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

On Mar 4, 10:12*am, Thomas Smid 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.

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

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

On Mar 4, 9:58 am, Thomas Smid 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
“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.

On Mar 9, 7:10*am, "Robert L. Oldershaw"
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

"Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote in news:mt2.0-27257-
:

On Mar 4, 9:58 am, Thomas Smid 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.

[...]

On Mar 10, 9:04*am, Thomas Smid wrote:
On Mar 9, 7:10*am, "Robert L. Oldershaw"
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

On Mar 10, 10:38*am, Jos Bergervoet
wrote:
On Mar 10, 9:04*am, Thomas Smid wrote:

On Mar 9, 7:10*am, "Robert L. Oldershaw"
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