New Papers On Planetary-Mass "Nomads" and Planetary Capture

[Robert L. Oldershaw]

Those following the exciting developments relating to the apparent
discovery of trillions of unbound, planetary-mass "nomads", and the
growing interest in the planetary-capture hypothesis, will surely want
to take a look at the following papers posted to arxiv.org recently.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.2175 "Planet-planet scattering alone cannot
explain the free-floating planet population"

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.6582 "Exoplanets Bouncing Between Binary
Stars"

http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.2362 "On the origin of planets at very wide
orbits from re-capture of free floating planets"

RLO
Discrete Scale Relativity
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

[eric gisse]

"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in news:mt2.0-
29979-13...@hydra.herts.ac.uk:

Since you have often opined that the free floating planets are not only
_consistent_ with your numerology, but _predicted_ by them, could you
tell us when we can expect a published paper detailing how your
numerology predicts the free floating planets along with their
characteristics?

[Thomas]

On Feb 20, 10:01 am, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...@amherst.edu>
wrote:

A simple order of magnitude calculation shows that even with a free
floating planet density twice the stellar density (as suggested by the
references you quoted), the chance of a star capturing a planet in its
lifetime is practically zero:

density of free floating planets N = 2/pc^3
velocity of free floating planets v = 30 km/sec = 10^-12 pc/sec
solar system capture cross section Q = pi*(1 AU)^2 = pi*(5*10^-6 pc)^2
= 8*10^-11 pc^2

This means that statistically, the average time for the sun to capture
a floating object within a distance of 1 AU is

T= 1/(N*Q*v) = 1/(2 *8*10^-11 * 10^-12 ) sec = 6*10^21 sec = 1.9*10^14
years.

This is almost 100,000 times longer than the age of the sun, so the
chance for the sun having captured a free floating object to date is
practically zero.

Thomas

[jacob navia]

Le 23/02/12 21:07, Thomas a écrit :

>
> A simple order of magnitude calculation shows that even with a free
> floating planet density twice the stellar density (as suggested by the
> references you quoted), the chance of a star capturing a planet in its
> lifetime is practically zero:
>
> density of free floating planets N = 2/pc^3
> velocity of free floating planets v = 30 km/sec = 10^-12 pc/sec
> solar system capture cross section Q = pi*(1 AU)^2 = pi*(5*10^-6 pc)^2
> = 8*10^-11 pc^2
>
> This means that statistically, the average time for the sun to capture
> a floating object within a distance of 1 AU is
>
> T= 1/(N*Q*v) = 1/(2 *8*10^-11 * 10^-12 ) sec = 6*10^21 sec = 1.9*10^14
> years.
>
> This is almost 100,000 times longer than the age of the sun, so the
> chance for the sun having captured a free floating object to date is
> practically zero.
>
> Thomas

AT ONE Astronomical unit.

Sedna is at 1000 AU, what squared gives a factor of 1 million in your
formula:

pi*(AU)^2

That makes 1.9*10^8 years, i.e. 190 million years, nothing at
astronomical scales.

I wonder then if Sedna is not a captured free floating planet that
happened to pass nearby.

Interesting...

jacob

[Robert L. Oldershaw]

On Feb 23, 3:07 pm, Thomas <thomas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> A simple order of magnitude calculation shows that even with a free
> floating planet density twice the stellar density (as suggested by the
> references you quoted), the chance of a star capturing a planet in its
> lifetime is practically zero:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One of the papers determines the probability of "nomad" capture by a
star would be in the 3% to 5% range. The paper notes that 3-5% is not
a high probability, but in the relevant star clusters, typically
containing on the order of 1,000 stars, this represents a significant
number of captured planets.

Any mathematical calculation used to approximate what actually happens
in nature is only as good as the assumptions it starts with. If one
or more critical assumptions is wrong, then the mathematical results
can seriously mislead and give wrong "answers".

I previously gave a simple and very strong observational argument for
the possibility that planet capture was reasonably common, but the
post was rejected as "too speculative" since it involved an analogy to
atomic scale systems.

[Mod. note:... which meant it was not either a strong or an
observational argument. -- mjh]

I think we are going to have to modify many of our set-in-stone
assumptions regarding stellar and exoplanet systems. Observations
have and will continue to demand it.

RLO
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity
Faster-than-light neutrinos? "In a pig's eye!"

[eric gisse]

"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in

news:mt2.0-29512...@hydra.herts.ac.uk:

> On Feb 23, 3:07 pm, Thomas <thomas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> A simple order of magnitude calculation shows that even with a free
>> floating planet density twice the stellar density (as suggested by
>> the references you quoted), the chance of a star capturing a planet
>> in its lifetime is practically zero:
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------------
>
> One of the papers determines the probability of "nomad" capture by a
> star would be in the 3% to 5% range. The paper notes that 3-5% is not
> a high probability, but in the relevant star clusters, typically
> containing on the order of 1,000 stars, this represents a significant
> number of captured planets.

You do realize that star clusters are different from the galactic
stellear neighborhood at large, right?

I assume you noticed the predicted orbits of the captured bodies to be
between 100 and 10^6 AU, the latter case being a severe test of the
definition of "capture". So even if you could generalize this result out
(you can't, the galaxy is not a cluster) it would still mean just north
of nothing for observation at this time because none of our exoplanet
detection techniques are sensitive to objects at that range.

>
> Any mathematical calculation used to approximate what actually happens
> in nature is only as good as the assumptions it starts with. If one
> or more critical assumptions is wrong, then the mathematical results
> can seriously mislead and give wrong "answers".
>
> I previously gave a simple and very strong observational argument for
> the possibility that planet capture was reasonably common, but the
> post was rejected as "too speculative" since it involved an analogy to
> atomic scale systems.

Perhaps it had no actual calculations or observations supporting it, much
like the last several times you brought it up?

