Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Helmut A. Abt: 'Many exoplanet systems probably captured'
50 views
Skip to first unread message
Robert L. Oldershaw
Apr 10, 2012, 2:53:00 AM4/10/12
to
At the 220th Meeting of the AAS in Anchorage, 10-14 June, Helmut A.
Abt will give an oral presentation on whether exoplanet systems
typically form in the Laplacian manner (disks), or in "separate
condensations" followed by capture.
Reference: Bulletin of the AAS 44(4), 2012; session 04; talk # 121.02
Quoting from Abt's abstract:
"In the case of separate condensations, many planetary masses will be
captured to become companions of stars....[Given the orbital elements
of observed exoplanets] We conclude that most of the exoplanets
dscovered to date were produced as separate condensations like stars
and not in disks."
Well, finally someone with unquestionable credibility has pointed out
what Discrete Scale Relativity and anyone not encumbered by dubious
old assumptions has realized long ago.
Nature has a nice way of separating diamonds from paste fakes: hit
them with observations.
RLO
Discrete Scale Relativity
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Discrete Fractal Cosmology
Abt will give an oral presentation on whether exoplanet systems
typically form in the Laplacian manner (disks), or in "separate
condensations" followed by capture.
Reference: Bulletin of the AAS 44(4), 2012; session 04; talk # 121.02
Quoting from Abt's abstract:
"In the case of separate condensations, many planetary masses will be
captured to become companions of stars....[Given the orbital elements
of observed exoplanets] We conclude that most of the exoplanets
dscovered to date were produced as separate condensations like stars
and not in disks."
Well, finally someone with unquestionable credibility has pointed out
what Discrete Scale Relativity and anyone not encumbered by dubious
old assumptions has realized long ago.
Nature has a nice way of separating diamonds from paste fakes: hit
them with observations.
RLO
Discrete Scale Relativity
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Discrete Fractal Cosmology
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
Apr 10, 2012, 5:24:34 PM4/10/12
to
In article <mt2.0-26739...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, "Robert L.
before exoplanets were discovered?
Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> writes:
> Well, finally someone with unquestionable credibility has pointed out
> what Discrete Scale Relativity and anyone not encumbered by dubious
> old assumptions has realized long ago.
Can you point to a reference where DSR predicts this which was written
> Well, finally someone with unquestionable credibility has pointed out
> what Discrete Scale Relativity and anyone not encumbered by dubious
> old assumptions has realized long ago.
before exoplanets were discovered?
eric gisse
Apr 11, 2012, 6:45:36 AM4/11/12
to
"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in news:mt2.0-
26739-13...@hydra.herts.ac.uk:
> At the 220th Meeting of the AAS in Anchorage, 10-14 June, Helmut A.
> Abt will give an oral presentation on whether exoplanet systems
> typically form in the Laplacian manner (disks), or in "separate
> condensations" followed by capture.
Personally I find it more remarkable that something interesting is going
to happen in Anchorage...
>
> Reference: Bulletin of the AAS 44(4), 2012; session 04; talk # 121.02
>
> Quoting from Abt's abstract:
>
> "In the case of separate condensations, many planetary masses will be
> captured to become companions of stars....[Given the orbital elements
> of observed exoplanets] We conclude that most of the exoplanets
> dscovered to date were produced as separate condensations like stars
> and not in disks."
>
> Well, finally someone with unquestionable credibility has pointed out
> what Discrete Scale Relativity and anyone not encumbered by dubious
> old assumptions has realized long ago.
First off, I don't know how you can possibly seriously argue that Abt is
arguing that the captures are extrasolar. The only topic under discussion
is their particular method of formation.
Also I am unclear as to why you still believe your numerology has any
merit. It has yet to survive a single solitary observational challenge.
>
> Nature has a nice way of separating diamonds from paste fakes: hit
> them with observations.
When shall you address the fact that every major observational prediction
documented in your works has been falsified?
