASSES of bound stellar systems like
> eclipsing binaries.
Actually you've told me rather explicitly that both the sum of the system
has to be quantized, along with the individual components which makes sense
because the components of an atom are quantized just like the atom itself.
Since both of these cases have been tested in the past and found to be
false, cherry picking data you like will not help you here.
Note how only one of the eclipsing binary systems agrees with you, and the
other is a solid 1.4 standard deviation falsification. And note how none of
the individaul components agree with you.
>
> This important fact was repeated many times during the
> sci.astro.research discussions on this topic, and again it was
> expressly emphasized here.
Of course then the analysis disagreed, and it did every time, you danced
and changed the subject until eventually fleeing.
>
> Woofy is not interested in intellectual accuracy if it conflicts with
> his very limited worldview. Most recently he misleadingly posts a
> statistical analysis of INDIVIDUAL members of the stellar systems, and
> claims falsification of the prediction.
>
> Perhaps he thinks most of you are too clueless to see his biased and
> misleading tricks.
>
> I would urge you to be very skeptical of any and all of Woofy's
> barking dog pronouncements.
>
> He thinks barking loudly constitutes authority and sound reasoning.
>
>
> Robert L. Oldershaw
> http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
> Discrete Scale Relativity
> Discrete Fractal Cosmology
Who are you talking to, Robert? There's no audience which takes you
seriously. You are a clown, dancing for my amusement.
a4d1-4c31-ba2...@dp8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
> On Jan 23, 8:43 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw"
>>
>> DSR can also make and pass unique qualitative predictions,
>> like its
>> successful predictions of pulsar-planets and a huge population of
>> unbound planetary-mass objects.
>>
> ----------------------------------------------
>
> Woofy "the barking dog" Gisse is misleading people again.
the option where you grow a sack isn't in the cards?
>
> He knows full well that the DSR predictions regarding quantized
> stellar masses involve the TOTAL MASSES of bound stellar systems like
> eclipsing binaries.
has to be quantized, along with the individual components which makes sense
because the components of an atom are quantized just like the atom itself.
Since both of these cases have been tested in the past and found to be
false, cherry picking data you like will not help you here.
Note how only one of the eclipsing binary systems agrees with you, and the
other is a solid 1.4 standard deviation falsification. And note how none of
the individaul components agree with you.
>
> This important fact was repeated many times during the
> sci.astro.research discussions on this topic, and again it was
> expressly emphasized here.
and changed the subject until eventually fleeing.
>
> Woofy is not interested in intellectual accuracy if it conflicts with
> his very limited worldview. Most recently he misleadingly posts a
> statistical analysis of INDIVIDUAL members of the stellar systems, and
> claims falsification of the prediction.
>
> Perhaps he thinks most of you are too clueless to see his biased and
> misleading tricks.
>
> I would urge you to be very skeptical of any and all of Woofy's
> barking dog pronouncements.
>
> He thinks barking loudly constitutes authority and sound reasoning.
>
>
> Robert L. Oldershaw
> http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
> Discrete Scale Relativity
> Discrete Fractal Cosmology
seriously. You are a clown, dancing for my amusement.
Androcles
Jan 25, 2012, 4:05:57 AM1/25/12
to
news:5e495fd5-d12d-4af1...@c20g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
=====================================
Woofy Oldershaw is barking up the wrong tree at the wrong butterfly.
If sunlight and raindrops and refraction explain a rainbow how
does science explain the pot of gold at the end of one?
Woofy Oldershaw is barking up the wrong tree at the wrong butterfly.
If sunlight and raindrops and refraction explain a rainbow how
does science explain the pot of gold at the end of one?
Robert L. Oldershaw
Jan 25, 2012, 11:25:49 AM1/25/12
to
On Jan 25, 3:58 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Who are you talking to, Robert? There's no audience
> which takes you seriously. You are a clown,
> dancing for my amusement.
-------------------------------------------
>
> Who are you talking to, Robert? There's no audience
> which takes you seriously. You are a clown,
> dancing for my amusement.
Did you anticipate pulsar-planets?
Did you anticipate Sumi et al's discovery of 0.2 trillion planetary-
mass objects?
Did you anticipate the recent arguments for 2 trillion planetary-mass
"nomads"?
Have you ever had an original idea?
Have you ever wondered why you are encouraged to defend the Chucrh of
Platonic Dogma, but not allowed to be a member? [hint: they want
dogma, not dogs]
Do you ever question your sycophantic role within the tiny world of
the newsgroups?
Do you feel any sense of hypocrisy when you call others "clowns"?
A few questions for you, and the lurkers, to ponder.
eric gisse
Jan 25, 2012, 6:01:45 PM1/25/12
to
"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in news:f7e13a70-
76c1-422f-a31...@do4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
> On Jan 25, 3:58 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Who are you talking to, Robert? There's no audience
>> which takes you seriously. You are a clown,
>> dancing for my amusement.
