Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Exoplanet Mass Spectrum: New Data
97 views
Skip to first unread message
Robert L. Oldershaw
Oct 9, 2012, 2:20:33 AM10/9/12
to
The exoplanet mass spectrum is explored in:
M. Mayor and D. Queloz, "From 51 Peg to Earth-type planets", New Astronomy Reviews, 56, 19-24, 2012.
I was able to obtain a free download from the internet (seek and ye shall find).
Check out Figure 7 on page 23.
The left hand panel shows the exoplanet mass spectrum to date without bias corrections. There is a main peak at 100 to 200 Earth-masses, and a smaller peak at 10-20 Earth-masses.
The right hand panel is a bit of a shocker; it shows the exoplanet mass spectrum when you take into account the differences in survey sizes. The big peak is now a small blip and the overwhelmingly dominant peak is at 10-20 Earth-masses.
Did any theory predict this? Well, conventional assumptions led to expectations (no actual predictions, mind you) of peaks at 0.5 to 5 Earth masses (or lower) and in the Jupiter-mass range. In reality the dearth of exoplanets below 5 Earth-masses is a big surprise to conventional assumptions (which are based largely on 'what you see locally is what you will see globally'). The huge sharp peak at 10-20 Earth-masses also confounds conventional astrophysics.
On the other hand, 17 Earth-masses is just where Discrete Scale Relativity predicted the overwhelmingly dominant peak in the exoplanet mass spectrum would be found. Note that this was a definitive prediction that was prior, feasible, quantitative, non-adjustable, and totally unique to Discrete Scale Relativity.
The results of Mayor and Queloz are not the final word on this important issue. More data will gradually refine the mass spectrum, but we already have a 1st approximation in hand, and a robust knowledge of the exoplanet mass spectrum is not far off.
That is what science is all about: ideas, predictions and testing.
Robert L. Oldershaw
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Discrete Fractal Cosmology
Discrete Scale Relativity
M. Mayor and D. Queloz, "From 51 Peg to Earth-type planets", New Astronomy Reviews, 56, 19-24, 2012.
I was able to obtain a free download from the internet (seek and ye shall find).
Check out Figure 7 on page 23.
The left hand panel shows the exoplanet mass spectrum to date without bias corrections. There is a main peak at 100 to 200 Earth-masses, and a smaller peak at 10-20 Earth-masses.
The right hand panel is a bit of a shocker; it shows the exoplanet mass spectrum when you take into account the differences in survey sizes. The big peak is now a small blip and the overwhelmingly dominant peak is at 10-20 Earth-masses.
Did any theory predict this? Well, conventional assumptions led to expectations (no actual predictions, mind you) of peaks at 0.5 to 5 Earth masses (or lower) and in the Jupiter-mass range. In reality the dearth of exoplanets below 5 Earth-masses is a big surprise to conventional assumptions (which are based largely on 'what you see locally is what you will see globally'). The huge sharp peak at 10-20 Earth-masses also confounds conventional astrophysics.
On the other hand, 17 Earth-masses is just where Discrete Scale Relativity predicted the overwhelmingly dominant peak in the exoplanet mass spectrum would be found. Note that this was a definitive prediction that was prior, feasible, quantitative, non-adjustable, and totally unique to Discrete Scale Relativity.
The results of Mayor and Queloz are not the final word on this important issue. More data will gradually refine the mass spectrum, but we already have a 1st approximation in hand, and a robust knowledge of the exoplanet mass spectrum is not far off.
That is what science is all about: ideas, predictions and testing.
Robert L. Oldershaw
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Discrete Fractal Cosmology
Discrete Scale Relativity
Eric Flesch
Oct 9, 2012, 8:17:14 AM10/9/12
to
On 09 Oct 12 "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote:
>That is what science is all about: ideas, predictions and testing.
and refuting, and moving on...
>That is what science is all about: ideas, predictions and testing.
Eric Gisse
Oct 9, 2012, 8:18:16 AM10/9/12
to
On Oct 9, 1:20�am, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...@amherst.edu>
wrote:
exoplanet.eu link that has the catalog of exoplanet data, including
their masses.
Is there a particular reason you were not able to download the data
and perform your own analysis?
>
> Check out Figure 7 on page 23.
