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

Testing the theory of Mr Oldershaw



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 5th 16, 09:23 AM posted to sci.astro.research
Robert L. Oldershaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 617
Default Testing the theory of Mr Oldershaw

On Tuesday, April 19, 2016 at 11:11:27 AM UTC-4, Steve Willner wrote:


The advantage of the K2 observations is that observing the same event
from Earth and from K2 gives the parallax of the lens. Kepler is
something like an AU from Earth, and the event will be seen at
different times from the different locations.


The K2 Campaign 9 will, apparently, resolve 2 important issues.

1. Whether "free-floating planets" exist in the region observed.

2. If FFPs do exist, whether they are planets, or as Monty Python would
say, something completely different.

Here is a link to the new preprint with the details:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1605.01059

Results will be interesting one way or the other or none of the above.

RLO http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

  #2  
Old May 6th 16, 02:59 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Gary Harnagel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 659
Default Testing the theory of Mr Oldershaw

On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 2:23:56 AM UTC-6, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:

The K2 Campaign 9 will, apparently, resolve 2 important issues.

1. Whether "free-floating planets" exist in the region observed.

2. If FFPs do exist, whether they are planets, or as Monty Python would
say, something completely different.

Here is a link to the new preprint with the details:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1605.01059

Results will be interesting one way or the other or none of the above.

RLO http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw


Yes, they will. If you look at the fraction of stars in each size category,
75% of all stars are type M while type O stars are less than one in a million.
If you extend the curve to smaller objects without some arbitrary cutoff,
there are bazillions of free-floating objects out there. Not a sanguine
thought for interstellar travel :-(

Gary
  #3  
Old May 7th 16, 04:06 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 273
Default Testing the theory of Mr Oldershaw

In article , Gary
Harnagel writes:

Yes, they will. If you look at the fraction of stars in each size category,
75% of all stars are type M while type O stars are less than one in a million.
If you extend the curve to smaller objects without some arbitrary cutoff,
there are bazillions of free-floating objects out there. Not a sanguine
thought for interstellar travel :-(


That is a very big "if". There are fewer giant redwoods and sequoias
than smaller trees. IF one extends that curve to smaller trees without
some arbitrary cutoff, then there must be billions and billions of
1-inch tall trees. But there aren't.
  #4  
Old May 9th 16, 05:23 AM posted to sci.astro.research
Gary Harnagel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 659
Default Testing the theory of Mr Oldershaw

On Saturday, May 7, 2016 at 9:06:53 AM UTC-6, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:

In article , Gary
Harnagel writes:

Yes, they will. If you look at the fraction of stars in each size
category, 75% of all stars are type M while type O stars are less than
one in a million. If you extend the curve to smaller objects without
some arbitrary cutoff, there are bazillions of free-floating objects
out there. Not a sanguine thought for interstellar travel :-(


That is a very big "if". There are fewer giant redwoods and sequoias
than smaller trees. IF one extends that curve to smaller trees without
some arbitrary cutoff, then there must be billions and billions of
1-inch tall trees. But there aren't.


You need to count the tree seeds, too :-)

But we KNOW that there is no astronomical cutoff. How many asteroids are
in the Kuiper belt? How many in the Oort cloud?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oort_cloud

"The outer Oort cloud may have trillions of objects larger than 1 km"

And the Oort cloud may well extend half way to Alpha Centauri, and Alpha
will have its own Oort cloud, too.

As an aside, might not the dimming of KIC8462852 be caused by an Oort
cloud object wandering into the path of Kepler? There are

"... billions with absolute magnitudes[15] brighter than 11 (corresponding
to approximately 20-kilometre (12 mi) diameter)"

A 20 km object at .03 lightyear would result in the 22% drop in light
output ....

Gary

  #5  
Old May 9th 16, 03:38 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 273
Default Testing the theory of Mr Oldershaw

In article , Gary
Harnagel writes:

Yes, they will. If you look at the fraction of stars in each size
category, 75% of all stars are type M while type O stars are less than
one in a million. If you extend the curve to smaller objects without
some arbitrary cutoff, there are bazillions of free-floating objects
out there. Not a sanguine thought for interstellar travel :-(


That is a very big "if". There are fewer giant redwoods and sequoias
than smaller trees. IF one extends that curve to smaller trees without
some arbitrary cutoff, then there must be billions and billions of
1-inch tall trees. But there aren't.


You need to count the tree seeds, too :-)


The original claim was that because at larger masses there are more less
massive than more massive objects, then there must be a huge number at
even lower masses. But one cannot just extrapolate arbitrarily far...

But we KNOW that there is no astronomical cutoff. How many asteroids are
in the Kuiper belt? How many in the Oort cloud?


....since as Jonathan pointed out, there has to be a turnover (even if
there is not a sharp cutoff) at some point.