> -------------------------------------------
>
> Did you anticipate pulsar-planets?
I was too busy learning to play well with others in that time frame.
That project is on-going.
>
> Did you anticipate Sumi et al's discovery of 0.2 trillion planetary-
> mass objects?
No, and neither did you.
You didn't get the masses, distribution, or number correct.
>
> Did you anticipate the recent arguments for 2 trillion planetary-mass
> "nomads"?
Note the arguments have not been published in a peer reviewed journal,
are contradicted by microlensing observations, and has absolutely no
actual observational support.
So no, I haven't.
>
> Have you ever had an original idea?
Several. The thing is, I've done the research and tend to have found that
they are some combination of the following:
* Already done sometime between 5 and 40 years ago.
* Is currently an active subject of research.
* The answer is known but not as useful as I hoped.
* Wrong.
What I haven't had is an original idea that I pursue for 30 years, to the
point of obsession, where all opposing evidence is ignored.
>
> Have you ever wondered why you are encouraged to defend the Chucrh of
> Platonic Dogma, but not allowed to be a member? [hint: they want
> dogma, not dogs]
>
> Do you ever question your sycophantic role within the tiny world of
> the newsgroups?
Did you look at what you wrote and think "yeah, I mean to sound like a
lunatic" ?
>
> Do you feel any sense of hypocrisy when you call others "clowns"?
So it isn't that you disagree when I call you a clown, its' just that you
think I'm one too. Fair enough.
>
> A few questions for you, and the lurkers, to ponder.
Have you found it at all odd that nobody ever rises to your defense?
76c1-422f-a31...@do4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
> On Jan 25, 3:58 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Who are you talking to, Robert? There's no audience
>> which takes you seriously. You are a clown,
>> dancing for my amusement.
> -------------------------------------------
>
> Did you anticipate pulsar-planets?
That project is on-going.
>
> Did you anticipate Sumi et al's discovery of 0.2 trillion planetary-
> mass objects?
You didn't get the masses, distribution, or number correct.
>
> Did you anticipate the recent arguments for 2 trillion planetary-mass
> "nomads"?
are contradicted by microlensing observations, and has absolutely no
actual observational support.
So no, I haven't.
>
> Have you ever had an original idea?
they are some combination of the following:
* Already done sometime between 5 and 40 years ago.
* Is currently an active subject of research.
* The answer is known but not as useful as I hoped.
* Wrong.
What I haven't had is an original idea that I pursue for 30 years, to the
point of obsession, where all opposing evidence is ignored.
>
> Have you ever wondered why you are encouraged to defend the Chucrh of
> Platonic Dogma, but not allowed to be a member? [hint: they want
> dogma, not dogs]
>
> Do you ever question your sycophantic role within the tiny world of
> the newsgroups?
lunatic" ?
>
> Do you feel any sense of hypocrisy when you call others "clowns"?
think I'm one too. Fair enough.
>
> A few questions for you, and the lurkers, to ponder.
Robert L. Oldershaw
Jan 26, 2012, 10:46:35 PM1/26/12
to
On Jan 25, 6:01 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Have you ever had an original idea?
>
> Several. The thing is, I've done the research and tend to have found that
> they are some combination of the following:
>
> * Already done sometime between 5 and 40 years ago.
> * Is currently an active subject of research.
> * The answer is known but not as useful as I hoped.
> * Wrong.
-------------------------------------------------
>
> > Have you ever had an original idea?
>
> Several. The thing is, I've done the research and tend to have found that
> they are some combination of the following:
>
> * Already done sometime between 5 and 40 years ago.
> * Is currently an active subject of research.
> * The answer is known but not as useful as I hoped.
> * Wrong.
Well, don't give up.
Although they say you can't teach an old dog new tricks, you might
turn out to be the exception to the rule.
RLO
Discrete Scale Relativity
PS: How about those 11 new Kepler planetary systems with 26 planets,
and most in 2:1 or 3:2 resonances? Nice!
eric gisse
Jan 27, 2012, 6:57:34 AM1/27/12
to
"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in
news:98631e01-2dc3-4887...@s7g2000vby.googlegroups.com:
Robert L. Oldershaw
Jan 27, 2012, 11:00:18 AM1/27/12
to
On Jan 27, 6:57 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > PS: How about those 11 new Kepler planetary systems
> > with 26 planets,and most in 2:1 or 3:2 resonances?
>
> > PS: How about those 11 new Kepler planetary systems
> > Nice!
>
> Don't take credit for things you have not predicted.
--------------------------------------------------
>
> Don't take credit for things you have not predicted.