I'm also rather curious to know if this newsgroup has become write-only
to you, as you only seem content to use it as your personal blog rather
than responding to criticisms of your numerology.
26739-13...@hydra.herts.ac.uk:
> At the 220th Meeting of the AAS in Anchorage, 10-14 June, Helmut A.
> Abt will give an oral presentation on whether exoplanet systems
> typically form in the Laplacian manner (disks), or in "separate
> condensations" followed by capture.
to happen in Anchorage...
>
> Reference: Bulletin of the AAS 44(4), 2012; session 04; talk # 121.02
>
> Quoting from Abt's abstract:
>
> "In the case of separate condensations, many planetary masses will be
> captured to become companions of stars....[Given the orbital elements
> of observed exoplanets] We conclude that most of the exoplanets
> dscovered to date were produced as separate condensations like stars
> and not in disks."
>
> Well, finally someone with unquestionable credibility has pointed out
> what Discrete Scale Relativity and anyone not encumbered by dubious
> old assumptions has realized long ago.
arguing that the captures are extrasolar. The only topic under discussion
is their particular method of formation.
Also I am unclear as to why you still believe your numerology has any
merit. It has yet to survive a single solitary observational challenge.
>
> Nature has a nice way of separating diamonds from paste fakes: hit
> them with observations.
documented in your works has been falsified?
I'm also rather curious to know if this newsgroup has become write-only
to you, as you only seem content to use it as your personal blog rather
than responding to criticisms of your numerology.
Jos Bergervoet
Apr 11, 2012, 8:51:03 AM4/11/12
to
On Apr 10, 8:53 am, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...@amherst.edu>
wrote:
...
> ... We conclude that most of the exoplanets
What would happen differently if we were living in a (hypothetical)
world
without Discrete Scale Relativity?
[NB: I hope this isn't too speculative! I can imagine that in that
case the
amount of possible universes is so large that the question becomes
meaningless..]
--
Jos
wrote:
...
> ... We conclude that most of the exoplanets
> dscovered to date were produced as separate condensations like stars
> and not in disks."
>
> Well, finally someone with unquestionable credibility has pointed out
> what Discrete Scale Relativity and anyone not encumbered by dubious
> old assumptions has realized long ago.
Why does the discreteness have influence on the capture mechanism?
> and not in disks."
>
> Well, finally someone with unquestionable credibility has pointed out
> what Discrete Scale Relativity and anyone not encumbered by dubious
> old assumptions has realized long ago.
What would happen differently if we were living in a (hypothetical)
world
without Discrete Scale Relativity?
[NB: I hope this isn't too speculative! I can imagine that in that
case the
amount of possible universes is so large that the question becomes
meaningless..]
--
Jos
Robert L. Oldershaw
Apr 11, 2012, 9:26:07 AM4/11/12
to
On Apr 10, 5:24 pm, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
<hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de> wrote:
> In article <mt2.0-26739-1334040...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, "Robert L.
question, but please bear in mind the speculativeness criterion for
s.a.r. in followup discussion -- mjh]
Papers #1 and #2 of the "Selected Papers" section of http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
are a 2-part review of the new discrete self-similar [fractal]
paradigm published in 1989.
Throughout these papers it is explicitly stated/predicted that highly
excited atoms and solar systems [aka "exoplanet systems" now] are
either highly or exactly self-similar analogues. Therefore, their
formation processes and all physical phenomena associated with them
are REQUIRED TO BE rigorously self-similar, according to the theory.
You don't apply the "cloud collapse" model to the formation of atoms
or ions, do you?
Discrete Scale Relativity inherently says that both atomic and stellar
systems have virtually the same formation mechanisms. Since we know
empirically what that primary mechanism is for atomic scale systems:
CAPTURE, then we know what DSR is required to predict for the stellar
scale analogues.