You will get zero traction arguing "but the systems are similar!" because
your numerology has failed every observational test thus far.

>
> [Mod. note:... which meant it was not either a strong or an
> observational argument. -- mjh]
>
> I think we are going to have to modify many of our set-in-stone
> assumptions regarding stellar and exoplanet systems. Observations
> have and will continue to demand it.

Sure, our understanding of exoplanets has been and is continuing to grow
and those assumptions are being challenged all the time.

However nobody is going to take your numerology seriously because you
have a very long history of not concerning yourself with its' fatal
flaws. I note you have given up entirely on discussing them with me, as
snipping everything and saying 'woofy' won't fly here.

If you want people to take you seriously, try making a quantitative
prediction. You say your numerology predicted those free floating
planets....lets see the calculation. Let's see some numbers. Until you
have that, you are just another USENET poster with a theory.

[Thomas Smid]

On Feb 24, 8:40 am, jacob navia <ja...@spamsink.net> wrote:
[Mod. note: quoted text trimmed -- mjh]

> Sedna is at 1000 AU, what squared gives a factor of 1 million in your
> formula:
>
> pi*(AU)^2
>
> That makes 1.9*10^8 years, i.e. 190 million years, nothing at
> astronomical scales.
>
> I wonder then if Sedna is not a captured free floating planet that
> happened to pass nearby.
>
> Interesting...

At 1000 AU, the orbital speed is of the order of 1 km/sec, and this is
about the speed an object must have for there to be any chance of
being captured. So 30 km/sec (which is what I assumed above for the
average peculiar speed of interstellar objects) is much too high for a
capture. And the density of objects with a speed of just 1 km (or
less) would be much smaller. If you assume a Maxwell-Boltzmann
distribution, then the density of particles is proportional to v^2 for
speeds small compared to the average speed, so in this case only
(1/30)^2 = 1/900 of the total density N. And because v would be
smaller by factor 1/30 as well, you would then still be at a time of
5*10^12 years, i.e. there would be just a 1/1000 chance that it has
occurred during the lifetime of the sun. And this is only the
probability for an object to get sufficiently close to the sun in the
first place. You then have to multiply this with the (conceivably even
much smaller) probability that it has a very close encounter with an
object of a comparable size in the solar system (because that is the
only way for it to lose kinetic energy and thus become captured by the
solar system).

But anyway, as we know from previous discussions, Robert suggests the
capture theory as a general alternative to explain the formation of
planetary systems, so also at 1AU or even closer (because that is what
his principle of a fundamental similarity between planetary systems
and atomic systems would demand).

Thomas

[jacob navia]

Le 25/02/12 19:19, Thomas Smid a écrit :

> At 1000 AU, the orbital speed is of the order of 1 km/sec, and this is
> about the speed an object must have for there to be any chance of
> being captured. So 30 km/sec (which is what I assumed above for the
> average peculiar speed of interstellar objects) is much too high for a
> capture. And the density of objects with a speed of just 1 km (or
> less) would be much smaller. If you assume a Maxwell-Boltzmann
> distribution, then the density of particles is proportional to v^2 for
> speeds small compared to the average speed, so in this case only
> (1/30)^2 = 1/900 of the total density N. And because v would be
> smaller by factor 1/30 as well, you would then still be at a time of
> 5*10^12 years, i.e. there would be just a 1/1000 chance that it has
> occurred during the lifetime of the sun. And this is only the
> probability for an object to get sufficiently close to the sun in the
> first place. You then have to multiply this with the (conceivably even
> much smaller) probability that it has a very close encounter with an
> object of a comparable size in the solar system (because that is the
> only way for it to lose kinetic energy and thus become captured by the
> solar system).

The key parameter here is the density of the free floating planets.
A press release published yesterday by Stanford University says that
there should be 100 000 (one hundred thousand) planets for each star.
Please look in this URL, I may have misunderstood something:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.news/msg/529b729a0725bb1d?pli=1

That is a 5 orders of magnitude more than what you assumed in your
calculations.

The problem with astronomy now is that the fact that we have entered
space and we have now space telescopes opens such an avalanche of new
data that many theories just will not stand the test of time.

>
> But anyway, as we know from previous discussions, Robert suggests the
> capture theory as a general alternative to explain the formation of
> planetary systems, so also at 1AU or even closer (because that is what
> his principle of a fundamental similarity between planetary systems
> and atomic systems would demand).
>

I wasn't arguing either for or against Robert's theory. The fact that
so many free floating planets are there is just mind boogling. That has
surely consequences but I am not competent to figure them out.

jacob

[Robert L. Oldershaw]

On Feb 25, 1:19 pm, Thomas Smid <thomas.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> But anyway, as we know from previous discussions, Robert suggests the
> capture theory as a general alternative to explain the formation of
> planetary systems, so also at 1AU or even closer (because that is what
> his principle of a fundamental similarity between planetary systems
> and atomic systems would demand).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

A man of remarkable insight into natural philosophy, whom I will not
name lest I be accused of comparing myself to him, once said words to
the effect that: 'often in science, progress has been made by
considering analogies between things that were previously thought to
be unrelated'.

With this perceptive comment in mind, I would urge readers to consider
what the physics of atomic scale plasmas might suggest in terms of the
formation of multiple stellar systems like exoplanet systems.
Consider a plasma of nuclei, electrons and excited atoms, i.e., not a
fully ionized plasma, but one that allows the capture of electrons by
the nuclei, and subsequent ejection.

In such a plasma you get an extremely rich physics that includes a
very large number of possible "species", configurations, energy
states, ellipticities, discreteness, quasi-continuous evolution for
the highest energy states, etc.

Were we to give some credence to the possibility that atomic scale
plasma behavior might provide useful analogies for guiding our
thinking about stellar scale "formation" behavior, it is possible that
new and useful insights would emerge.