>
> The left hand panel shows the exoplanet mass spectrum to date without bias corrections. There is a main peak at 100 to 200 Earth-masses, and a smaller peak at 10-20 Earth-masses.
We have discussed this before.
When our ability to observe exoplanets is very strongly biased towards
large mass exoplanets, you are going to get a spectrum that peaks
around "large massed exoplanets".
>
> The right hand panel is a bit of a shocker; it shows the exoplanet mass spectrum when you take into account the differences in survey sizes. The big peak is now a small blip and the overwhelmingly dominant peak is at 10-20 Earth-masses.
So we have the Kepler planet finder, whose primary data product are
planets in that range. That plus the previous 20 years of planet
finding which is biased to Jupiter class worlds.
Is it that surprising to you that the data behaves in this fashion?
>
> Did any theory predict this? Well, conventional assumptions led to expectations (no actual predictions, mind you) of peaks at 0.5 to 5 Earth masses (or lower) and in the Jupiter-mass range. In reality the dearth of exoplanets below 5 Earth-masses is a big surprise to conventional assumptions (which are based largely on 'what you see locally is what you will see globally'). The huge sharp peak at 10-20 Earth-masses also confounds conventional astrophysics.
>
Again, is this due to there being an actual lack of planets in that
range?
Or is that simply because of what our instruments are sensitive to?
> On the other hand, 17 Earth-masses is just where Discrete Scale Relativity predicted the overwhelmingly dominant peak in the exoplanet mass spectrum would be found. Note that this was a definitive prediction that was prior, feasible, quantitative, non-adjustable, and totally unique to Discrete Scale Relativity.
Really, 17? Your numerology predicts that? Can you show us how your
numerology predicts 17 rather than any other integer?
Additionally, given the number of "definitive predictions" of yours
which have been falsified why are you still looking for datapoints
that support you?
>
> The results of Mayor and Queloz are not the final word on this important issue. More data will gradually refine the mass spectrum, but we already have a 1st approximation in hand, and a robust knowledge of the exoplanet mass spectrum is not far off.
>
> That is what science is all about: ideas, predictions and testing.
Robert, I gave you a link to all the known exoplanets via an exoplanet
database. Given that all you are looking for is a peak in the mass
data, why couldn't you have done this a year ago when the data was
given to you?
Why are you not actually doing any of the parts you claim science is
all about?
>
> Robert L. Oldershawhttp://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
wrote:
> The exoplanet mass spectrum is explored in:
>
> M. Mayor and D. Queloz, "From 51 Peg to Earth-type planets", New Astronomy Reviews, 56, 19-24, 2012.
>
> I was able to obtain a free download from the internet (seek and ye shall find).
Huh? It has been *OVER A CALENDER YEAR* since I gave you the
>
> M. Mayor and D. Queloz, "From 51 Peg to Earth-type planets", New Astronomy Reviews, 56, 19-24, 2012.
>
> I was able to obtain a free download from the internet (seek and ye shall find).
exoplanet.eu link that has the catalog of exoplanet data, including
their masses.
Is there a particular reason you were not able to download the data
and perform your own analysis?
>
> Check out Figure 7 on page 23.
>
> The left hand panel shows the exoplanet mass spectrum to date without bias corrections. There is a main peak at 100 to 200 Earth-masses, and a smaller peak at 10-20 Earth-masses.
When our ability to observe exoplanets is very strongly biased towards
large mass exoplanets, you are going to get a spectrum that peaks
around "large massed exoplanets".
>
> The right hand panel is a bit of a shocker; it shows the exoplanet mass spectrum when you take into account the differences in survey sizes. The big peak is now a small blip and the overwhelmingly dominant peak is at 10-20 Earth-masses.
planets in that range. That plus the previous 20 years of planet
finding which is biased to Jupiter class worlds.
Is it that surprising to you that the data behaves in this fashion?
>
> Did any theory predict this? Well, conventional assumptions led to expectations (no actual predictions, mind you) of peaks at 0.5 to 5 Earth masses (or lower) and in the Jupiter-mass range. In reality the dearth of exoplanets below 5 Earth-masses is a big surprise to conventional assumptions (which are based largely on 'what you see locally is what you will see globally'). The huge sharp peak at 10-20 Earth-masses also confounds conventional astrophysics.
