A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Research
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Source of Unbound "Nomad" Planets: Stellar "Ionization"?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 26th 12, 12:13 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Robert L. Oldershaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 617
Default Source of Unbound "Nomad" Planets: Stellar "Ionization"?

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
  #2  
Old April 26th 12, 09:33 PM posted to sci.astro.research
David Staup
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 358
Default Source of Unbound "Nomad" Planets: Stellar "Ionization"?

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" wrote in message
...
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

  #3  
Old April 27th 12, 07:56 AM posted to sci.astro.research
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 629
Default Source of Unbound "Nomad" Planets: Stellar "Ionization"?

In article , "Robert L.
Oldershaw" 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
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.
  #4  
Old April 28th 12, 07:04 AM posted to sci.astro.research
Robert L. Oldershaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 617
Default Source of Unbound "Nomad" Planets: Stellar "Ionization"?

On Apr 27, 2:56*am, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
wrote:
In article , "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
  #5  
Old April 28th 12, 02:50 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Jos Bergervoet[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11
Default Source of Unbound "Nomad" Planets: Stellar "Ionization"?

On Apr 28, 8:04*am, "Robert L. Oldershaw"
wrote:
On Apr 27, 2:56*am, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
In article , "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
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
  #6  
Old April 28th 12, 02:51 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 629
Default Source of Unbound "Nomad" Planets: Stellar "Ionization"?

In article , "Robert L.
Oldershaw" 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,
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.
  #7  
Old April 29th 12, 08:14 AM posted to sci.astro.research
Robert L. Oldershaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 617
Default Source of Unbound "Nomad" Planets: Stellar "Ionization"?

On Apr 28, 9:51*am, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
wrote:
In article , "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.

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

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.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
might Odissey-Moon be the Google's expected, preferred, designed,"chosen" and (maybe) "funded" GLXP team to WIN the prize? with ALL otherteams that just play the "sparring partners" role? gaetanomarano Policy 3 September 27th 08 06:47 PM
just THREE YEARS AFTER my "CREWLESS Space Shuttle" article, theNSF """experts""" discover the idea of an unmanned Shuttle to fill the2010-2016 cargo-to-ISS (six+ years) GAP gaetanomarano Policy 3 September 15th 08 04:47 PM
and now, Ladies and Gentlemen, the NSF "slow motion experts" have(finally) "invented" MY "Multipurpose Orbital Rescue Vehicle"... just 20 gaetanomarano Policy 9 August 30th 08 12:05 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.