"Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote in
:

On Feb 23, 3:07*pm, Thomas 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.


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