Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Source of Unbound "Nomad" Planets: Stellar "Ionization"?
14 views
Skip to first unread message
Robert L. Oldershaw
Apr 26, 2012, 7:13:50 AM4/26/12
to
In today's batch of new preprints is:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.5187
by Boley, Payne and Ford. Submitted to ApJ.
The paper discusses planet scattering and other matters relevant to
exoplanet systems.
Quotation from abstract:
"...auto-ionization is likely to remain the dominant source of free-
floating planets."
In a relatively short time we have gone from planets in relatively
"permanent" orbits to planets undergoing extensive "migrations" and
planets being ejected ["ionized"] from stellar systems.
Our understanding of stellar scale objects and exoplanet systems is
evolving at a remarkable pace, while the engine of particle physics is
racing in "park".
Personally, I find the directions of this evolution highly
enlightening.
Robert L. Oldershaw
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity
http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.5187
by Boley, Payne and Ford. Submitted to ApJ.
The paper discusses planet scattering and other matters relevant to
exoplanet systems.
Quotation from abstract:
"...auto-ionization is likely to remain the dominant source of free-
floating planets."
In a relatively short time we have gone from planets in relatively
"permanent" orbits to planets undergoing extensive "migrations" and
planets being ejected ["ionized"] from stellar systems.
Our understanding of stellar scale objects and exoplanet systems is
evolving at a remarkable pace, while the engine of particle physics is
racing in "park".
Personally, I find the directions of this evolution highly
enlightening.
Robert L. Oldershaw
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity
David Staup
Apr 26, 2012, 4:33:58 PM4/26/12
to
If one accepts the current theory of the formation of the moon by the
collision of the earth with a mars sized body one would expect many more
close encounters than collisions. The heavy bombardments would seem to
indicate that chaos took over just as soon as mass started to clump in the
disk. Surely as much outward scattering was occuring as inward, no?
Is anybody suprised by this, I guess, is my question?
"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in message
news:mt2.0-4367...@hydra.herts.ac.uk...
collision of the earth with a mars sized body one would expect many more
close encounters than collisions. The heavy bombardments would seem to
indicate that chaos took over just as soon as mass started to clump in the
disk. Surely as much outward scattering was occuring as inward, no?
Is anybody suprised by this, I guess, is my question?
"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in message
news:mt2.0-4367...@hydra.herts.ac.uk...
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
Apr 27, 2012, 2:56:10 AM4/27/12
to
In article <mt2.0-4367...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, "Robert L.
like our own is not likely to be stable on the timescale of billions of
years. The fact that our solar system is stable has perhaps a
weak-anthropic explanation (i.e. if it had been destabilized we wouldn't
be here). What is new is the ability to detect planets outside the
solar system.
Note also that auto-ionization as the main source of free-floating
planets goes against your idea that most (all?) planets are not formed
together with stars.
Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> writes:
> "...auto-ionization is likely to remain the dominant source of free-
> floating planets."
>
> In a relatively short time we have gone from planets in relatively
> "permanent" orbits to planets undergoing extensive "migrations" and
> planets being ejected ["ionized"] from stellar systems.
>
> Our understanding of stellar scale objects and exoplanet systems is
> evolving at a remarkable pace, while the engine of particle physics is
> racing in "park".
This is nothing new. It has been known for decades that a solar system
> "...auto-ionization is likely to remain the dominant source of free-
> floating planets."
>
> In a relatively short time we have gone from planets in relatively
> "permanent" orbits to planets undergoing extensive "migrations" and
> planets being ejected ["ionized"] from stellar systems.
>
> Our understanding of stellar scale objects and exoplanet systems is
> evolving at a remarkable pace, while the engine of particle physics is
> racing in "park".
like our own is not likely to be stable on the timescale of billions of
years. The fact that our solar system is stable has perhaps a
weak-anthropic explanation (i.e. if it had been destabilized we wouldn't
be here). What is new is the ability to detect planets outside the
solar system.
Note also that auto-ionization as the main source of free-floating
planets goes against your idea that most (all?) planets are not formed
together with stars.
Robert L. Oldershaw
Apr 28, 2012, 2:04:56 AM4/28/12
to
On Apr 27, 2:56 am, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
<hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de> wrote:
> In article <mt2.0-4367-1335438...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, "Robert L.
>
> Note also that auto-ionization as the main source of free-floating
> planets goes against your idea that most (all?) planets are not formed
> together with stars.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you detect the logical flaw in the above argument?
Hint: It appears that you assume that the pre-ionization system was
did not involve any form of capture at any point in its past history.
It is not easy to break free of old paradigms. They are deeply
ingrained in our thinking.
However, scientific progress depends on our effort to counteract
habitual thinking and the metamorphosis of assumptions into "fact".
Robert L. Oldershaw
Discrete Fractal Cosmology
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
<hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de> wrote:
> In article <mt2.0-4367-1335438...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, "Robert L.
>
> Note also that auto-ionization as the main source of free-floating
> planets goes against your idea that most (all?) planets are not formed
> together with stars.
Can you detect the logical flaw in the above argument?
Hint: It appears that you assume that the pre-ionization system was
did not involve any form of capture at any point in its past history.
It is not easy to break free of old paradigms. They are deeply
ingrained in our thinking.