As an aside, might not the dimming of KIC8462852 be caused by an Oort
cloud object wandering into the path of Kepler? There are

"... billions with absolute magnitudes[15] brighter than 11 (corresponding
to approximately 20-kilometre (12 mi) diameter)"

A 20 km object at .03 lightyear would result in the 22% drop in light
output ....


Presumably .03 lightyear from Kepler, not from KIC8462852?
  #6  
Old May 11th 16, 03:17 AM posted to sci.astro.research
Gary Harnagel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 659
Default Testing the theory of Mr Oldershaw

On Monday, May 9, 2016 at 8:38:07 AM UTC-6, Phillip Helbig (undress to repl=
y) wrote:

In article , Gary
Harnagel writes:=20

Yes, they will. If you look at the fraction of stars in each size
category, 75% of all stars are type M while type O stars are less t=

han
one in a million. If you extend the curve to smaller objects witho=

ut
some arbitrary cutoff, there are bazillions of free-floating object=

s
out there. Not a sanguine thought for interstellar travel :-(
=20
That is a very big "if". There are fewer giant redwoods and sequoias
than smaller trees. IF one extends that curve to smaller trees witho=

ut
some arbitrary cutoff, then there must be billions and billions of
1-inch tall trees. But there aren't.

=20
You need to count the tree seeds, too :-)

=20
The original claim was that because at larger masses there are more less=

=20
massive than more massive objects, then there must be a huge number at=20
even lower masses. But one cannot just extrapolate arbitrarily far...


Except we're not extrapolating:

But we KNOW that there is no astronomical cutoff. How many asteroids a=

re
in the Kuiper belt? How many in the Oort cloud?

=20
...since as Jonathan pointed out, there has to be a turnover (even if=20
there is not a sharp cutoff) at some point.


I wonder what this figures out to be for a volume of radius halfway to
Alpha Centauri:

"The dust density in the local interstellar medium of the Local Bubble is
approximately 10-6 =D7 dust grain/m3 with each grain having a mass of
approximately 10-17 kg"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_dust

Hmmm, that comes out to about 10^42! It looks like maybe there isn't a
cutoff but a "cut-up"

As an aside, might not the dimming of KIC8462852 be caused by an Oort
cloud object wandering into the path of Kepler? There are
=20
"... billions with absolute magnitudes[15] brighter than 11 (correspond=

ing
to approximately 20-kilometre (12 mi) diameter)"
=20
A 20 km object at .03 lightyear would result in the 22% drop in light
output ....

=20
Presumably .03 lightyear from Kepler, not from KIC8462852?


Um, yes :-)

Gary
  #7  
Old May 11th 16, 08:49 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Steve Willner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,172
Default Testing the theory of Mr Oldershaw

In article ,
Gary Harnagel writes:
As an aside, might not the dimming of KIC8462852 be caused by an Oort
cloud object wandering into the path of Kepler? There are


According to the paper Abstract at
http://mnras.oxfordjournals.org/content/457/4/3988
the dimming lasted "between 5 and 80 d." An occultation by an Oort
Cloud or Kuiper Belt object would last a fraction of a second. There
is a published claim of two such detections
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/150
Figure 5 in the paper shows the light curve of the second (then new)
one, which is dominated by diffraction.

Further searches are in progress but very difficult from the ground.
A proposed space mission to look for OCO/KBO occultations was not
selected but presumably could be proposed again.

--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA

  #8  
Old May 13th 16, 12:53 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Gary Harnagel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 659
Default Testing the theory of Mr Oldershaw

On Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 1:49:45 PM UTC-6, Steve Willner wrote:

In article ,
Gary Harnagel writes:
As an aside, might not the dimming of KIC8462852 be caused by an Oort
cloud object wandering into the path of Kepler? There are


According to the paper Abstract at
http://mnras.oxfordjournals.org/content/457/4/3988
the dimming lasted "between 5 and 80 d." An occultation by an Oort
Cloud or Kuiper Belt object would last a fraction of a second. There
is a published claim of two such detections
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/150
Figure 5 in the paper shows the light curve of the second (then new)
one, which is dominated by diffraction.

Further searches are in progress but very difficult from the ground.
A proposed space mission to look for OCO/KBO occultations was not
selected but presumably could be proposed again.

--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA


Thanks, I hadn't considered the relative motion between Kepler and a purported
Oort cloud object.

Gary


 




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
Testing the theory of Mr Oldershaw Phillip Helbig Research 1 April 16th 16 07:37 AM
Experimental Testing of the Unified Field Theory bkh99 Amateur Astronomy 1 March 14th 10 07:31 PM
Experimental Testing of the Unified Field Theory bkh99 Astronomy Misc 0 March 14th 10 04:48 AM
MECO theory to replace black-hole theory #41 ;3rd edition book: ATOMTOTALITY (Atom Universe) THEORY [email protected] Astronomy Misc 8 May 20th 09 01:17 AM
NASA Gravity Probe B Mission, Testing Einstein's Theory of Gravity Completes First Year in Space Jacques van Oene News 0 May 4th 05 10:07 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:09 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.