Helmut A. Abt: 'Many exoplanet systems probably captured'

On Apr 10, 6:53*am, "Robert L. Oldershaw"
wrote:
At the 220th Meeting of the AAS in Anchorage, 10-14 June, Helmut A.
Abt will give an oral presentation on whether exoplanet systems
typically form in the Laplacian manner (disks), or in "separate
condensations" followed by capture.

Reference: Bulletin of the AAS 44(4), 2012; session 04; talk # 121.02


Quoting from Abt's abstract:

"In the case of separate condensations, many planetary masses will be
captured to become companions of stars....[Given the orbital elements
of observed exoplanets] We conclude that most of the exoplanets
dscovered to date were produced as separate condensations like stars
and not in disks."

Quoting from http://www.universetoday.com/72932/t...of-exoplanets/

"However, Abt notes that this is most likely due to statistical biases
imposed by the sensitivity limits of current instruments"

Also, a planetary systems have been detected that can indeed only be
interpreted as a disk systems (see http://www.universetoday.com/72104/k...planet-system/
and http://www.universetoday.com/71957/a...-like-our-own/
).

Thomas

...

On Apr 11, 12:08*pm, Jos Bergervoet
wrote:
On Apr 11, 3:26*pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw"
wrote:
*...

Discrete Scale Relativity inherently says that both atomic and stellar
systems have virtually the same formation mechanisms. *Since we know
empirically what that primary mechanism is for atomic scale systems:
CAPTURE, then we know what DSR is required to predict for the stellar
scale analogues.

Why is the discreteness important for this capture
mechanism? If electrons were not discrete, wouldn't
they just as well be captured?

So what has discreteness got to do with it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discrete Scale Relativity points out in great detail, and with a
wealth of empirical support that:

1. Nature's most obvious and fundamental property is its hierarchical
organization.

2. Nature's hierarchy is divided into DISCRETE Scales of which we can
most readily observe the Atomic, Stellar and Galactic Scales.

3. DSR proposes that the Scales have an exact DISCRETE self-similar
symmetry, which was previously virtually unknown. There are 3 simple
DISCRETE self-similar Scale transformation equations that allow one to
test the claim that the Scales are identical except for DISCRETE
changes in mass, length and temporal scales. 40 quantitative tests are
listed and described at http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw .

If there are discrete masses and angular momenta on the Atomic Scale,
and we most certainly know there are, then DSR says that there must be
discrete masses and angular momenta on all other cosmological Scales.

Why consider non-discrete models that appear to be unnatural?

RLO
Discrete Scale Relativity

On Apr 12, 10:37*am, "Robert L. Oldershaw"
wrote:
On Apr 11, 12:08*pm, Jos Bergervoet
..
Why is the discreteness important for this capture
mechanism? If electrons were not discrete, wouldn't
they just as well be captured?

So what has discreteness got to do with it?
...
3. DSR proposes that the Scales have an exact DISCRETE
self-similar symmetry,
[ ... ]

But how does that alter the capture mechanism? If
electrons were not discrete, wouldn't they just as well
be captured? You do not address the question!

--
Jos

"Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote in
:

On Apr 11, 12:08*pm, Jos Bergervoet
wrote:
On Apr 11, 3:26*pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw"
wrote:
*...

Discrete Scale Relativity inherently says that both atomic and
stellar systems have virtually the same formation mechanisms.
*Since we know empirically what that primary mechanism is for
atomic scale systems: CAPTURE, then we know what DSR is required to
predict for the stellar scale analogues.

Why is the discreteness important for this capture
mechanism? If electrons were not discrete, wouldn't
they just as well be captured?

So what has discreteness got to do with it?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------

Discrete Scale Relativity points out in great detail, and with a
wealth of empirical support that:

What "wealth of empirical support"?


1. Nature's most obvious and fundamental property is its hierarchical
organization.

Would this be more or less fundamental than conservation laws?


2. Nature's hierarchy is divided into DISCRETE Scales of which we can
most readily observe the Atomic, Stellar and Galactic Scales.

3. DSR proposes that the Scales have an exact DISCRETE self-similar
symmetry, which was previously virtually unknown. There are 3 simple
DISCRETE self-similar Scale transformation equations that allow one to
test the claim that the Scales are identical except for DISCRETE
changes in mass, length and temporal scales. 40 quantitative tests are
listed and described at http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw .

How many of those "40 quantitative tests" have already been directly
falsified?


If there are discrete masses and angular momenta on the Atomic Scale,
and we most certainly know there are, then DSR says that there must be
discrete masses and angular momenta on all other cosmological Scales.

How come analyses of stellar mass data shows that they are continuous in
both mass and luminosity?

How come orbital paths around the central black hole near Sgr. A* do not
display this sudden invocation of quantized angular momentum? No, the
titus-bode law doesn't count. At all. Try harder.


Why consider non-discrete models that appear to be unnatural?

Because unlike your model they actually work?


RLO
Discrete Scale Relativity

David Staup wrote in
:

"eric gisse" wrote in message
...
First off, I don't know how you can possibly seriously argue that Abt
is arguing that the captures are extrasolar. The only topic under
discussion is their particular method of formation.

"We conclude that most of the exoplanets
dscovered to date were produced as separate condensations like stars
and not in disks."

Stellar nebulae are big. I merely interpet it to mean that the idea is
that there were additional formation events beyond the main planetary
disk. Which doesn't strike me as out of the realm of possibilities.


"separate condensations like stars and not in disks." Not in disks
implies
they were not gravitionaly bound during formation does it not? A
later capture would also seem to be implied would it not?

Sure, but from within the relevant stellar neighborhood rather than from
light years away.


[Mod. note: quoted text trimmed. If you are only responding to one
point in the quoted text, please don't quote the entire article --
mjh]

Read about a newly discovered circumbinary system with multiple planets.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0828190127.htm

Blurb: "The presence of a full-fledged circumbinary planetary system orbiting Kepler-47 is an amazing discovery," said Greg Laughlin, professor of Astrophysics and Planetary Science at the University of California in Santa Cruz. "These planets are very difficult to form using the currently accepted paradigm, and I believe that theorists, myself included, will be going back to the drawing board to try to improve our understanding of how planets are assembled in dusty circumbinary disks."

Perhaps one day the theorists will say: 'let's put aside the "accepted paradigm" for a while and consider systems like this without preconceptions. Let's allow nature to guide us rather than always trying to fit anomalous new results into the old "accepted paradigm".'

Maybe people like Helmut A. Abt are right: capture models need to be given serious attention. They should not be ignored on the basis of 19th and 20th century theoretical biases and naivete.

RLO

On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 3:26:03 AM UTC-4, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
Read about a newly discovered circumbinary system with multiple planets.


Here is the paper.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.5489

Free reading; open science

On Monday, September 3, 2012 1:14:15 PM UTC-5, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 3:26:03 AM UTC-4, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
Read about a newly discovered circumbinary system with multiple planets.
Here is the paper.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.5489
Free reading; open science

When can we anticipate a published paper from you detailing how you think this system came about?