For example, if we wondered whether capture into low-n orbit or
capture into a high-n orbit were more likely, we could use what is
well-known to occur on the atomic scale as a guide to what we might
expect for stellar scale systems. Capture into high-n states is far
more likely. Most of the low-n systems form from the relatively slow
relaxation of high-n systems, not direct capture to low-n states.

Using such an analogy as a mere heuristic guide, or using it as a more
formal theoretical assumption, is a free choice. Eventually the
empirical match between analogy and reality determines the true status
of the analogy.

Best,
RLO
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Discrete Scale relativity

[eric gisse]

"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in

news:mt2.0-5795...@hydra.herts.ac.uk:

[...]

> For example, if we wondered whether capture into low-n orbit or
> capture into a high-n orbit were more likely, we could use what is
> well-known to occur on the atomic scale as a guide to what we might
> expect for stellar scale systems. Capture into high-n states is far
> more likely. Most of the low-n systems form from the relatively slow
> relaxation of high-n systems, not direct capture to low-n states.

Since we haven't seen any evidence that capture is an even slightly
relevant behavior for planetary systems, I'm not sure where you are going
for this.

Besides, there's literally no analogy between atomic state transitions
and planetary orbits.

>
> Using such an analogy as a mere heuristic guide, or using it as a more
> formal theoretical assumption, is a free choice. Eventually the
> empirical match between analogy and reality determines the true status
> of the analogy.

How is there any analogy at all when the dynamical equations of the
system are not anywhere near similar? Schroedinger vs Newton, etc.

It seems more like any commonalities between the two are due to
mathematical similarities in the system solutions, eg with traits similar
to bound orbits and whatnot.

How many times does the analogy have to fail before you sit down and
admit to yourself *it does not work* ?

[Robert L. Oldershaw]

On Feb 26, 12:05 pm, jacob navia <ja...@spamsink.net> wrote:
>
> so many free floating planets are there is just mind boogling. That has
> surely consequences but I am not competent to figure them out.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

At this point it should be remembered and emphasized, as do the
relevant researchers involved in nomad research, that the inferred
objects are planetary-mass objects.

In terms of their physical state, they may not be planets in the
conventional sense of the word.

The actual physical properties of nomads must be determined
empirically and this may take some time.

[eric gisse]

"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in news:mt2.0-

10837-13...@hydra.herts.ac.uk:

Since you believe your numerology predicted them, don't you have some
predictions about their empirical properties?

[Robert L. Oldershaw]

On Feb 27, 6:44 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Since you believe your numerology predicted them, don't you have some
> predictions about their empirical properties?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let us try to be accurate in our facts.

To my knowledge, Discrete Scale Relativity is the only theory in the
entire history of physics/astronomy to have predicted such a vast
population of unbound planetary-mass objects. Reference: Oldershaw,
ApJ 322, 34-36, 1987.

It is the physical state of this definitively anticipated population
that now the critical issue.

DSR predicts that the majority of the mass/energy comprising this
population of nomads is in the central singularities of Kerr-Newman
ultracompact objects, with the mass distribution very strongly peaked
at 7.8 x 10^-5 solar mass (i.e., about Neptune's mass).

These objects may have a low-mass envelope of atoms and subatomic
particles shrouding them, but they would most definitely not
constitute what we think of as planets.

Admittedly this is a very radical prediction, and I can understand if
people think it is a preposterous one. All I ask is that we let
nature pass empirical judgement on the prediction, and that we accept
neither personal opinion nor arguments based on untested theoretical
assumptions.

Using the scaling equations and its basic principles, anyone who has
studied Discrete Scale Relativity can predict many physical properties
of these putative Kerr-Newman ultracompacts.

Hope this helps,
RLO
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 honors the servant
and has forgotten the gift.” - A.E.

[eric gisse]

"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in

news:mt2.0-18365...@hydra.herts.ac.uk:

> On Feb 27, 6:44 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Since you believe your numerology predicted them, don't you have some
>> predictions about their empirical properties?
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
>
> Let us try to be accurate in our facts.
>
> To my knowledge, Discrete Scale Relativity is the only theory in the
> entire history of physics/astronomy to have predicted such a vast
> population of unbound planetary-mass objects. Reference: Oldershaw,
> ApJ 322, 34-36, 1987.

Not a good starting position, when every major prediction in that paper
has been completely falsified.

Besides, could you help a reading-challeneged person out and point to
where, in your paper, the population is predicted?

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1987ApJ...322...34O/0000034.000.
html

If you mean that prediction that dark matter is made up of 0.145 M_sun
ultracompacts then that has been definitively falsified so I'm not really
sure what you are referring to.


[...]

> Admittedly this is a very radical prediction, and I can understand if
> people think it is a preposterous one. All I ask is that we let
> nature pass empirical judgement on the prediction, and that we accept
> neither personal opinion nor arguments based on untested theoretical
> assumptions.

Nature has passed empirical judgement. Microlensing theories exclude your
predicted object background (including the Neptune-mass objects) rather
solidly.

We've been over this before. EROS, OGLE, etc. Your only argument seems to
be nonspecific complaints about the theory, even though you cite
Paczynski just as much as OGLE does as for example here:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.2925

Could you please explain to the rest of us how you can hold your
numerology in such high regard even though it is so clearly not viable?
You are encouraged to explain exactly what you find wrong with the last
20 years of microlensing surveys, other than the obvious "observation
does not match theory" complaint.

Perhaps you have some recent publications detailing its' sucesses that
can be read?

[...]

[Phillip Helbig---undress to reply]

In article <mt2.0-18365...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, "Robert L.

Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> writes:

> On Feb 27, 6:44 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >

> > Since you believe your numerology predicted them, don't you have some
> > predictions about their empirical properties?

> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>
> Let us try to be accurate in our facts.
>
> To my knowledge, Discrete Scale Relativity is the only theory in the
> entire history of physics/astronomy to have predicted such a vast
> population of unbound planetary-mass objects. Reference: Oldershaw,
> ApJ 322, 34-36, 1987.