These are new ideas that conflict with very old assumptions that have
morphed into dogma. The latter are hard to free oneself from.
Next question.
RLO
Discrete Scale Relativity
<hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de> wrote:
> In article <mt2.0-26739-1334040...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, "Robert L.
>
> Oldershaw" <rlolders...@amherst.edu> writes:
> > Well, finally someone with unquestionable credibility has pointed out
> > what Discrete Scale Relativity and anyone not encumbered by dubious
> > old assumptions has realized long ago.
>
> Can you point to a reference where DSR predicts this which was written
> before exoplanets were discovered?
[Mod. note: I've accepted this as it's in response to a direct
> Oldershaw" <rlolders...@amherst.edu> writes:
> > Well, finally someone with unquestionable credibility has pointed out
> > what Discrete Scale Relativity and anyone not encumbered by dubious
> > old assumptions has realized long ago.
>
> Can you point to a reference where DSR predicts this which was written
> before exoplanets were discovered?
question, but please bear in mind the speculativeness criterion for
s.a.r. in followup discussion -- mjh]
Papers #1 and #2 of the "Selected Papers" section of http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
are a 2-part review of the new discrete self-similar [fractal]
paradigm published in 1989.
Throughout these papers it is explicitly stated/predicted that highly
excited atoms and solar systems [aka "exoplanet systems" now] are
either highly or exactly self-similar analogues. Therefore, their
formation processes and all physical phenomena associated with them
are REQUIRED TO BE rigorously self-similar, according to the theory.
You don't apply the "cloud collapse" model to the formation of atoms
or ions, do you?
Discrete Scale Relativity inherently says that both atomic and stellar
systems have virtually the same formation mechanisms. Since we know
empirically what that primary mechanism is for atomic scale systems:
CAPTURE, then we know what DSR is required to predict for the stellar
scale analogues.
These are new ideas that conflict with very old assumptions that have
morphed into dogma. The latter are hard to free oneself from.
Next question.
RLO
Discrete Scale Relativity
Jos Bergervoet
Apr 11, 2012, 12:08:18 PM4/11/12
to
On Apr 11, 3:26 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...@amherst.edu>
wrote:
...
mechanism? If electrons were not discrete, wouldn't
they just as well be captured?
So what has discreteness got to do with it?
--
Jos
wrote:
...
> Discrete Scale Relativity inherently says that both atomic and stellar
> systems have virtually the same formation mechanisms. Since we know
> empirically what that primary mechanism is for atomic scale systems:
> CAPTURE, then we know what DSR is required to predict for the stellar
> scale analogues.
Why is the discreteness important for this capture
> systems have virtually the same formation mechanisms. Since we know
> empirically what that primary mechanism is for atomic scale systems:
> CAPTURE, then we know what DSR is required to predict for the stellar
> scale analogues.
mechanism? If electrons were not discrete, wouldn't
they just as well be captured?
So what has discreteness got to do with it?
--
Jos
eric gisse
Apr 12, 2012, 4:31:23 AM4/12/12
to
"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in
news:mt2.0-574-...@hydra.herts.ac.uk:
> On Apr 10, 5:24 pm, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
> <hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de> wrote:
>> In article <mt2.0-26739-1334040...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, "Robert L.
>>
>> Oldershaw" <rlolders...@amherst.edu> writes:
>> > Well, finally someone with unquestionable credibility has pointed
>> > out what Discrete Scale Relativity and anyone not encumbered by
>> > dubious old assumptions has realized long ago.
>>
>> Can you point to a reference where DSR predicts this which was
>> written before exoplanets were discovered?
>
> [Mod. note: I've accepted this as it's in response to a direct
> question, but please bear in mind the speculativeness criterion for
> s.a.r. in followup discussion -- mjh]
observational falsifications, I am somewhat curious as to why it is
continuously allowed.
>
> Papers #1 and #2 of the "Selected Papers" section of
> http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw are a 2-part review of the new
> discrete self-similar [fractal] paradigm published in 1989.
