Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Vindication of Definitive M-dwarf/Planet Prediction
10 views
Skip to first unread message
Robert L. Oldershaw
Mar 30, 2012, 3:47:21 AM3/30/12
to
In the preprint of "The HARPS search ... XXXI. The M-dwarf sample" by
Bonfils et al,
[ http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.5019 ] ,
Figure 1 and comments in section 8 clearly indicate an anomalously low
abundance of planets for M-dwarfs with masses below 0.25 solar mass.
The authors state: 的t is striking that all planet-host stars are
found in the brightest and more massive halves of the two [M-dwarf]
distributions.
I actually predicted this phenomenon in 2001, and updated my paper
with initial supporting data in 2008.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0102285
Discrete Scale Relativity definitively predicted that there would be
an abnormally low abundance of planets for M-dwarfs with masses below
0.25 solar mass. If DSR is correct, then the anomaly is not primarily
due to any selection effect, but is an actual physical phenomenon with
a definite physical explanation.
Discrete Scale Relativity might seem a bit unorthodox at first
reading, but it has already successfully predicted pulsar-planet
systems before they were discovered in the 1990s, and predicted
trillions of unbound planetary-mass "nomad" objects over two decades
before their discovery [Sumi et al, Nature, 2011].
Robert L. Oldershaw
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity
Fractal Cosmology
Bonfils et al,
[ http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.5019 ] ,
Figure 1 and comments in section 8 clearly indicate an anomalously low
abundance of planets for M-dwarfs with masses below 0.25 solar mass.
The authors state: 的t is striking that all planet-host stars are
found in the brightest and more massive halves of the two [M-dwarf]
distributions.
I actually predicted this phenomenon in 2001, and updated my paper
with initial supporting data in 2008.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0102285
Discrete Scale Relativity definitively predicted that there would be
an abnormally low abundance of planets for M-dwarfs with masses below
0.25 solar mass. If DSR is correct, then the anomaly is not primarily
due to any selection effect, but is an actual physical phenomenon with
a definite physical explanation.
Discrete Scale Relativity might seem a bit unorthodox at first
reading, but it has already successfully predicted pulsar-planet
systems before they were discovered in the 1990s, and predicted
trillions of unbound planetary-mass "nomad" objects over two decades
before their discovery [Sumi et al, Nature, 2011].
Robert L. Oldershaw
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity
Fractal Cosmology
eric gisse
Apr 1, 2012, 3:22:39 AM4/1/12
to
"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in news:mt2.0-4171-
13330...@hydra.herts.ac.uk:
> Discrete Scale Relativity definitively predicted [...]
The last time I checked there were a rather significant amount of equally
"definitive predictions" that have been falsified rather definitively. Eg,
everything you have ever said about dark matter. I've written about this at
length as have others but you have yet to respond.
Besides, your paper ( http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0102285 ) does not
actually predict what is observed. I find it really hard to elaborate
because your short little 7 page paper doesn't actually derive anything or
firmly establish predictions given the normal constraint of saying whatever
you want with the justification of equations with arbitrary paremeters.
Eg, all your "scaling constants". How are those empircally derived when all
your definitive predictions have been falsified?
13330...@hydra.herts.ac.uk:
> Discrete Scale Relativity definitively predicted [...]
The last time I checked there were a rather significant amount of equally
"definitive predictions" that have been falsified rather definitively. Eg,
everything you have ever said about dark matter. I've written about this at
length as have others but you have yet to respond.
Besides, your paper ( http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0102285 ) does not
actually predict what is observed. I find it really hard to elaborate
because your short little 7 page paper doesn't actually derive anything or
firmly establish predictions given the normal constraint of saying whatever
you want with the justification of equations with arbitrary paremeters.
Eg, all your "scaling constants". How are those empircally derived when all
your definitive predictions have been falsified?
0 new messages