I can include mass because:

1. The graph still shows a clear trend.

2. Even if measurement techniques are wrong concerning younger stars, they are consistently wrong. Inaccuracy with extreme consistency is still good with regards to data.



This is by far the most important thing I learned in statistics research. The public generally believes if something is inaccurate that it is wrong, and then that's it. There is no information to learn. That is not the case though. If there is highly consistent data then either

A. the assumptions are wrong concerning what is considered accurate or

B. the methodology is flawed, but performed with skill


This is why establishment dogmatists ignore. They believe that my information is inaccurate, but I think it is THEIR information that is inaccurate, because their assumptions are wrong regardless if they preform their flawed methodology with extreme skill, which is classifying all stars according to their spectral properties, even though most stars no longer have strong spectral properties.

Edit: A further note, the inconsistent and inaccurate data could be the stars that have radii in the hundreds of sun radii. Those I ignored because they are probably inconsistent and inaccurate.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 16-Apr-18 12:30 by jeffreyw.