However, scientific progress depends on our effort to counteract
habitual thinking and the metamorphosis of assumptions into "fact".
Robert L. Oldershaw
Discrete Fractal Cosmology
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Jos Bergervoet
Apr 28, 2012, 9:50:15 AM4/28/12
to
On Apr 28, 8:04 am, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...@amherst.edu>
wrote:
not, have been an *assumption* made in the text before this
sentence, but you trimmed that out. It may also have been a
fact presented in this earlier text, or an inevitable deduction..
You simply quoted the wrong part of the text!
We cannot detect the "logical flaw in the above argument"
because there is none. (Yes, there may have been a false
assumption, made earlier. That is not detectable here!)
> It is not easy to break free of old paradigms. They are deeply
> ingrained in our thinking.
But please do keep the logic correct!
--
Jos
wrote:
> On Apr 27, 2:56 am, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply <hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de> wrote:
> > In article <mt2.0-4367-1335438...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, "Robert L.
>
> > Note also that auto-ionization as the main source of free-floating
> > planets goes against your idea that most (all?) planets are not formed
> > together with stars.
>
> > In article <mt2.0-4367-1335438...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, "Robert L.
>
> > Note also that auto-ionization as the main source of free-floating
> > planets goes against your idea that most (all?) planets are not formed
> > together with stars.
>
> Can you detect the logical flaw in the above argument?
>
> Hint: It appears that you assume that the pre-ionization system was
> did not involve any form of capture at any point in its past history.
That is not a flaw in the sentence you quoted. It may, or may
>
> Hint: It appears that you assume that the pre-ionization system was
> did not involve any form of capture at any point in its past history.
not, have been an *assumption* made in the text before this
sentence, but you trimmed that out. It may also have been a
fact presented in this earlier text, or an inevitable deduction..
You simply quoted the wrong part of the text!
We cannot detect the "logical flaw in the above argument"
because there is none. (Yes, there may have been a false
assumption, made earlier. That is not detectable here!)
> It is not easy to break free of old paradigms. They are deeply
> ingrained in our thinking.
--
Jos
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
Apr 28, 2012, 9:51:03 AM4/28/12
to
In article <mt2.0-20950...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, "Robert L.
but hardly the assumption of the authors of the paper you quote. YOU
assume that ionization somehow implies that formation was via capture.
> It is not easy to break free of old paradigms. They are deeply
> ingrained in our thinking.
Indeed, which is why we continue to try to help you break free of the
DSR paradigm.
Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> writes:
> > Note also that auto-ionization as the main source of free-floating
> > planets goes against your idea that most (all?) planets are not formed
> > together with stars.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Can you detect the logical flaw in the above argument?
>
> Hint: It appears that you assume that the pre-ionization system was
> did not involve any form of capture at any point in its past history.
It is YOUR assumption, that the initial formation was due to capture,
> > Note also that auto-ionization as the main source of free-floating
> > planets goes against your idea that most (all?) planets are not formed
> > together with stars.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Can you detect the logical flaw in the above argument?
>
> Hint: It appears that you assume that the pre-ionization system was
> did not involve any form of capture at any point in its past history.
but hardly the assumption of the authors of the paper you quote. YOU
assume that ionization somehow implies that formation was via capture.
> It is not easy to break free of old paradigms. They are deeply
> ingrained in our thinking.
DSR paradigm.
Robert L. Oldershaw
Apr 29, 2012, 3:14:04 AM4/29/12
to
On Apr 28, 9:51 am, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
<hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de> wrote:
> In article <mt2.0-20950-1335593...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, "Robert L.
No. I have not said or assumed that the initial formation or
subsequent evolution of the system involved capture events.
I am merely open-minded to that natural possibility.
You are using your straw-man debating tactic again.
I merely pointed out that you appear to assume that the initial
formation and subsequent evolution of the system prior to ionization
of the planet did not involve capture events. There is no evidence
one way or the other on this issue.
Basically, I am just asking for a more open-minded approach to science
when key issues rely on inadequately tested and/or intrinsically
untestable assumptions.
Robert L. Oldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a
faithful servant. We have created a society that rewards the servant
and ignores the gift." - A.E.
<hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de> wrote:
> In article <mt2.0-20950-1335593...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, "Robert L.
>
> It is YOUR assumption, that the initial formation was due to capture,
> but hardly the assumption of the authors of the paper you quote. YOU
> assume that ionization somehow implies that formation was via capture.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> It is YOUR assumption, that the initial formation was due to capture,
> but hardly the assumption of the authors of the paper you quote. YOU
> assume that ionization somehow implies that formation was via capture.
No. I have not said or assumed that the initial formation or
subsequent evolution of the system involved capture events.
I am merely open-minded to that natural possibility.
You are using your straw-man debating tactic again.
I merely pointed out that you appear to assume that the initial
formation and subsequent evolution of the system prior to ionization
of the planet did not involve capture events. There is no evidence
one way or the other on this issue.
Basically, I am just asking for a more open-minded approach to science
when key issues rely on inadequately tested and/or intrinsically
untestable assumptions.
Robert L. Oldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a
faithful servant. We have created a society that rewards the servant
and ignores the gift." - A.E.
0 new messages