>
range?
Or is that simply because of what our instruments are sensitive to?
> On the other hand, 17 Earth-masses is just where Discrete Scale Relativity predicted the overwhelmingly dominant peak in the exoplanet mass spectrum would be found. Note that this was a definitive prediction that was prior, feasible, quantitative, non-adjustable, and totally unique to Discrete Scale Relativity.
numerology predicts 17 rather than any other integer?
Additionally, given the number of "definitive predictions" of yours
which have been falsified why are you still looking for datapoints
that support you?
>
> The results of Mayor and Queloz are not the final word on this important issue. More data will gradually refine the mass spectrum, but we already have a 1st approximation in hand, and a robust knowledge of the exoplanet mass spectrum is not far off.
>
> That is what science is all about: ideas, predictions and testing.
database. Given that all you are looking for is a peak in the mass
data, why couldn't you have done this a year ago when the data was
given to you?
Why are you not actually doing any of the parts you claim science is
all about?
>
> Robert L. Oldershawhttp://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Robert L. Oldershaw
Oct 10, 2012, 3:47:38 AM10/10/12
to
On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 8:17:36 AM UTC-4, Eric Flesch wrote:
Here is another indication of what is going on regarding the distributions of exoplanet parameters.
The Kepler mission has a huge bounty of exoplanet candidates and they are now checking to see which ones are actual planets (as opposed to other types of variable systems or transients).
The important point for this discussion is that they have published a histogram of the exoplanet candidates' radii. There is a single overwhelmingly dominant peak in the Neptune radius range.
When you combine the mass results of Mayor/Queloz with the radius results of the Kepler team, then I think you have a fairly strong argument that Discrete Scale Relativity's prediction of 8 x 10^-5 solar mass for the dominant peak of the exoplanet mass spectrum is being vindicated.
At this point I am not yet claiming total victory on this particular prediction (one of 14 definitive predictions, of which 4 are verifed or very strongly supported). However, one can see the light of knowledge rapidly approaching down at the end of the long dark tunnel.
Perhaps we need to 'refute and move on' from the old failing assumptions.
Discrete Scale Relativity
> On 09 Oct 12 "Robert L. Oldershaw" <edu> wrote:
>
> >That is what science is all about: ideas, predictions and testing.
>
>
> and refuting, and moving on...
------------------------------------------------------
>
> >That is what science is all about: ideas, predictions and testing.
>
>
> and refuting, and moving on...
Here is another indication of what is going on regarding the distributions of exoplanet parameters.
The Kepler mission has a huge bounty of exoplanet candidates and they are now checking to see which ones are actual planets (as opposed to other types of variable systems or transients).
The important point for this discussion is that they have published a histogram of the exoplanet candidates' radii. There is a single overwhelmingly dominant peak in the Neptune radius range.
When you combine the mass results of Mayor/Queloz with the radius results of the Kepler team, then I think you have a fairly strong argument that Discrete Scale Relativity's prediction of 8 x 10^-5 solar mass for the dominant peak of the exoplanet mass spectrum is being vindicated.
At this point I am not yet claiming total victory on this particular prediction (one of 14 definitive predictions, of which 4 are verifed or very strongly supported). However, one can see the light of knowledge rapidly approaching down at the end of the long dark tunnel.
Perhaps we need to 'refute and move on' from the old failing assumptions.
Discrete Scale Relativity
Jos Bergervoet
Oct 10, 2012, 4:03:20 PM10/10/12
to
On 10/10/2012 9:47 AM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
...
what is relativistic about it?)
> At this point I am not yet claiming total victory on this
> particular prediction (one of 14 definitive predictions, of
> which 4 are verifed or very strongly supported).
Is there a short description of those 14 listed
somewhere?
--
Jos
...
> When you combine the mass results of Mayor/Queloz with
> the radius results of the Kepler team, then I think you
> have a fairly strong argument that Discrete Scale Relativity's
> prediction of 8 x 10^-5 solar mass for the dominant peak of
> the exoplanet mass spectrum is being vindicated.
What is "discrete" about such a peak? (And
> the radius results of the Kepler team, then I think you
> have a fairly strong argument that Discrete Scale Relativity's
> prediction of 8 x 10^-5 solar mass for the dominant peak of
> the exoplanet mass spectrum is being vindicated.
what is relativistic about it?)