>
> Throughout these papers it is explicitly stated/predicted that highly
> excited atoms and solar systems [aka "exoplanet systems" now] are
> either highly or exactly self-similar analogues. Therefore, their
> formation processes and all physical phenomena associated with them
> are REQUIRED TO BE rigorously self-similar, according to the theory.
What is the planetary formation equivalent of photon emission? Or perhaps
hyperfine structure? etc..
>
> You don't apply the "cloud collapse" model to the formation of atoms
> or ions, do you?
physical proceses are taking place. I don't mean different just in terms
of scale, but _actually different physical laws_. There's no similarity
beyond the broad overlap of conservation laws.
>
> Discrete Scale Relativity inherently says that both atomic and stellar
> systems have virtually the same formation mechanisms.
> Since we know
> empirically what that primary mechanism is for atomic scale systems:
> CAPTURE, then we know what DSR is required to predict for the stellar
> scale analogues.
>
> These are new ideas that conflict with very old assumptions that have
> morphed into dogma. The latter are hard to free oneself from.
>
> Next question.
How come you have not addressed the multiple falsifications of your
numerical predictions?
Every paper in *JUST THIS POST* which you have cited has been wholly
falsified and you haven't even tried to argue. You just shrug, go away
for a little while, then post a new thread much like this one.
>
> RLO
> Discrete Scale Relativity
David Staup
Apr 12, 2012, 4:33:27 AM4/12/12
to
"eric gisse" <jowr.pi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:mt2.0-11692...@hydra.herts.ac.uk...
they were not gravitionaly bound during formation does it not? A later
capture would also seem to be implied would it not?
[Mod. note: quoted text trimmed. If you are only responding to one
point in the quoted text, please don't quote the entire article -- mjh]
news:mt2.0-11692...@hydra.herts.ac.uk...
> First off, I don't know how you can possibly seriously argue that Abt is
> arguing that the captures are extrasolar. The only topic under discussion
> is their particular method of formation.
> arguing that the captures are extrasolar. The only topic under discussion
> is their particular method of formation.
"We conclude that most of the exoplanets
dscovered to date were produced as separate condensations like stars
and not in disks."
"separate condensations like stars and not in disks." Not in disks implies
dscovered to date were produced as separate condensations like stars
and not in disks."
they were not gravitionaly bound during formation does it not? A later
capture would also seem to be implied would it not?
[Mod. note: quoted text trimmed. If you are only responding to one
point in the quoted text, please don't quote the entire article -- mjh]
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
Apr 12, 2012, 4:34:05 AM4/12/12
to
"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in news:mt2.0-
26739-13...@hydra.herts.ac.uk:
> At the 220th Meeting of the AAS in Anchorage, 10-14 June, Helmut A.
> Abt will give an oral presentation on whether exoplanet systems
> typically form in the Laplacian manner (disks), or in "separate
> condensations" followed by capture.
In the abstract, Abt mentions that he is talking about DETECTED
26739-13...@hydra.herts.ac.uk:
> At the 220th Meeting of the AAS in Anchorage, 10-14 June, Helmut A.
> Abt will give an oral presentation on whether exoplanet systems
> typically form in the Laplacian manner (disks), or in "separate
> condensations" followed by capture.
exoplanets and points out that with modern technology in our solar
system we would see only the giants (not sure how many). He explicitly
mentions a selection effect. You are making the jump from detected
exoplanets to all planets, not Abt.
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
Apr 12, 2012, 4:34:40 AM4/12/12
to
In article <mt2.0-574-...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, "Robert L.
postdiction, not a prediction.
Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> writes:
> > > Well, finally someone with unquestionable credibility has pointed out
> > > what Discrete Scale Relativity and anyone not encumbered by dubious
> > > old assumptions has realized long ago.
