Discrete Orbital Angular Momenta Of Stellar Scale Systems

[Roger Bagula]

He probably has a point as you attack me
for defending your ideas...

Try adding references of:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&safe=off&ei=MxbtSbG2PJ-WswPgjPHtAQ&resnum=1&q=M.S.%20El%20Naschie&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ws

A review of E infinity theory and the mass spectrum of high energy particle physics <http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0960077903002789> - ?*complexity.ru <http://www.complexity.ru/papers/science25.pdf> [PDF] *

*MS El Naschie* - Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, 2004 - Elsevier
In what follows we would like to give a short account of the so-called E
infinity ( (?) ) theory, the main application of which has been so far in
determining coupling constants and the mass spectrum of the standard
model * ...

* Dario Benedetti 's paper.
Ted Palmer's paper

That French astrophysics guy with the fractal scaling model
that you think doesn't go far enough.

The Italian fractal cosmology group (Labini, F. S., Gabrielli, A.,
Montuori, M., & Pietronero, L. 1996, Physica A, 226, 195).

If only to say that you don't agree with their concepts:
you can mention a lot of papers.

Editors are hard on everybody...

Roger Bagula

[Robert L. Oldershaw]

the usual giberish

In reverse order.

1. The person making the comment was not an editor. He was someone who
is supposed to have an interest in the "foundations of physics".

2. I refuse to pad my papers with unnecessary complimentary
[ingratiating?;grovelling?] references. I cite all work that has
directly influenced the specific research being written up. My early
papers cited many influences. My more recent papers do not because I
am essentially now working in isolation. That is either because I am
way off track, or because I have gotten far ahead of others.

3. It is Dr. Timothy Palmer.

4. I have NEVER cited El Nachie's "work", and I can promise you that I
NEVER will. You might inquire as to why he is being "retired" from the
editorship of Chaos, Solitons & Fractals.

5. How can you possibly be "defending [my] ideas..." when you show
little or no evidence of understanding those ideas. I don't demand
that people agree with me, but it is quite irritating when one has to
constantly put up with negative comments that indicate an ignorance of
Discrete Scale Relativity. Papers #1 and #2 of the "Selected Papers"
section at www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw give a working knowledge of
Discrete Scale Realtivity to anyone willing to devote the time to
reading the papers. The paper are based on direct observations of
nature - not theoretical fantasies. They argue: (1) that nature is
hierarchical, (2) that the hierarchy has a discrete recurrent pattern
of Scales, and (3) that the Scales are exactly self-similar. The
papers provide the empirical evidence for each of these three
principles.

Sigh,
Robert L. Oldershaw
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

[Robert L. Oldershaw]

On Apr 20, 10:50 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <***@amherst.edu>
wrote:

On Apr 26, 3:50 am, "Jonathan Thornburg [remove -animal to reply]"

This means that the known exoplanets are *not* a random sample of
the set of all exoplanets, but rather a strongly biased sample.
Thus the distribution of masses, orbital radia, etc, of planets
in a catalog is likely to be very different from the true
distribution of masses, orbital radia, etc, or planets in
(some part of) our galaxy. :(
To learn about the true distribution, you probably need very careful
statistical modelling of the selection biases in each catalog, and
cross-comparisons between the distributions in different catalogs
obtained with different measurement techniques (radial-velocity,
microlensing, transit, ...). I'm sure people have studied this, but
I'm not familiary with the existing work in this area.

Many thanks for your comments which I will review carefully tonight.

One thing I should mention is that my goal is actually not to study
the distributions in the m, r, P data. I am trying to show that:

(1) Exoplanet systems will obey a P(n) = n^3P(0) relationship with
P(0) being approximately 78 sec.

(2) Exoplanet orbital angular momenta come in integer multiples:
nH/2pi with H = 9.3205 x 10^46 erg sec.

The SWEEPS exoplanet sample gives good but tentative support
for goal (1), [only 16 systems in the sample].

The WASP sample of transiting exoplanets (supplemented by
data from the Jovian planets and GJ 436) appears to verify that
(2) is consistent with the data, although the sample is still small
[11 systems analyzed so far].

If (2) is confirmed, it would suggest that exoplanet systems have
orbital angular momenta that are quantized to the same degree as
Rydberg atoms, and Discrete Scale Relativity will have correctly
predicted H and P(0).

Thank you again for your advice on the data. I certainly agree that
this is a very complex problem with many subtleties and many
potential pitfalls. However, I think the possible rewards far exceed
the risks.

I would also welcome and urge others to apply their expertise in
determining the extent to which (1) and (2) above are, or are not,
consistent with the empirical data.

Yours in science,
Robert L. Oldershaw
http://independent.academia.edu/RobertLOldershaw/Papers/80420/Discrete-Scale-Relativity

[Robert L. Oldershaw]

On Apr 27, 12:43 am, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <***@amherst.edu>
wrote:


CORRECTION:

9.3205 x 10^46 erg sec = H/2pi

H = 5.8562 x 10^47 erg sec

Sorry about that,
RLO

[Robert L. Oldershaw]

On Apr 27, 10:13 am, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <***@amherst.edu>
wrote:


To see an amazing example of regularity and discretization in stellar
systems, see: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0903/0903.2482v2.pdf
.

The OGLE microlensing group has published the period-luminosity
relationship for 24,906 RR Lyrae stars.


There is a strong linearity between the luminosities and periods of
these systems that extends across a considerable range of L and P
values.


When you consider that L can be thought of as approximating the
energy
level (E) for the system, and that frequency (v) = 1/P, it is clear
that you also get a linear relationship between E and v.


My bet is that the slope of that linear relation between E and v will
be 5.86 x 10^47 erg sec (the value of H predicted by Discrete Scale
Relativity).


This would constitute a rough demonstration of E = Hv for Stellar
Scale analogues of Rydberg atoms in low angular momentum states
undergoing single-level transitions between n=7 and n=10 .


Strong Stellar/Atomic self-similarity between the masses, radii and
frequency spectra of RR Lyrae stars and their Rydberg atom
counterparts [neutral helium atoms, n=7-10, single s-s and p-s
transitions] has already been published. See:http://
independent.academia.edu/RobertLOldershaw/Papers#d91740 .


The OGLE group has also found equivalent, and quite striking, period-
luminosity relations for Cepheid stars.


If stars in general obey an E = Hv relation like atoms do, as
predicted by Discrete Scale Relativity, then this would be an
important thing to know.


Research along these lines is beginning,and others are urged to
participate.


Yours in science,
Robert L. Oldershaw
http://independent.academia.edu/RobertLOldershaw/Papers#d80420