This same paper makes a definitive prediction which has now been
falsified. By any useful definition, that falsifies DSR as a theory.
You have repeatedly stated that it is a cop-out to add an epicycle to
keep a theory alive after it should have died.

[Richard D. Saam]

On 2/27/12 11:53 AM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
> On Feb 27, 6:44 am, eric gisse<jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Since you believe your numerology predicted them, don't you have some
>> predictions about their empirical properties?
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Let us try to be accurate in our facts.
>
> To my knowledge, Discrete Scale Relativity is the only theory in the
> entire history of physics/astronomy to have predicted such a vast
> population of unbound planetary-mass objects. Reference: Oldershaw,
> ApJ 322, 34-36, 1987.

Yours is not the the only one:

In June 2005, I posted this concept under the title
"Orthokinetic Aggregation and Cosmology"
that may be appropriate to this current "Nomad" discussion.
In the field of waste water, drinking water and sanitation there is the
concept of orthokinetic flocculation which is generally mathematically
expressed by

shear = sqrt(Power/(viscosity x Volume))

Ref:

Miron Smoluchowski, Drei Vorträge über Diffusion, Brownsche
Molekularbewegung und Koagulation von Kolloidteilchen (Three Lectures on
Diffusion, Brownian Motion, and Coagulation of Colloidal Particles),
Phys. Z., 17, 557 (1916); Versuch einer Mathematischen Theorie der
Koaguationskinetik Kolloider Lösugen (Trial of a Mathematical Theory of
the Coagulation Kinetics of Colloidal Solutions), Z. Physik. Chem., 92,
129, 155 (1917).

T. R. Camp and P. C. Stein, "Velocity Gradients and Internal Work in
Fluid Motion", Journal of the Boston Society Civil Engineers. 30, 219
(1943).

Given a tank (with "Volume" cm^3)
filled with water
(with absolute "viscosity" g/(cm sec))
(momentum transferred per surface area)
and this water containing particles,
a "Power" (erg/sec)
(motor driven impeller)
is introduced to provide "shear" (/sec) (dv/dx)
within the water.

v2 -> Particle 2
/
/ ^
/ |
/ x
/
v1 -> Particle 1

Particle 1 and Particle 2 move at different velocities
in the shear (v2-v1)/delta_x or dv/dx

Proper selection of shear ensures that particles remain suspended in the
fluid and if they aggregate, remain separate
or break into smaller particles
and by this dynamic
establishes the particle (Nomadic planet) size distribution.

It is interesting to note that shear (dv/dx) has units of /time. This
is the same unit as the Hubble constant H in cosmology.
H=71.23 km s^-1 Mpc^-1
which dimensionally is:
v (km s^-1) / x (million parsec)
or
2.31E-18 s^-1 1 Parsec = 3.08568025E18 cm
This H would be much larger at the early universe where this dynamic may
be more prevalent.
Could one mechanism be the observed cosmos (volume) as an orthokinetic
fluid medium with vacuum energy density having a viscosity
such that observed Hubble "shear" is congruent with object mass
distribution with the universe?

Within this context, most objects are nomads and capture is improbable.
There would be no particle discreteness.
Object size(D) would reflect the shear(H) that created them
with D~1/H


Richard D. Saam
My 1999 paper discusses this concept
in the astrophysical context
in much more detail.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9905007
Appendix L

[Thomas Smid]

On Feb 26, 5:05 pm, jacob navia <ja...@spamsink.net> wrote:
> The key parameter here is the density of the free floating planets.
> A press release published yesterday by Stanford University says that
> there should be 100 000 (one hundred thousand) planets for each star.
> Please look in this URL, I may have misunderstood something:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.news/msg/529b729a0725bb1d?pli=1
>
> That is a 5 orders of magnitude more than what you assumed in your
> calculations.

This figure is an estimate based on the assumption that a) the slope
of the nomad mass function has a value of 2, and b) you are looking at
objects with a mass of 10^-8 solar masses (see Fig.1 in
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1201.2687v1.pdf ). That might be at best
appropriate for objects like Sedna, but not for anything larger. For
Jupiter-sized planets (10^-3 solar masses) for instance, the figure
gives (independently of the assumptions for the slope) exactly the
density value upon which I based my calculation, i.e. there is
practically a zero chance that any of the major planets could have
been captured (let alone all of them in virtually one plane).

Thomas

[Thomas Smid]

On Feb 26, 7:17 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...@amherst.edu>
wrote:

> On Feb 25, 1:19 pm, Thomas Smid <thomas.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > But anyway, as we know from previous discussions, Robert suggests the
> > capture theory as a general alternative to explain the formation of
> > planetary systems, so also at 1AU or even closer (because that is what
> > his principle of a fundamental similarity between planetary systems
> > and atomic systems would demand).
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> A man of remarkable insight into natural philosophy, whom I will not
> name lest I be accused of comparing myself to him, once said words to
> the effect that: 'often in science, progress has been made by
> considering analogies between things that were previously thought to
> be unrelated'.

By all means, having a wider view can certainly help to get a better
picture of reality, but you shouldn't just base this picture on some
vague similarities between things whilst ignoring a host of (also
obvious) dis-similarities.

Anyway, when you see analogies, this is where the theoretical work
rather should start, whilst you effectively declare it as finished by
establishing some metaphysical 'similarity principle' that you claim
'explains' the analogies.

Thomas

[jacob navia]

Le 02/03/12 09:13, Thomas Smid a écrit :

> This figure is an estimate based on the assumption that a) the slope
> of the nomad mass function has a value of 2, and b) you are looking at
> objects with a mass of 10^-8 solar masses (see Fig.1 in
> http://arxiv.org/pdf/1201.2687v1.pdf ). That might be at best
> appropriate for objects like Sedna, but not for anything larger. For
> Jupiter-sized planets (10^-3 solar masses) for instance, the figure
> gives (independently of the assumptions for the slope) exactly the
> density value upon which I based my calculation, i.e. there is
> practically a zero chance that any of the major planets could have
> been captured (let alone all of them in virtually one plane).