You make yet another unwarranted assumption Woofy.
Do your masters not give you enough nutrition?
RLO
Discrete Fractal Cosmology
eric gisse
Jan 27, 2012, 5:51:06 PM1/27/12
to
"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in news:c7a9a67c-
da54-46a2-9a5...@w4g2000vbc.googlegroups.com:
> On Jan 27, 6:57 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > PS: How about those 11 new Kepler planetary systems
>> > with 26 planets,and most in 2:1 or 3:2 resonances?
>> > Nice!
>>
>> Don't take credit for things you have not predicted.
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> You make yet another unwarranted assumption Woofy.
Well, if you had predicted it you would have shown the published paper
that predicted that system.
Since you don't even have a blog post, I'll assume you have what you
always have: hot air.
>
> Do your masters not give you enough nutrition?
I wonder what makes you think I am anything but a rouge.
>
> RLO
> Discrete Fractal Cosmology
da54-46a2-9a5...@w4g2000vbc.googlegroups.com:
> On Jan 27, 6:57 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > PS: How about those 11 new Kepler planetary systems
>> > with 26 planets,and most in 2:1 or 3:2 resonances?
>> > Nice!
>>
>> Don't take credit for things you have not predicted.
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> You make yet another unwarranted assumption Woofy.
that predicted that system.
Since you don't even have a blog post, I'll assume you have what you
always have: hot air.
>
> Do your masters not give you enough nutrition?
>
> RLO
> Discrete Fractal Cosmology
Robert L. Oldershaw
Jan 27, 2012, 7:17:08 PM1/27/12
to
On Jan 27, 5:51 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I wonder what makes you think I am anything but a rouge.
---------------------------------------------
>
> I wonder what makes you think I am anything but a rouge.
Did you mean rogue?
Or stooge?
I think of you as a poser.
eric gisse
Jan 28, 2012, 6:52:49 AM1/28/12
to
"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in news:b22c9a06-
ba26-4185-abe...@z31g2000vbt.googlegroups.com:
See? No prdiction, but plenty of more hot air. Standard loldershaw.
ba26-4185-abe...@z31g2000vbt.googlegroups.com:
Robert L. Oldershaw
Jan 28, 2012, 10:32:41 AM1/28/12
to rlold...@amherst.edu
On Jan 28, 6:52 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> See? No prdiction, but plenty of more hot air. Standard loldershaw.
---------------------------------------------------
>
> See? No prdiction, but plenty of more hot air. Standard loldershaw.
What I see is a barking doggie who cannot spell, or think clearly.
RLO
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
eric gisse
Jan 28, 2012, 6:03:12 PM1/28/12
to
"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in news:577aa39e-
2578-492d-a87...@z31g2000vbt.googlegroups.com:
Vm14YVlXRnJNVmhTV0dScFVsZG9UMVl3V25kalZteHpWMnhrYVdKSGVGZFhXSEJYVkd4S1dHVkZ
iRlppVkZaRVdWY3hSMVpXVm5ST1JEQTk=
2578-492d-a87...@z31g2000vbt.googlegroups.com:
iRlppVkZaRVdWY3hSMVpXVm5ST1JEQTk=
Robert L. Oldershaw
Jan 28, 2012, 10:53:33 PM1/28/12
to
On Jan 28, 6:03 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...@amherst.edu> wrote in news:577aa39e-
> 2578-492d-a873-e87222f56...@z31g2000vbt.googlegroups.com:
That's what I like - a mutt with a sense of humor.
> "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...@amherst.edu> wrote in news:577aa39e-
> 2578-492d-a873-e87222f56...@z31g2000vbt.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Jan 28, 6:52 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> See? No prdiction, but plenty of more hot air. Standard loldershaw.
> > ---------------------------------------------------
>
> > What I see is a barking doggie who cannot spell, or think clearly.
>
> > RLO
> >http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
>
> Vm14YVlXRnJNVmhTV0dScFVsZG9UMVl3V25kalZteHpWMnhrYVdKSGVGZFhXSEJYVkd4S1dHVkZ
> iRlppVkZaRVdWY3hSMVpXVm5ST1JEQTk=
-----------------------------------------------
> > On Jan 28, 6:52 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> See? No prdiction, but plenty of more hot air. Standard loldershaw.
> > ---------------------------------------------------
>
> > What I see is a barking doggie who cannot spell, or think clearly.
>
> > RLO
> >http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
>
> Vm14YVlXRnJNVmhTV0dScFVsZG9UMVl3V25kalZteHpWMnhrYVdKSGVGZFhXSEJYVkd4S1dHVkZ
> iRlppVkZaRVdWY3hSMVpXVm5ST1JEQTk=
That's what I like - a mutt with a sense of humor.
0 new messages