> At this point I am not yet claiming total victory on this
> particular prediction (one of 14 definitive predictions, of
> which 4 are verifed or very strongly supported).
somewhere?
--
Jos
Steve Willner
Oct 11, 2012, 2:09:51 AM10/11/12
to
In article <mt2.0-16993...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>,
> Check out Figure 7 on page 23.
....
> The right hand panel... The big peak is now a small blip and the
Earth mass is still subject to strong detection biases." In
particular, planets below this mass are almost impossible to detect
by radial velocity methods.
> Did any theory predict this?
I'm not aware of any theory that predicts planet masses. (I'm using
"theory" and "predict" in their scientific sense, not their everyday
sense.)
> the dearth of exoplanets below 5 Earth-masses is a big surprise
Not really, once you take selection biases into account.
A different search technique is based on microlensing. Cassan et
al. (2012 Nature 481, 167; preprint at
http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.0903 ) report a general trend of planet
abundance increasing towards lower masses, though the statistics are
still poor.
Anybody know what Kepler is showing? I realize its detection is
based on planet radius and not mass and is biased with semimajor axis
of the orbit, but the results should give an indication.
--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swil...@cfa.harvard.edu
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> writes:
> M. Mayor and D. Queloz, "From 51 Peg to Earth-type planets", New
> Astronomy Reviews, 56, 19-24, 2012.
As far as I can tell, this omits Kepler results, but OK.
> M. Mayor and D. Queloz, "From 51 Peg to Earth-type planets", New
> Astronomy Reviews, 56, 19-24, 2012.
> Check out Figure 7 on page 23.
> The right hand panel... The big peak is now a small blip and the
> overwhelmingly dominant peak is at 10-20 Earth-masses.
As the caption says, "Notice that the part of the histogram below 5
Earth mass is still subject to strong detection biases." In
particular, planets below this mass are almost impossible to detect
by radial velocity methods.
> Did any theory predict this?
"theory" and "predict" in their scientific sense, not their everyday
sense.)
> the dearth of exoplanets below 5 Earth-masses is a big surprise
A different search technique is based on microlensing. Cassan et
al. (2012 Nature 481, 167; preprint at
http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.0903 ) report a general trend of planet
abundance increasing towards lower masses, though the statistics are
still poor.
Anybody know what Kepler is showing? I realize its detection is
based on planet radius and not mass and is biased with semimajor axis
of the orbit, but the results should give an indication.
--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swil...@cfa.harvard.edu
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
Oct 11, 2012, 2:14:45 AM10/11/12
to
In article <mt2.0-12008...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, "Robert L.
enough to disprove the theory. That has already happened: the
substructure of the electron was not observed at the level predicted by
DSR. Don't mention the fact that that prediction has been revised: if
it can be revised, it is not a "definitive prediction" of the theory.
Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> writes:
> At this point I am not yet claiming total victory on this particular
> prediction (one of 14 definitive predictions, of which 4 are verifed or
> very strongly supported).
Even if 13 were vindicated, one "definitive prediction" (your words) is
> At this point I am not yet claiming total victory on this particular
> prediction (one of 14 definitive predictions, of which 4 are verifed or
> very strongly supported).
enough to disprove the theory. That has already happened: the
substructure of the electron was not observed at the level predicted by
DSR. Don't mention the fact that that prediction has been revised: if
it can be revised, it is not a "definitive prediction" of the theory.
Robert L. Oldershaw
Oct 11, 2012, 2:15:45 AM10/11/12
to
On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 4:03:41 PM UTC-4, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
> What is "discrete" about such a peak? (And
>
> what is relativistic about it?)
You would need to extensively study the Discrete Self-Similar Cosmological Paradigm (aka Discrete Scale Relativity when the self-similarity is exact) in order to understand the paradigm and answer these questions to your own satisfaction.
> What is "discrete" about such a peak? (And
>
> what is relativistic about it?)
A complete guide to understanding DSR can be found at http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw . It is free and available 24/7.
>
> Is there a short description of those 14 listed
> somewhere?
And if you have any trouble accessing that link send me an email and I will attach a copy of the predictions to the return email.
