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

In article , "Robert L.
Oldershaw" writes:

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.

Then why does no-one work on it apart from you? Perhaps because one of
its definitive predictions has been ruled out?

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.

One has been ruled out. That's enough. Suppose I have a random-number
generator and one can test if the numbers are random. It passes some
tests: for example, the distribution is flat with the expected (Poisson)
errors. However, while it produces numbers between 0 and 1, they never
differ by more than 0.2. In that case, one can definitively say that
the numbers are not random even though it still passes the other test.

On Mar 3, 10:42*am, "Robert L. Oldershaw"
wrote:
..
DSR has predicted pulsar-planets and a vast population of planetary-
mass "nomads" (see the 40 successful retrodictions and predictions
listed on my website) .

Does this mean that without DSR these phenomena could
not exist and with DSR they can? Or how else do you want
to define "predict"?

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;

This is of course a "prediction" by Robert and he may well be
right. If an open and inquiring mind means no education in
science or math and no prior knowledge whatsoever (he writes
"completely open" after all!) a person might be convinced.

therefore, if you do not, you
must not have done so with a completely open and inquiring mind, and
your conclusions may be rejected')

No no, that is *your* fallacy! A "completely open" mind (in the
ultimate sense) is not desirable at all.

[Mod. note: er, no -- mjh]

--
Jos

On Mar 3, 4:42*am, "Robert L. Oldershaw"
wrote:

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]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I appreciate your argument about "poisoning the well" and will be a
bit more careful in how I express things in the future.

On the other hand, it is relatively easy to determine if a person has
had an open-minded or closed-minded response to a new idea.

The open-minded person says something like: 'I like x,y, and z about
the theory, but how in the world do you explain the apparent
theoretical/empirical conflict with a and b.'

The closed-minded person says something like: 'Your theory is totally
wrong since it violates known physics relating to a and b.'

Note carefully the differences in: (1) use of absolutes, (2)
willingness to acknowledge strengths of the theory, (3) assumptions
of true and unchangeable existing knowledge, and (4) how doubts about
the theory are expressed.

From a person's reaction to a new idea you can get a reasonably
accurate feeling for whether they have given the idea a fair hearing.
Open-mindedness involves a balance of both openness to the new idea
and skepticism about it.

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.

"Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote in news:mt2.0-6005-
:


[...]


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.


?

Every prediction in your 1987 paper has been falsified. I have commented
upon this several times in February alone in this newsgroup, yet you have
not responded to any of the falsifications.

You are wrong about the mass of the sun by 100 standard deviations. If
you include the planets like you pointlessly demanded, you are still
wrong by 50 standard deviations.

Neither planetary or stellar masses are quantized the way you demand, and
there's been more than enough room for you to argue the results. Instead
you claim bias, then refuse to followup on the results.

Your predicted radius of the proton is off by about 40 standard
deviations

Microlensing surveys that did what your 1987 paper demanded have found no
evidence of your dark matter components, in fact your prediction for dark
matter has been resoundingly falsified.

Finally, you still have not yet managed to show how your theory predicts
any measurable quantity of these planets you keep saying you have
"predicted".

Find a new hobby, Robert.

[...]

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


[...]

From a person's reaction to a new idea you can get a reasonably
accurate feeling for whether they have given the idea a fair hearing.
Open-mindedness involves a balance of both openness to the new idea
and skepticism about it.


You have many falsifications of it in *THIS VERY THREAD* that you refuse
to acknowledge. The time for open-mindened has been over for months.

If you wanted to not be laughed at when you demanded open mindeness you
would not have reacted the way you did when I took stellar mass data and
showed you that your numerology is false.

I note that all of your claimed successes have yet to pass peer review.
Perhaps you have an explanation as to why your chosen medium of
communication is now fully reliant on open access mediums like USENET and
your personal homepage?


[...]

On Mar 3, 5:42*pm, eric gisse wrote:

I note that all of your claimed successes have yet to pass peer review.
Perhaps you have an explanation as to why your chosen medium of
communication is now fully reliant on open access mediums like USENET and
your personal homepage?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am sorry to report that you you sound a false "note". In fact =/
three falsehoods in 2 sentences.

(1) The pulsar-planet prediction was published in a peer-reviewed
journal. See paper # 29 in the list of 70 publications given at
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw .

(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 .


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.

In article , "Robert L.
Oldershaw" writes:

(1) The pulsar-planet prediction was published in a peer-reviewed
journal. See paper # 29 in the list of 70 publications given at
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw .

Due to the use of frames, it isn't possible to give a direct link. One
has to select "Publications List" from the left panel. The reference
is:

29. Two New Tests Of The Self-Similar Cosmological Paradigm
Speculations in Science and Technology, 12(2), 135-137, 1989.

As predicted, the oscillation periods of neutron stars and white dwarf
stars are related to their atomic scale counterparts in atomic nuclei
and helium atoms by the scale transformation equations of the Self-
Similar Cosmological Model.