You are obviously right for all planets that have orbits in the plane of
the ecliptic, I wouldn't discuss that those weren't captured.

I was speaking about objects much smaller and with orbits NOT in the
ecliptic plane and with very far away orbits, like Sedna precisely. I
would guess that those are captured objects.

Thanks for the link to that article.

jacob

[Robert L. Oldershaw]

On Mar 2, 3:19 am, Thomas Smid <thomas.s...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > the effect that: 'often in science, progress has been made by
> > considering analogies between things that were previously thought to
> > be unrelated'.
>
> By all means, having a wider view can certainly help to get a better
> picture of reality, but you shouldn't just base this picture on some
> vague similarities between things whilst ignoring a host of (also
> obvious) dis-similarities.

The quotation obviously states that sometimes the "dis-similarities"
are apparent and incorrect, and further, that when these conceptual
biases are removed the value of the analogy is revealed. The
quotation concerns a general phenomenon that occurs in science, with
the analogy between photons and molecules in a gas being the case in
point for the author of the quotation.

> Anyway, when you see analogies, this is where the theoretical work
> rather should start, whilst you effectively declare it as finished by
> establishing some metaphysical 'similarity principle' that you claim
> 'explains' the analogies.

It is clear from this statement that you do not understand that the
theoretical foundation of DSR is GR, EM and direct observation of the
scaling properties of nature's self-evident well-stratified
hierarchical organization.

DSR is far more grounded in observational support than "WIMP"
conjectures, the entirety of string/brane theory, SUSY hypotheses, and
most of the "beyond the standard model" pipe-dreams.

Moreover, DSR makes a large number of definitive predictions,
including 12 major ones that I would be happy to provide you with a
list of.

DSR has predicted pulsar-planets and a vast population of planetary-
mass "nomads" (see the 40 successful retrodictions and predictions
listed on my website) .

Were you to actually spend a month or so (1-2 hours per day) studying
DSR with a completely open and inquiring mind, I feel confident that
you would come away with an entirely different evaluation of DSR.

[Mod. note: the logical fallacy of poisoning the wells ('I am
confident that if you study my theory with a completely open and
inquiring mind you will agree with me; therefore, if you do not, you
must not have done so with a completely open and inquiring mind, and
your conclusions may be rejected') is another mode of argument that
posters are recommended to avoid on this newsgroup -- mjh]

RLO
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity

[Phillip Helbig---undress to reply]

In article <mt2.0-6005...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, "Robert L.

Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> writes:

> DSR is far more grounded in observational support than "WIMP"
> conjectures, the entirety of string/brane theory, SUSY hypotheses, and
> most of the "beyond the standard model" pipe-dreams.

Then why does no-one work on it apart from you? Perhaps because one of
its definitive predictions has been ruled out?

> Moreover, DSR makes a large number of definitive predictions,
> including 12 major ones that I would be happy to provide you with a
> list of.

One has been ruled out. That's enough. Suppose I have a random-number
generator and one can test if the numbers are random. It passes some
tests: for example, the distribution is flat with the expected (Poisson)
errors. However, while it produces numbers between 0 and 1, they never
differ by more than 0.2. In that case, one can definitively say that
the numbers are not random even though it still passes the other test.

[Jos Bergervoet]

On Mar 3, 10:42 am, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...@amherst.edu>
wrote:
..

> DSR has predicted pulsar-planets and a vast population of planetary-
> mass "nomads" (see the 40 successful retrodictions and predictions
> listed on my website) .

Does this mean that without DSR these phenomena could
not exist and with DSR they can? Or how else do you want
to define "predict"?

> Were you to actually spend a month or so (1-2 hours per day) studying
> DSR with a completely open and inquiring mind, I feel confident that
> you would come away with an entirely different evaluation of DSR.
>
> [Mod. note: the logical fallacy of poisoning the wells ('I am
> confident that if you study my theory with a completely open and
> inquiring mind you will agree with me;

This is of course a "prediction" by Robert and he may well be
right. If an open and inquiring mind means no education in
science or math and no prior knowledge whatsoever (he writes
"completely open" after all!) a person might be convinced.

> therefore, if you do not, you
> must not have done so with a completely open and inquiring mind, and
> your conclusions may be rejected')

No no, that is *your* fallacy! A "completely open" mind (in the
ultimate sense) is not desirable at all.

[Mod. note: er, no -- mjh]

--
Jos

[Robert L. Oldershaw]

On Mar 3, 4:42 am, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...@amherst.edu>
wrote:
>

> Were you to actually spend a month or so (1-2 hours per day) studying
> DSR with a completely open and inquiring mind, I feel confident that
> you would come away with an entirely different evaluation of DSR.
>
> [Mod. note: the logical fallacy of poisoning the wells ('I am
> confident that if you study my theory with a completely open and
> inquiring mind you will agree with me; therefore, if you do not, you
> must not have done so with a completely open and inquiring mind, and
> your conclusions may be rejected') is another mode of argument that
> posters are recommended to avoid on this newsgroup -- mjh]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I appreciate your argument about "poisoning the well" and will be a
bit more careful in how I express things in the future.

On the other hand, it is relatively easy to determine if a person has
had an open-minded or closed-minded response to a new idea.

The open-minded person says something like: 'I like x,y, and z about
the theory, but how in the world do you explain the apparent
theoretical/empirical conflict with a and b.'

The closed-minded person says something like: 'Your theory is totally
wrong since it violates known physics relating to a and b.'