Robert L. Oldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity
Eric Gisse
Oct 11, 2012, 2:17:09 AM10/11/12
to
On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 2:48:00 AM UTC-5, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
[...]
>
> The important point for this discussion is that they have published a histogram of the exoplanet candidates' radii. There is a single overwhelmingly dominant peak in the Neptune radius range.
So, is that because there is an actual peak in Jupiter class worlds or because Kepler simply isn't seeing objects much smaller than that yet?
Please stop disregarding the very real possibility of a sampling bias.
Besides, you could have made this graph yourself at any point in the past 15 years especially more recently given the veritable explosion of data on the subject.
*Especially* this time last year when I handed you, on a silver platter, the database of confirmed exoplanets.
Why is it you don't seem too willing to do actual analysis yourself? This is undergraduate work, Robert. Do you feel you are above the basic labors of your self-professed trade?
>
>
>
> When you combine the mass results of Mayor/Queloz with the radius results of the Kepler team,
Except those results are entirely theoretical, right Robert?
This time last year (nearly exactly, are you on a clock?) you were rejecting Kepler stellar mass estimates because you didn't trust Kepler spectroscopy.
I deeply enjoy how you will reject or accept data and analysis techniques depending how well you think it will help you.
> then I think you have a fairly strong argument that Discrete Scale Relativity's prediction of 8 x 10^-5 solar mass for the dominant peak of the exoplanet mass spectrum is being vindicated.
A few problems with that:
1) You have no response (literally) to my question about sampling bias. Feel free to ask if you do not know what I am talking about.
2) You have no justification for your various numerological predictions, as there's no reason to believe your prediction can be even called as such.
3) You have not stated to what uncertainty your prediction has been validated. If you would like some introductory references to some statistical analysis textbooks or websites, feel free to ask.
If this is anything less than a 3 standard deviation result, nobody is going to care. Sorry - fact of life.
When can we expect this result published?
4) Your numerology has had multiple strong falsifications, however you seem to ignore them only to proceed with a later post about how your numerology is being vindicated. Eg:
What happened to your *definitive prediction* that stellar masses are quantized or that dark matter is comprised of black holes? Those predictions have been falsified yet here we are with you saying you have been vindicated.
>
>
>
> At this point I am not yet claiming total victory on this particular prediction (one of 14 definitive predictions, of which 4 are verifed or very strongly supported). However, one can see the light of knowledge rapidly approaching down at the end of the long dark tunnel.
When can we expect your next publication in a peer reviewed and credible journal? I'm sure you, as a scientist, are opened to having your theories and claims scrutinized.
Right?
>
>
>
> Perhaps we need to 'refute and move on' from the old failing assumptions.
Why don't we take a look at those 14 "definitive" predictions (do those include the falsified ones from your 1987 ApJ paper?) before we move on from anything?
[...]
>
> The important point for this discussion is that they have published a histogram of the exoplanet candidates' radii. There is a single overwhelmingly dominant peak in the Neptune radius range.
Please stop disregarding the very real possibility of a sampling bias.
Besides, you could have made this graph yourself at any point in the past 15 years especially more recently given the veritable explosion of data on the subject.
*Especially* this time last year when I handed you, on a silver platter, the database of confirmed exoplanets.
Why is it you don't seem too willing to do actual analysis yourself? This is undergraduate work, Robert. Do you feel you are above the basic labors of your self-professed trade?
>
>
>
> When you combine the mass results of Mayor/Queloz with the radius results of the Kepler team,
This time last year (nearly exactly, are you on a clock?) you were rejecting Kepler stellar mass estimates because you didn't trust Kepler spectroscopy.
I deeply enjoy how you will reject or accept data and analysis techniques depending how well you think it will help you.
> then I think you have a fairly strong argument that Discrete Scale Relativity's prediction of 8 x 10^-5 solar mass for the dominant peak of the exoplanet mass spectrum is being vindicated.
1) You have no response (literally) to my question about sampling bias. Feel free to ask if you do not know what I am talking about.
2) You have no justification for your various numerological predictions, as there's no reason to believe your prediction can be even called as such.
3) You have not stated to what uncertainty your prediction has been validated. If you would like some introductory references to some statistical analysis textbooks or websites, feel free to ask.
If this is anything less than a 3 standard deviation result, nobody is going to care. Sorry - fact of life.
