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

On Feb 26, 12:05*pm, jacob navia wrote:

so many free floating planets are there is just mind boogling. That has
surely consequences but I am not competent to figure them out.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

At this point it should be remembered and emphasized, as do the
relevant researchers involved in nomad research, that the inferred
objects are planetary-mass objects.

In terms of their physical state, they may not be planets in the
conventional sense of the word.

The actual physical properties of nomads must be determined
empirically and this may take some time.

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

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

On Feb 26, 12:05*pm, jacob navia wrote:

so many free floating planets are there is just mind boogling. That
has
surely consequences but I am not competent to figure them out.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-

At this point it should be remembered and emphasized, as do the
relevant researchers involved in nomad research, that the inferred
objects are planetary-mass objects.

In terms of their physical state, they may not be planets in the
conventional sense of the word.

The actual physical properties of nomads must be determined
empirically and this may take some time.


Since you believe your numerology predicted them, don't you have some
predictions about their empirical properties?


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

On Feb 27, 6:44*am, eric gisse wrote:

Since you believe your numerology predicted them, don't you have some
predictions about their empirical properties?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let us try to be accurate in our facts.

To my knowledge, Discrete Scale Relativity is the only theory in the
entire history of physics/astronomy to have predicted such a vast
population of unbound planetary-mass objects. Reference: Oldershaw,
ApJ 322, 34-36, 1987.

It is the physical state of this definitively anticipated population
that now the critical issue.

DSR predicts that the majority of the mass/energy comprising this
population of nomads is in the central singularities of Kerr-Newman
ultracompact objects, with the mass distribution very strongly peaked
at 7.8 x 10^-5 solar mass (i.e., about Neptune's mass).

These objects may have a low-mass envelope of atoms and subatomic
particles shrouding them, but they would most definitely not
constitute what we think of as planets.

Admittedly this is a very radical prediction, and I can understand if
people think it is a preposterous one. All I ask is that we let
nature pass empirical judgement on the prediction, and that we accept
neither personal opinion nor arguments based on untested theoretical
assumptions.

Using the scaling equations and its basic principles, anyone who has
studied Discrete Scale Relativity can predict many physical properties
of these putative Kerr-Newman ultracompacts.

Hope this helps,
RLO
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 honors the servant
and has forgotten the gift.” - A.E.

"Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote in
:

On Feb 27, 6:44*am, eric gisse wrote:

Since you believe your numerology predicted them, don't you have some
predictions about their empirical properties?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

Let us try to be accurate in our facts.

To my knowledge, Discrete Scale Relativity is the only theory in the
entire history of physics/astronomy to have predicted such a vast
population of unbound planetary-mass objects. Reference: Oldershaw,
ApJ 322, 34-36, 1987.

Not a good starting position, when every major prediction in that paper
has been completely falsified.

Besides, could you help a reading-challeneged person out and point to
where, in your paper, the population is predicted?

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//...4O/0000034.000.
html

If you mean that prediction that dark matter is made up of 0.145 M_sun
ultracompacts then that has been definitively falsified so I'm not really
sure what you are referring to.


[...]

Admittedly this is a very radical prediction, and I can understand if
people think it is a preposterous one. All I ask is that we let
nature pass empirical judgement on the prediction, and that we accept
neither personal opinion nor arguments based on untested theoretical
assumptions.

Nature has passed empirical judgement. Microlensing theories exclude your
predicted object background (including the Neptune-mass objects) rather
solidly.

We've been over this before. EROS, OGLE, etc. Your only argument seems to
be nonspecific complaints about the theory, even though you cite
Paczynski just as much as OGLE does as for example he

http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.2925

Could you please explain to the rest of us how you can hold your
numerology in such high regard even though it is so clearly not viable?
You are encouraged to explain exactly what you find wrong with the last
20 years of microlensing surveys, other than the obvious "observation
does not match theory" complaint.

Perhaps you have some recent publications detailing its' sucesses that
can be read?

[...]

In article , "Robert L.
Oldershaw" writes:

On Feb 27, 6:44*am, eric gisse wrote:

Since you believe your numerology predicted them, don't you have some
predictions about their empirical properties?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let us try to be accurate in our facts.