Note carefully the differences in: (1) use of absolutes, (2)
willingness to acknowledge strengths of the theory, (3) assumptions
of true and unchangeable existing knowledge, and (4) how doubts about
the theory are expressed.

From a person's reaction to a new idea you can get a reasonably
accurate feeling for whether they have given the idea a fair hearing.
Open-mindedness involves a balance of both openness to the new idea
and skepticism about it.

RLO
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity

[eric gisse]

"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in news:mt2.0-6005-
13307...@hydra.herts.ac.uk:


[...]

>
> Moreover, DSR makes a large number of definitive predictions,
> including 12 major ones that I would be happy to provide you with a
> list of.

?

Every prediction in your 1987 paper has been falsified. I have commented
upon this several times in February alone in this newsgroup, yet you have
not responded to any of the falsifications.

You are wrong about the mass of the sun by 100 standard deviations. If
you include the planets like you pointlessly demanded, you are still
wrong by 50 standard deviations.

Neither planetary or stellar masses are quantized the way you demand, and
there's been more than enough room for you to argue the results. Instead
you claim bias, then refuse to followup on the results.

Your predicted radius of the proton is off by about 40 standard
deviations

Microlensing surveys that did what your 1987 paper demanded have found no
evidence of your dark matter components, in fact your prediction for dark
matter has been resoundingly falsified.

Finally, you still have not yet managed to show how your theory predicts
any measurable quantity of these planets you keep saying you have
"predicted".

Find a new hobby, Robert.

[...]

[eric gisse]

"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in news:mt2.0-

19661-13...@hydra.herts.ac.uk:


[...]

> From a person's reaction to a new idea you can get a reasonably
> accurate feeling for whether they have given the idea a fair hearing.
> Open-mindedness involves a balance of both openness to the new idea
> and skepticism about it.
>

You have many falsifications of it in *THIS VERY THREAD* that you refuse
to acknowledge. The time for open-mindened has been over for months.

If you wanted to not be laughed at when you demanded open mindeness you
would not have reacted the way you did when I took stellar mass data and
showed you that your numerology is false.

I note that all of your claimed successes have yet to pass peer review.
Perhaps you have an explanation as to why your chosen medium of
communication is now fully reliant on open access mediums like USENET and
your personal homepage?


[...]

[Robert L. Oldershaw]

On Mar 3, 5:42 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I note that all of your claimed successes have yet to pass peer review.
> Perhaps you have an explanation as to why your chosen medium of
> communication is now fully reliant on open access mediums like USENET and
> your personal homepage?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am sorry to report that you you sound a false "note". In fact =/>
three falsehoods in 2 sentences.

(1) The pulsar-planet prediction was published in a peer-reviewed
journal. See paper # 29 in the list of 70 publications given at
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw .

(2) The prediction of vast populations of unbound planetary-mass
objects associated with every galaxy was published in a peer-reviewed
journal. See paper #26 in the list of 70 publications given at
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw .

[Phillip Helbig---undress to reply]

In article <mt2.0-27311...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, "Robert L.

Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> writes:

> (1) The pulsar-planet prediction was published in a peer-reviewed
> journal. See paper # 29 in the list of 70 publications given at
> http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw .

Due to the use of frames, it isn't possible to give a direct link. One
has to select "Publications List" from the left panel. The reference
is:

29. Two New Tests Of The Self-Similar Cosmological Paradigm
Speculations in Science and Technology, 12(2), 135-137, 1989.

As predicted, the oscillation periods of neutron stars and white dwarf
stars are related to their atomic scale counterparts in atomic nuclei
and helium atoms by the scale transformation equations of the Self-
Similar Cosmological Model.

No mention of pulsar planets in this brief abstract.

Do you have a direct link to the paper?

Here's a table of contents from a recent issue:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/0155-7785

Although they run ads on the website, one still has to pay:

Access to this content is restricted to subscribers. Options for
obtaining access are below.

> (2) The prediction of vast populations of unbound planetary-mass
> objects associated with every galaxy was published in a peer-reviewed
> journal. See paper #26 in the list of 70 publications given at
> http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw .

That would be:

26. The Self-Similar Cosmological Paradigm: A New Test And Two New
Predictions
Astrophysical Journal, 322(1), 34-36, 1987.

The magnetic dipole moments of atomic nuclei and neutron stars are
shown to be quantitatively related the manner predicted by the
scaling equations of the Self-Similar Cosmological Model. Definitive
predictions regarding the structure of the electron and the nature of
the dark matter are presented.

This is available at ADS:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987ApJ...322...34O

Here's the abstract:

It is demonstrated that the magnetic dipole moments of atomic nuclei
and neutron stars are quantitatively related by the fundamental
scaling equations of the self-similar cosmological paradigm, and
therefore a 16th falsification test has been passed by this
theoretical model. Two definitive predictions are also pointed out:
(1) the model predicts that the electron will be found to have
structure with radius of about 4 x 10 to the -17th cm, at just below
the current empirical resolution capability, and (2) the model makes
quantitative predictions regarding gravitational microlensing by
predicted 'dark matter' candidates. Some possible theoretical
implications of cosmological self-similarity are introduced.

A few weeks ago, I posted links to papers which rule out the
"definitive prediction" (1). Let me summarize: measurements of the
g-factor for electrons agree with theory to such a precision that any
substructure on this scale is ruled out. The paper I mentioned
explicitly addresses this question. Also, analysis of
electron-proton collisions at HERA probe much smaller scales and the
agreement with theory assuming point-like electrons is so good that
substructure of the electron at this scale is ruled out.

While this scale might have been just below the current empirical
resolution capability when the paper was published, a quarter-century
later that is no longer the case.

Again, this paper discusses "definitive predictions" of DSR and (1)
(and probably (2)) has been ruled out by experiment.

Bottom line: unless you can demonstrate why these two experiments
ruling out prediction (1) are wrong, no-one will believe DSR, since a
"definitive prediction" can only mean that the theory stands and
falls with the confirmation or ruling out of said prediction.