No mention of pulsar planets in this brief abstract.

Do you have a direct link to the paper?

Here's a table of contents from a recent issue:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/0155-7785

Although they run ads on the website, one still has to pay:

Access to this content is restricted to subscribers. Options for
obtaining access are below.

(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 .

That would be:

26. The Self-Similar Cosmological Paradigm: A New Test And Two New
Predictions
Astrophysical Journal, 322(1), 34-36, 1987.

The magnetic dipole moments of atomic nuclei and neutron stars are
shown to be quantitatively related the manner predicted by the
scaling equations of the Self-Similar Cosmological Model. Definitive
predictions regarding the structure of the electron and the nature of
the dark matter are presented.

This is available at ADS:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987ApJ...322...34O

Here's the abstract:

It is demonstrated that the magnetic dipole moments of atomic nuclei
and neutron stars are quantitatively related by the fundamental
scaling equations of the self-similar cosmological paradigm, and
therefore a 16th falsification test has been passed by this
theoretical model. Two definitive predictions are also pointed out:
(1) the model predicts that the electron will be found to have
structure with radius of about 4 x 10 to the -17th cm, at just below
the current empirical resolution capability, and (2) the model makes
quantitative predictions regarding gravitational microlensing by
predicted 'dark matter' candidates. Some possible theoretical
implications of cosmological self-similarity are introduced.

A few weeks ago, I posted links to papers which rule out the
"definitive prediction" (1). Let me summarize: measurements of the
g-factor for electrons agree with theory to such a precision that any
substructure on this scale is ruled out. The paper I mentioned
explicitly addresses this question. Also, analysis of
electron-proton collisions at HERA probe much smaller scales and the
agreement with theory assuming point-like electrons is so good that
substructure of the electron at this scale is ruled out.

While this scale might have been just below the current empirical
resolution capability when the paper was published, a quarter-century
later that is no longer the case.

Again, this paper discusses "definitive predictions" of DSR and (1)
(and probably (2)) has been ruled out by experiment.

Bottom line: unless you can demonstrate why these two experiments
ruling out prediction (1) are wrong, no-one will believe DSR, since a
"definitive prediction" can only mean that the theory stands and
falls with the confirmation or ruling out of said prediction.

"Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote in
:

On Mar 3, 5:42*pm, eric gisse wrote:

I note that all of your claimed successes have yet to pass peer
review. Perhaps you have an explanation as to why your chosen medium
of communication is now fully reliant on open access mediums like
USENET and your personal homepage?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

I am sorry to report that you you sound a false "note". In fact =/
three falsehoods in 2 sentences.

I always aim for density in communication.


(1) The pulsar-planet prediction was published in a peer-reviewed
journal. See paper # 29 in the list of 70 publications given at
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw .

I'm sorry, "Speculations in Science and Technology" does not qualify as a
peer reviewed journal as it is a discontinued open access publication
that does not actually *peer review* publications.

Further, the reference is not cited by anyone nor is it locatable online
even in something like springerlink.

I am unclear as to why you think a journal that nobody carries has any
weight in an argument.

But just for giggles, since you claim you predicted pulsar planets, can
you show how your numerology makes _falsifiable_ predictions about the
_measurable properties_ of those pulsar planets?


(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 .

That's a poor choice of citation, as every falsifiable prediction within
that paper has been shown to be at odds with observation (aka "wrong").

The claim about magnetic dipole moments of neutron stars? Wrong by many
orders of magnitude.

The claim about electron substructure? Wrong by many orders of magnitude.

The claim about those 0.145 M_sun ultracompacts *and* their x-ray
luminosities? Wrong, hilariously wrong.

The claim about G scaling upwards to ~10^38 upwards in an atom? Not even
wrong.

The claim of unbound planetary mass objects? Not even in the paper you
cited.

You said *VERY EXPLICITLY* the range was 0.145 M_sun to 8 M_sun, which is
about six orders of magnitude off from the masses of the unbound objects
discovered by Sumi, et. al. so that's actually a falsification of your
numerology rather than a vindication.



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 3, 9:42*am, "Robert L. Oldershaw"
wrote:
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.

Are you sure it is not you who is biased here? Looking for instance at
your website page regarding your hypothesis of a discrete stellar mass
distribution, you take any small peak at the predicted masses (even
those that may be statistically irrelevant) as proof for your
hypothesis, whilst simply ignoring stars with different masses as
being due to an 'observational bias'. It is quite evident that only by
taking a very selective and one-sided view in this sense, you are able
to uphold your hypothesis of a stellar/atomic self-similarity
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
but even after formation their mass changes all the time due to mass
ejection or accretion from the interstellar medium. Unless your self-
similarity principle can account for these obvious differences, it
just makes a mockery of nature.

Thomas

On Mar 4, 7:46*am, "Robert L. Oldershaw"
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).

Thomas