To my knowledge, Discrete Scale Relativity is the only theory in the
entire history of physics/astronomy to have predicted such a vast
population of unbound planetary-mass objects. Reference: Oldershaw,
ApJ 322, 34-36, 1987.

This same paper makes a definitive prediction which has now been
falsified. By any useful definition, that falsifies DSR as a theory.
You have repeatedly stated that it is a cop-out to add an epicycle to
keep a theory alive after it should have died.

On 2/27/12 11:53 AM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
On Feb 27, 6:44 am, eric wrote:

Since you believe your numerology predicted them, don't you have some
predictions about their empirical properties?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let us try to be accurate in our facts.

To my knowledge, Discrete Scale Relativity is the only theory in the
entire history of physics/astronomy to have predicted such a vast
population of unbound planetary-mass objects. Reference: Oldershaw,
ApJ 322, 34-36, 1987.

Yours is not the the only one:

In June 2005, I posted this concept under the title
"Orthokinetic Aggregation and Cosmology"
that may be appropriate to this current "Nomad" discussion.
In the field of waste water, drinking water and sanitation there is the
concept of orthokinetic flocculation which is generally mathematically
expressed by

shear = sqrt(Power/(viscosity x Volume))

Ref:

Miron Smoluchowski, Drei Vorträge über Diffusion, Brownsche
Molekularbewegung und Koagulation von Kolloidteilchen (Three Lectures on
Diffusion, Brownian Motion, and Coagulation of Colloidal Particles),
Phys. Z., 17, 557 (1916); Versuch einer Mathematischen Theorie der
Koaguationskinetik Kolloider Lösugen (Trial of a Mathematical Theory of
the Coagulation Kinetics of Colloidal Solutions), Z. Physik. Chem., 92,
129, 155 (1917).

T. R. Camp and P. C. Stein, "Velocity Gradients and Internal Work in
Fluid Motion", Journal of the Boston Society Civil Engineers. 30, 219
(1943).

Given a tank (with "Volume" cm^3)
filled with water
(with absolute "viscosity" g/(cm sec))
(momentum transferred per surface area)
and this water containing particles,
a "Power" (erg/sec)
(motor driven impeller)
is introduced to provide "shear" (/sec) (dv/dx)
within the water.

v2 - Particle 2
/
/ ^
/ |
/ x
/
v1 - Particle 1

Particle 1 and Particle 2 move at different velocities
in the shear (v2-v1)/delta_x or dv/dx

Proper selection of shear ensures that particles remain suspended in the
fluid and if they aggregate, remain separate
or break into smaller particles
and by this dynamic
establishes the particle (Nomadic planet) size distribution.

It is interesting to note that shear (dv/dx) has units of /time. This
is the same unit as the Hubble constant H in cosmology.
H=71.23 km s^-1 Mpc^-1
which dimensionally is:
v (km s^-1) / x (million parsec)
or
2.31E-18 s^-1 1 Parsec = 3.08568025E18 cm
This H would be much larger at the early universe where this dynamic may
be more prevalent.
Could one mechanism be the observed cosmos (volume) as an orthokinetic
fluid medium with vacuum energy density having a viscosity
such that observed Hubble "shear" is congruent with object mass
distribution with the universe?

Within this context, most objects are nomads and capture is improbable.
There would be no particle discreteness.
Object size(D) would reflect the shear(H) that created them
with D~1/H


Richard D. Saam
My 1999 paper discusses this concept
in the astrophysical context
in much more detail.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9905007
Appendix L

On Feb 26, 5:05*pm, jacob navia wrote:
The key parameter here is the density of the free floating planets.
A press release published yesterday by Stanford University says that
there should be 100 000 (one hundred thousand) planets for each star.
Please look in this URL, I may have misunderstood something:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.s...0725bb1d?pli=1

That is a 5 orders of magnitude more than what you assumed in your
calculations.