When can we expect this result published?
4) Your numerology has had multiple strong falsifications, however you seem to ignore them only to proceed with a later post about how your numerology is being vindicated. Eg:
What happened to your *definitive prediction* that stellar masses are quantized or that dark matter is comprised of black holes? Those predictions have been falsified yet here we are with you saying you have been vindicated.
>
>
>
> At this point I am not yet claiming total victory on this particular prediction (one of 14 definitive predictions, of which 4 are verifed or very strongly supported). However, one can see the light of knowledge rapidly approaching down at the end of the long dark tunnel.
Right?
>
>
>
> Perhaps we need to 'refute and move on' from the old failing assumptions.
Robert L. Oldershaw
Oct 12, 2012, 2:26:04 AM10/12/12
to
On Thursday, October 11, 2012 2:10:12 AM UTC-4, Steve Willner wrote:
> In article <mt2.0-16993...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>,
Perhaps you missed my post of 10/10?
It specifically discussed the histogram of radius data put out by the Kepler team.
The results are very interesting and consistent with a main peak in the Neptune range and stronger than expected fall-offs on either side.
Robert L. Oldershaw
Discrete Self-Similar Paradigm
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
http://arxiv.org/a/oldershaw_r_1
> In article <mt2.0-16993...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>,
>
> Anybody know what Kepler is showing? I realize its detection is
>
> based on planet radius and not mass and is biased with semimajor axis
>
> of the orbit, but the results should give an indication.
>
----------------------------------------------
> Anybody know what Kepler is showing? I realize its detection is
>
> based on planet radius and not mass and is biased with semimajor axis
>
> of the orbit, but the results should give an indication.
>
Perhaps you missed my post of 10/10?
It specifically discussed the histogram of radius data put out by the Kepler team.
The results are very interesting and consistent with a main peak in the Neptune range and stronger than expected fall-offs on either side.
Robert L. Oldershaw
Discrete Self-Similar Paradigm
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
http://arxiv.org/a/oldershaw_r_1
Eric Gisse
Oct 12, 2012, 2:48:08 AM10/12/12
to
On Oct 11, 1:16�am, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...@amherst.edu>
wrote:
[...]
> > Is there a short description of those 14 listed
> > somewhere?
>
> Definitely! See:http://www.academia.edu/1987889/Predictions_of_Discrete_Scale_Relativity
Off the top of my head, numbers 1, 2 (You reference electron
substructure in the same paper which falsifies it), 4, 8, and 14 have
been conclusively falsified.
On this newsgroup.
In front of you.
With literature references.
Why are you still here?
wrote:
[...]
> > Is there a short description of those 14 listed
> > somewhere?
>
> Definitely! See:http://www.academia.edu/1987889/Predictions_of_Discrete_Scale_Relativity
substructure in the same paper which falsifies it), 4, 8, and 14 have
been conclusively falsified.
On this newsgroup.
In front of you.
With literature references.
Why are you still here?
Jos Bergervoet
Oct 12, 2012, 2:29:34 PM10/12/12
to
On 10/11/2012 8:15 AM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
...
...
>> Is there a short description of those 14 listed
>> somewhere?
>
> Definitely! See: http://www.academia.edu/1987889/Predictions_of_Discrete_Scale_Relativity
OK, the "relativity" meant here is then scale relativity
>> somewhere?
>
> Definitely! See: http://www.academia.edu/1987889/Predictions_of_Discrete_Scale_Relativity
between a solar system and an atom. And "discrete" refers
to the discreteness of atomic spectra which supposedly
is also present at larger scales.
Your predictions 5 and 7 seem rather similar to those
of Archimedes Plutonium, except that he is proposing
a Pu-atom, where you mention a Li-atom as model for the
solar system (and I have to admit that I never gave the
idea of a Pu-atom much credit..)
Still, I would expect that we could quickly agree that
the whole idea of such an equivalence is now ruled out
and that we can conclude that such discreteness of
stellar spectra simply does not exist..