> >
> > Can you point to a reference where DSR predicts this which was written
> > before exoplanets were discovered?
> > > Well, finally someone with unquestionable credibility has pointed out
> > > what Discrete Scale Relativity and anyone not encumbered by dubious
> > > old assumptions has realized long ago.
> >
> > Can you point to a reference where DSR predicts this which was written
> > before exoplanets were discovered?
> Papers #1 and #2 of the "Selected Papers" section of http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
> are a 2-part review of the new discrete self-similar [fractal]
> paradigm published in 1989.
Yes, but since they don't mention this topic explicitly, it is at best a
> are a 2-part review of the new discrete self-similar [fractal]
> paradigm published in 1989.
postdiction, not a prediction.
Thomas Smid
Apr 12, 2012, 4:35:14 AM4/12/12
to
On Apr 10, 6:53 am, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...@amherst.edu>
wrote:
"However, Abt notes that this is most likely due to statistical biases
imposed by the sensitivity limits of current instruments"
Also, a planetary systems have been detected that can indeed only be
interpreted as a disk systems (see http://www.universetoday.com/72104/kepler-discovers-multi-planet-system/
and http://www.universetoday.com/71957/another-solar-system-like-our-own/
).
Thomas
..
wrote:
> At the 220th Meeting of the AAS in Anchorage, 10-14 June, Helmut A.
> Abt will give an oral presentation on whether exoplanet systems
> typically form in the Laplacian manner (disks), or in "separate
> condensations" followed by capture.
>
> Reference: Bulletin of the AAS 44(4), 2012; session 04; talk # 121.02
> Quoting from Abt's abstract:
>
> "In the case of separate condensations, many planetary masses will be
> captured to become companions of stars....[Given the orbital elements
> of observed exoplanets] We conclude that most of the exoplanets
> dscovered to date were produced as separate condensations like stars
> and not in disks."
Quoting from http://www.universetoday.com/72932/the-origin-of-exoplanets/
> Abt will give an oral presentation on whether exoplanet systems
> typically form in the Laplacian manner (disks), or in "separate
> condensations" followed by capture.
>
> Reference: Bulletin of the AAS 44(4), 2012; session 04; talk # 121.02
> Quoting from Abt's abstract:
>
> "In the case of separate condensations, many planetary masses will be
> captured to become companions of stars....[Given the orbital elements
> of observed exoplanets] We conclude that most of the exoplanets
> dscovered to date were produced as separate condensations like stars
> and not in disks."
"However, Abt notes that this is most likely due to statistical biases
imposed by the sensitivity limits of current instruments"
Also, a planetary systems have been detected that can indeed only be
interpreted as a disk systems (see http://www.universetoday.com/72104/kepler-discovers-multi-planet-system/
and http://www.universetoday.com/71957/another-solar-system-like-our-own/
).
Thomas
..
Robert L. Oldershaw
Apr 12, 2012, 4:37:00 AM4/12/12
to
On Apr 11, 12:08 pm, Jos Bergervoet <jos.r.bergerv...@gmail.com>
wrote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discrete Scale Relativity points out in great detail, and with a
wealth of empirical support that:
1. Nature's most obvious and fundamental property is its hierarchical
organization.
2. Nature's hierarchy is divided into DISCRETE Scales of which we can
most readily observe the Atomic, Stellar and Galactic Scales.
3. DSR proposes that the Scales have an exact DISCRETE self-similar
symmetry, which was previously virtually unknown. There are 3 simple
DISCRETE self-similar Scale transformation equations that allow one to
test the claim that the Scales are identical except for DISCRETE
changes in mass, length and temporal scales. 40 quantitative tests are
listed and described at http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw .
If there are discrete masses and angular momenta on the Atomic Scale,
and we most certainly know there are, then DSR says that there must be
discrete masses and angular momenta on all other cosmological Scales.
Why consider non-discrete models that appear to be unnatural?