[eric gisse]

"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in

news:mt2.0-27311...@hydra.herts.ac.uk:

> On Mar 3, 5:42 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I note that all of your claimed successes have yet to pass peer
>> review. Perhaps you have an explanation as to why your chosen medium
>> of communication is now fully reliant on open access mediums like
>> USENET and your personal homepage?
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
>
> I am sorry to report that you you sound a false "note". In fact =/>
> three falsehoods in 2 sentences.

I always aim for density in communication.

>
> (1) The pulsar-planet prediction was published in a peer-reviewed
> journal. See paper # 29 in the list of 70 publications given at
> http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw .

I'm sorry, "Speculations in Science and Technology" does not qualify as a
peer reviewed journal as it is a discontinued open access publication
that does not actually *peer review* publications.

Further, the reference is not cited by anyone nor is it locatable online
even in something like springerlink.

I am unclear as to why you think a journal that nobody carries has any
weight in an argument.

But just for giggles, since you claim you predicted pulsar planets, can
you show how your numerology makes _falsifiable_ predictions about the
_measurable properties_ of those pulsar planets?

>
> (2) The prediction of vast populations of unbound planetary-mass
> objects associated with every galaxy was published in a peer-reviewed
> journal. See paper #26 in the list of 70 publications given at
> http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw .

That's a poor choice of citation, as every falsifiable prediction within
that paper has been shown to be at odds with observation (aka "wrong").

The claim about magnetic dipole moments of neutron stars? Wrong by many
orders of magnitude.

The claim about electron substructure? Wrong by many orders of magnitude.

The claim about those 0.145 M_sun ultracompacts *and* their x-ray
luminosities? Wrong, hilariously wrong.

The claim about G scaling upwards to ~10^38 upwards in an atom? Not even
wrong.

The claim of unbound planetary mass objects? Not even in the paper you
cited.

You said *VERY EXPLICITLY* the range was 0.145 M_sun to 8 M_sun, which is
about six orders of magnitude off from the masses of the unbound objects
discovered by Sumi, et. al. so that's actually a falsification of your
numerology rather than a vindication.

[Thomas Smid]

On Mar 3, 9:42 am, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...@amherst.edu>
wrote:

> On Mar 2, 3:19 am, Thomas Smid <thomas.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > the effect that: 'often in science, progress has been made by
> > > considering analogies between things that were previously thought to
> > > be unrelated'.
>
> > By all means, having a wider view can certainly help to get a better
> > picture of reality, but you shouldn't just base this picture on some
> > vague similarities between things whilst ignoring a host of (also
> > obvious) dis-similarities.

> The quotation obviously states that sometimes the "dis-similarities"
> are apparent and incorrect, and further, that when these conceptual
> biases are removed the value of the analogy is revealed.

Are you sure it is not you who is biased here? Looking for instance at
your website page regarding your hypothesis of a discrete stellar mass
distribution, you take any small peak at the predicted masses (even
those that may be statistically irrelevant) as proof for your
hypothesis, whilst simply ignoring stars with different masses as
being due to an 'observational bias'. It is quite evident that only by
taking a very selective and one-sided view in this sense, you are able
to uphold your hypothesis of a stellar/atomic self-similarity
connection. Otherwise you would realize that a star has not much in
common with an atom. An atom is both conceptually and physically well
defined, a star isn't. The formation of both is governed by completely
different processes, and stars do not have definitive discrete masses
but even after formation their mass changes all the time due to mass
ejection or accretion from the interstellar medium. Unless your self-
similarity principle can account for these obvious differences, it
just makes a mockery of nature.

Thomas

[Thomas Smid]

On Mar 4, 7:46 am, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...@amherst.edu>
wrote:

> (2) The prediction of vast populations of unbound planetary-mass
> objects associated with every galaxy was published in a peer-reviewed
> journal.  See paper #26 in the list of 70 publications given at
> http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw.

Apart from the fact that a) in your paper you speak of low-mass black
holes (not planetary objects), and b) according to the number estimate
in the very papers you quoted in the opening post, this would not have
any impact for the dark matter problem (as you suggest in your paper).

Thomas

[Robert L. Oldershaw]

On Mar 4, 10:12 am, Thomas Smid <thomas.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > (2) The prediction of vast populations of unbound planetary-mass
> > objects associated with every galaxy was published in a peer-reviewed
> > journal.  See paper #26 in the list of 70 publications given at
> >http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw.
>
> Apart from the fact that a) in your paper you speak of low-mass black
> holes (not planetary objects), and b) according to the number estimate
> in the very papers you quoted in the opening post, this would not have
> any impact for the dark matter problem (as you suggest in your paper).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the record, in case there are impartial and interested lurkers out
there reading this thread, the paper in question predicts that the
dark matter is primarily composed of stellar-mass and planetary-mass
ultracompact objects. It is clearly stated that the planetary-mass
population cannot comprise the most of the dark matter mass, which is
mostly in the stellar-mass component.

As I have repeatedly stated recently, it is the physical state of the
"nomads" that is now the critical issue. DSR has already successfully
predicted the discovery of a vast and previously unexpected population
of planetary-mass objects. If these objects turn out to be in the
predicted highly collapsed state of Kerr-Newman ultracompacts, then it
will be a definitive prediction of such power as has not been seen in
many decades.