--
Jos
Robert L. Oldershaw
Oct 13, 2012, 4:04:48 AM10/13/12
to
[As discussions of the details of fringe theories such as this one are
prohibited by the s.a.r. charter, I suggest that anyone who wants to
discuss, say, why 'plutonium' is the domain of crackpots but 'excited
lithium' is absolutely fine should do it with Mr Oldershaw by personal
e-mail. Further posts in this thread, if any, should focus on
observational astrophysics -- mjh]
On Oct 12, 2:29 pm, Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergerv...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
>
> OK, the "relativity" meant here is then scale relativity
> between a solar system and an atom. And "discrete" refers
> to the discreteness of atomic spectra which supposedly
> is also present at larger scales.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The paradigm is far more sophisticated than that, and one has to put
some effort into understanding it before one is qualified to describe
it or evaluate it. Fifteen minutes is not enough.
>
> Your predictions 5 and 7 seem rather similar to those
> of Archimedes Plutonium, except that he is proposing
> a Pu-atom, where you mention a Li-atom as model for the
> solar system (and I have to admit that I never gave the
> idea of a Pu-atom much credit..)
----------------------------------------------------------
This comment does not warrant a response. It is an insult. Well ok,
maybe a brief response. If you bother to read papers #1 and #2 in the
Selected Papers section of the website, you will find out why the
Solar System/Li atom in high Rydberg state analogy is unique and
supported by physical evidence.
>
> Still, I would expect that we could quickly agree that
> the whole idea of such an equivalence is now ruled out
> and that we can conclude that such discreteness of
> stellar spectra simply does not exist.
-------------------------------------------------------
Did you carefully read the "New Development" #10 at the website? It
shows very strong self-similarity between RR lyrae variable stars and
helium atoms in excited states making primarily single-level
transitions between n=7 and n=10. The frequency spectra match up quite
well given the physical phenomena (discussed at length in the cited
material) that cause some unavoidable shifting and broadening of the
stellar frequency peaks. You cannot bring a star into the lab,
isolate it from various disturbances, and cool it to low temps, then
excite it with a laser, can you?
A paper on this research has been published.
Analogies bewteen stars and atoms have been very important to the
development of physics (think Rutherford and Bohr). I predict such
analogies will again be very important again, biased and outdated
assumptions notwithstanding.
Robert L. Oldershaw
http:/www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity
prohibited by the s.a.r. charter, I suggest that anyone who wants to
discuss, say, why 'plutonium' is the domain of crackpots but 'excited
lithium' is absolutely fine should do it with Mr Oldershaw by personal
e-mail. Further posts in this thread, if any, should focus on
observational astrophysics -- mjh]
On Oct 12, 2:29 pm, Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergerv...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
>
> OK, the "relativity" meant here is then scale relativity
> between a solar system and an atom. And "discrete" refers
> to the discreteness of atomic spectra which supposedly
> is also present at larger scales.
The paradigm is far more sophisticated than that, and one has to put
some effort into understanding it before one is qualified to describe
it or evaluate it. Fifteen minutes is not enough.
>
> Your predictions 5 and 7 seem rather similar to those
> of Archimedes Plutonium, except that he is proposing
> a Pu-atom, where you mention a Li-atom as model for the
> solar system (and I have to admit that I never gave the
> idea of a Pu-atom much credit..)
This comment does not warrant a response. It is an insult. Well ok,
maybe a brief response. If you bother to read papers #1 and #2 in the
Selected Papers section of the website, you will find out why the
Solar System/Li atom in high Rydberg state analogy is unique and
supported by physical evidence.
>
> Still, I would expect that we could quickly agree that
> the whole idea of such an equivalence is now ruled out
> and that we can conclude that such discreteness of
> stellar spectra simply does not exist.
Did you carefully read the "New Development" #10 at the website? It
shows very strong self-similarity between RR lyrae variable stars and
helium atoms in excited states making primarily single-level
transitions between n=7 and n=10. The frequency spectra match up quite
well given the physical phenomena (discussed at length in the cited
material) that cause some unavoidable shifting and broadening of the
stellar frequency peaks. You cannot bring a star into the lab,
isolate it from various disturbances, and cool it to low temps, then
excite it with a laser, can you?
A paper on this research has been published.
Analogies bewteen stars and atoms have been very important to the
development of physics (think Rutherford and Bohr). I predict such
analogies will again be very important again, biased and outdated
assumptions notwithstanding.
Robert L. Oldershaw
http:/www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity
0 new messages