RLO
Discrete Scale Relativity
wrote:
Discrete Scale Relativity points out in great detail, and with a
wealth of empirical support that:
1. Nature's most obvious and fundamental property is its hierarchical
organization.
2. Nature's hierarchy is divided into DISCRETE Scales of which we can
most readily observe the Atomic, Stellar and Galactic Scales.
3. DSR proposes that the Scales have an exact DISCRETE self-similar
symmetry, which was previously virtually unknown. There are 3 simple
DISCRETE self-similar Scale transformation equations that allow one to
test the claim that the Scales are identical except for DISCRETE
changes in mass, length and temporal scales. 40 quantitative tests are
listed and described at http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw .
If there are discrete masses and angular momenta on the Atomic Scale,
and we most certainly know there are, then DSR says that there must be
discrete masses and angular momenta on all other cosmological Scales.
Why consider non-discrete models that appear to be unnatural?
RLO
Discrete Scale Relativity
Jos Bergervoet
Apr 12, 2012, 7:35:13 AM4/12/12
to
On Apr 12, 10:37 am, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...@amherst.edu>
wrote:
But how does that alter the capture mechanism? If
--
Jos
wrote:
> On Apr 11, 12:08 pm, Jos Bergervoet <jos.r.bergerv...@gmail.com>
..
> > Why is the discreteness important for this capture
> > mechanism? If electrons were not discrete, wouldn't
> > they just as well be captured?
> >
> > So what has discreteness got to do with it?
...
> > mechanism? If electrons were not discrete, wouldn't
> > they just as well be captured?
> >
> > So what has discreteness got to do with it?
> 3. DSR proposes that the Scales have an exact DISCRETE
> self-similar symmetry,
[ ... ]
> self-similar symmetry,
But how does that alter the capture mechanism? If
electrons were not discrete, wouldn't they just as well
be captured? You do not address the question!
--
Jos
eric gisse
Apr 13, 2012, 10:38:36 AM4/13/12
to
"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in
news:mt2.0-11162...@hydra.herts.ac.uk:
> On Apr 11, 12:08 pm, Jos Bergervoet <jos.r.bergerv...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Apr 11, 3:26 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...@amherst.edu>
>> wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> > Discrete Scale Relativity inherently says that both atomic and
>> > stellar systems have virtually the same formation mechanisms.
>> > Since we know empirically what that primary mechanism is for
>> > atomic scale systems: CAPTURE, then we know what DSR is required to
>> > predict for the stellar scale analogues.
>>
>> Why is the discreteness important for this capture
>> mechanism? If electrons were not discrete, wouldn't
>> they just as well be captured?
>>
>> So what has discreteness got to do with it?
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------
>
> Discrete Scale Relativity points out in great detail, and with a
> wealth of empirical support that:
>
> 1. Nature's most obvious and fundamental property is its hierarchical
> organization.
>
> 2. Nature's hierarchy is divided into DISCRETE Scales of which we can
> most readily observe the Atomic, Stellar and Galactic Scales.
>
> 3. DSR proposes that the Scales have an exact DISCRETE self-similar
> symmetry, which was previously virtually unknown. There are 3 simple
> DISCRETE self-similar Scale transformation equations that allow one to
> test the claim that the Scales are identical except for DISCRETE
> changes in mass, length and temporal scales. 40 quantitative tests are
> listed and described at http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw .
falsified?
>
> If there are discrete masses and angular momenta on the Atomic Scale,
> and we most certainly know there are, then DSR says that there must be
> discrete masses and angular momenta on all other cosmological Scales.
both mass and luminosity?
How come orbital paths around the central black hole near Sgr. A* do not
display this sudden invocation of quantized angular momentum? No, the
titus-bode law doesn't count. At all. Try harder.
>
> Why consider non-discrete models that appear to be unnatural?