[Richard D. Saam]

On 2/20/12 4:01 AM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
> Those following the exciting developments relating to the apparent
> discovery of trillions of unbound, planetary-mass "nomads", and the
> growing interest in the planetary-capture hypothesis, will surely want
> to take a look at the following papers posted to arxiv.org recently.
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.2175 "Planet-planet scattering alone cannot
> explain the free-floating planet population"
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.6582 "Exoplanets Bouncing Between Binary
> Stars"
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.2362 "On the origin of planets at very wide
> orbits from re-capture of free floating planets"

>
> RLO
> Discrete Scale Relativity
> http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

For an assumed galactic density of 1E-24 g/cc
the following general calculations are made for ~1 g/cc objects
making up that galactic density.
Column 1 is object diameter in cm
Column 2 is distance between objects in cm
Column 3 is mean free path through objects in light years
It can be generally concluded:
1. If the galaxy is made mostly of dust
it could not be seen through.
2. If the galaxy is made of objects larger than 1 cm
their mean free path would be equal or larger than the galaxy diameter
~1E5 light years and would be readily transparent(as it is).
3. In this context, detection of nomad planets may represent only a
small number of interstellar objects making up the galaxy.
Trillions of unbound, planetary-mass "nomads" are not enough to make up
galactic density of ~1E-24 g/cc.

How can such small objects be detected
other than by their gravitational influence?
Present small object occlusion methods are insufficient at this time.

dust 1E-05 1E+03 1E+01
dust 1E-04 1E+04 1E+02
dust 1E-03 1E+05 1E+03
dust 1E-02 1E+06 1E+04
dust 1E-01 1E+07 1E+05 galaxy diameter
small chunks 1E+00 1E+08 1E+06
small chunks 1E+01 1E+09 1E+07
small chunks 1E+02 1E+10 1E+08
asteroid sized chunks 1E+03 1E+11 1E+09
asteroid sized chunks 1E+04 1E+12 1E+10
asteroid sized chunks 1E+05 1E+13 1E+11
asteroid sized chunks 1E+06 1E+14 1E+12
asteroid sized chunks 1E+07 1E+15 1E+13
planet 1E+08 1E+16 1E+14
planet 1E+09 1E+17 1E+15

Captain James T. Kirk would not be advised to transit this mine field.

Richard D. Saam

[Robert L. Oldershaw]

On Mar 4, 9:58 am, Thomas Smid <thomas.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> connection. Otherwise you would realize that a star has not much in
> common with an atom. An atom is both conceptually and physically well
> defined, a star isn't. The formation of both is governed by completely
> different processes, and stars do not have definitive discrete masses

-------------------------------------------------------------

In assessing the proposed self-similarity of putative atomic scale and
stellar scale analogues one must be aware of, and fully take into
account:

(1) that the spatial scales of the analogues differ by a factor of
about 500,000,000,000,000,000

and

(2) that the temporal scales of the analogues differ by a factor of
about 500,000,000,000,000,000 .

The differences in scale are huge, and very many orders of magnitude
beyond what even gifted people's intuition customarily can handle.

Surely you realize that with atomic scale systems we can manipulate
them in a lab regarding species, temperature, isolation from ambient
fields, etc., but that this is totally impossible with astrophysical
systems?

A human face looks quite "different" at resolutions of a millimeter
and 10^-8 cm and yet it is the same object. When the scale difference
is 10^17 instead of 10^5, can one easily imagine or infer the
"differences" that would be expected?

Given the above facts, when you say that stars and atoms form
by "completely different processes", can you really be sure that you
are correct in this assumption? I think not.

RLO
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity

[Thomas Smid]

On Mar 9, 7:10 am, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...@amherst.edu>
wrote:

> Given the above facts, when you say that stars and atoms form
> by "completely different processes", can you really be sure that you
> are correct in this assumption?  I think not.

What about the fact that stars actually *consist* of atoms (or do you
question this as well)? This circumstance obviously introduces an
asymmetry into the problem, which makes it hard to see how there could
possibly be a 'similarity principle' at work here.

Thomas

[eric gisse]

"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in news:mt2.0-27257-
13312...@hydra.herts.ac.uk:

> On Mar 4, 9:58 am, Thomas Smid <thomas.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> connection. Otherwise you would realize that a star has not much in
>> common with an atom. An atom is both conceptually and physically well
>> defined, a star isn't. The formation of both is governed by completely
>> different processes, and stars do not have definitive discrete masses
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> In assessing the proposed self-similarity of putative atomic scale and
> stellar scale analogues one must be aware of, and fully take into
> account:
>

Could you explain why you have not responded meaningfully to the many, many
observational failures of your numerology?

For example, every definitive prediction in your 1987 paper has been
falsified. Yet you have no response.

[...]

[Jos Bergervoet]

On Mar 10, 9:04 am, Thomas Smid <thomas.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 9, 7:10 am, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...@amherst.edu>
> wrote:
>
> > Given the above facts, when you say that stars and atoms form
> > by "completely different processes", can you really be sure that you
> > are correct in this assumption? I think not.
>
> What about the fact that stars actually *consist* of atoms (or do you
> question this as well)? This circumstance obviously introduces an
> asymmetry into the problem,

Not necessarily. If there is an infinite regress of
atoms consisting of stars, consisting of atoms,
etc. (Extending to both sides of the scale, of
course.)

Observational evidence may indeed be lacking
but the concept has no asymmetry, in my view.

--
Jos

[Thomas Smid]

On Mar 10, 10:38 am, Jos Bergervoet <jos.r.bergerv...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Mar 10, 9:04 am, Thomas Smid <thomas.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 9, 7:10 am, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...@amherst.edu>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Given the above facts, when you say that stars and atoms form
> > > by "completely different processes", can you really be sure that you
> > > are correct in this assumption? I think not.
>
> > What about the fact that stars actually *consist* of atoms (or do you
> > question this as well)? This circumstance obviously introduces an
> > asymmetry into the problem,

> Not necessarily. If there is an infinite regress of
> atoms consisting of stars, consisting of atoms,
> etc. (Extending to both sides of the scale, of
> course.)

The question is where would this leave the physics, if everything is
just a copy of something else at a different scale? At least it seems
a bit of a 'cheap' explanation of things (if you can call it an
explanation at all).

Thomas