This figure is an estimate based on the assumption that a) the slope
of the nomad mass function has a value of 2, and b) you are looking at
objects with a mass of 10^-8 solar masses (see Fig.1 in
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1201.2687v1.pdf ). That might be at best
appropriate for objects like Sedna, but not for anything larger. For
Jupiter-sized planets (10^-3 solar masses) for instance, the figure
gives (independently of the assumptions for the slope) exactly the
density value upon which I based my calculation, i.e. there is
practically a zero chance that any of the major planets could have
been captured (let alone all of them in virtually one plane).

Thomas

On Feb 26, 7:17*pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw"
wrote:
On Feb 25, 1:19*pm, Thomas Smid wrote:

But anyway, as we know from previous discussions, Robert suggests the
capture theory as a general alternative to explain the formation of
planetary systems, so also at 1AU or even closer (because that is what
his principle of a fundamental similarity between planetary systems
and atomic systems would demand).

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

A man of remarkable insight into natural philosophy, whom I will not
name lest I be accused of comparing myself to him, once said words to
the effect that: 'often in science, progress has been made by
considering analogies between things that were previously thought to
be unrelated'.

By all means, having a wider view can certainly help to get a better
picture of reality, but you shouldn't just base this picture on some
vague similarities between things whilst ignoring a host of (also
obvious) dis-similarities.

Anyway, when you see analogies, this is where the theoretical work
rather should start, whilst you effectively declare it as finished by
establishing some metaphysical 'similarity principle' that you claim
'explains' the analogies.

Thomas

Le 02/03/12 09:13, Thomas Smid a écrit :
This figure is an estimate based on the assumption that a) the slope
of the nomad mass function has a value of 2, and b) you are looking at
objects with a mass of 10^-8 solar masses (see Fig.1 in
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1201.2687v1.pdf ). That might be at best
appropriate for objects like Sedna, but not for anything larger. For
Jupiter-sized planets (10^-3 solar masses) for instance, the figure
gives (independently of the assumptions for the slope) exactly the
density value upon which I based my calculation, i.e. there is
practically a zero chance that any of the major planets could have
been captured (let alone all of them in virtually one plane).

You are obviously right for all planets that have orbits in the plane of
the ecliptic, I wouldn't discuss that those weren't captured.

I was speaking about objects much smaller and with orbits NOT in the
ecliptic plane and with very far away orbits, like Sedna precisely. I
would guess that those are captured objects.

Thanks for the link to that article.

jacob

On Mar 2, 3:19*am, Thomas Smid wrote:

the effect that: 'often in science, progress has been made by
considering analogies between things that were previously thought to
be unrelated'.

By all means, having a wider view can certainly help to get a better
picture of reality, but you shouldn't just base this picture on some
vague similarities between things whilst ignoring a host of (also
obvious) dis-similarities.

The quotation obviously states that sometimes the "dis-similarities"
are apparent and incorrect, and further, that when these conceptual
biases are removed the value of the analogy is revealed. The
quotation concerns a general phenomenon that occurs in science, with
the analogy between photons and molecules in a gas being the case in
point for the author of the quotation.


Anyway, when you see analogies, this is where the theoretical work
rather should start, whilst you effectively declare it as finished by
establishing some metaphysical 'similarity principle' that you claim
'explains' the analogies.

It is clear from this statement that you do not understand that the
theoretical foundation of DSR is GR, EM and direct observation of the
scaling properties of nature's self-evident well-stratified
hierarchical organization.

DSR is far more grounded in observational support than "WIMP"
conjectures, the entirety of string/brane theory, SUSY hypotheses, and
most of the "beyond the standard model" pipe-dreams.

Moreover, DSR makes a large number of definitive predictions,
including 12 major ones that I would be happy to provide you with a
list of.

DSR has predicted pulsar-planets and a vast population of planetary-
mass "nomads" (see the 40 successful retrodictions and predictions
listed on my website) .

Were you to actually spend a month or so (1-2 hours per day) studying
DSR with a completely open and inquiring mind, I feel confident that
you would come away with an entirely different evaluation of DSR.

[Mod. note: the logical fallacy of poisoning the wells ('I am
confident that if you study my theory with a completely open and
inquiring mind you will agree with me; therefore, if you do not, you
must not have done so with a completely open and inquiring mind, and
your conclusions may be rejected') is another mode of argument that
posters are recommended to avoid on this newsgroup -- mjh]

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