>
> RLO
> Discrete Scale Relativity
>
eric gisse
Apr 13, 2012, 10:39:55 AM4/13/12
to
David Staup <dst...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:mt2.0-11162...@hydra.herts.ac.uk:
> "eric gisse" <jowr.pi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:mt2.0-11692...@hydra.herts.ac.uk...
>> First off, I don't know how you can possibly seriously argue that Abt
>> is arguing that the captures are extrasolar. The only topic under
>> discussion is their particular method of formation.
>
> "We conclude that most of the exoplanets
> dscovered to date were produced as separate condensations like stars
> and not in disks."
Stellar nebulae are big. I merely interpet it to mean that the idea is
that there were additional formation events beyond the main planetary
disk. Which doesn't strike me as out of the realm of possibilities.
>
> "separate condensations like stars and not in disks." Not in disks
> implies
> they were not gravitionaly bound during formation does it not? A
> later capture would also seem to be implied would it not?
Sure, but from within the relevant stellar neighborhood rather than from
light years away.
news:mt2.0-11162...@hydra.herts.ac.uk:
> "eric gisse" <jowr.pi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:mt2.0-11692...@hydra.herts.ac.uk...
>> First off, I don't know how you can possibly seriously argue that Abt
>> is arguing that the captures are extrasolar. The only topic under
>> discussion is their particular method of formation.
>
> "We conclude that most of the exoplanets
> dscovered to date were produced as separate condensations like stars
> and not in disks."
that there were additional formation events beyond the main planetary
disk. Which doesn't strike me as out of the realm of possibilities.
>
> "separate condensations like stars and not in disks." Not in disks
> implies
> they were not gravitionaly bound during formation does it not? A
> later capture would also seem to be implied would it not?
light years away.
Robert L. Oldershaw
Aug 29, 2012, 3:25:41 AM8/29/12
to
Read about a newly discovered circumbinary system with multiple planets.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120828190127.htm
Blurb: "The presence of a full-fledged circumbinary planetary system orbiting Kepler-47 is an amazing discovery," said Greg Laughlin, professor of Astrophysics and Planetary Science at the University of California in Santa Cruz. "These planets are very difficult to form using the currently accepted paradigm, and I believe that theorists, myself included, will be going back to the drawing board to try to improve our understanding of how planets are assembled in dusty circumbinary disks."
Perhaps one day the theorists will say: 'let's put aside the "accepted paradigm" for a while and consider systems like this without preconceptions. Let's allow nature to guide us rather than always trying to fit anomalous new results into the old "accepted paradigm".'
Maybe people like Helmut A. Abt are right: capture models need to be given serious attention. They should not be ignored on the basis of 19th and 20th century theoretical biases and naivete.
RLO
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120828190127.htm
Blurb: "The presence of a full-fledged circumbinary planetary system orbiting Kepler-47 is an amazing discovery," said Greg Laughlin, professor of Astrophysics and Planetary Science at the University of California in Santa Cruz. "These planets are very difficult to form using the currently accepted paradigm, and I believe that theorists, myself included, will be going back to the drawing board to try to improve our understanding of how planets are assembled in dusty circumbinary disks."
Perhaps one day the theorists will say: 'let's put aside the "accepted paradigm" for a while and consider systems like this without preconceptions. Let's allow nature to guide us rather than always trying to fit anomalous new results into the old "accepted paradigm".'
Maybe people like Helmut A. Abt are right: capture models need to be given serious attention. They should not be ignored on the basis of 19th and 20th century theoretical biases and naivete.
RLO
Robert L. Oldershaw
Sep 3, 2012, 2:13:54 PM9/3/12
to
On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 3:26:03 AM UTC-4, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
> Read about a newly discovered circumbinary system with multiple planets.
>
Here is the paper.
> Read about a newly discovered circumbinary system with multiple planets.
>
http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.5489
Free reading; open science
Eric Gisse
Sep 5, 2012, 3:24:40 AM9/5/12
to
0 new messages