Well, those are all nice links, Pluto. But, after spending all evening reading them—I don't see any of them supporting your conclusions at all.
It's almost like you've just ignored all my questions, discussion, and concerns, and decided to post a bunch of random obfuscating links.
Notice the site rule:
Quote:
|
Do not post links to other sites as proof of your claims without commenting what the relevant sites say and why they are important to the current discussion.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pluto
You may need to read further the ABS and maybe open some of the links.
|
It certainly is more than a little irritating to be told I have to review 161 pages of scientific literature to understand your position, only to spend 3 hours doing so finding nothing that illuminates your claims at all.
The
one comment you made regarding the literature you linked shows a basic misunderstanding of the paper.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pluto
[0805.1700] On the X-ray/TeV connection in Galactic jet sources
On the X-ray/TeV connection in Galactic jet sources
Authors: V. Bosch-Ramon, D. Khangulyan, F. A. Aharonian
(Submitted on 12 May 2008 (v1), last revised 13 May 2008 (this version, v2))
Quote:
|
Abstract: There are three Galactic jet sources, from which TeV emission has been detected: LS 5039, LS I +61 303 and Cygnus X-1. These three sources show power-law tails at X-rays and soft gamma-rays that could indicate a non-thermal origin for this radiation. In addition, all three sources apparently show correlated and complex behavior at X-ray and TeV energies. In some cases, this complex behavior is related to the orbital motion (e.g. LS 5039, LS I +61 303), and in some others it is related to some transient event occurring in the system (e.g. Cygnus X-1, and likely also LS I +61 303 and LS 5039). Based on modeling or energetic grounds, it seems difficult to explain the emission in the X-/soft gamma-ray and the TeV bands as coming from the same region (i.e. one-zone). We also point out the importance of the pair creation phenomena in these systems, which harbor a massive and hot star, for the radio and the X-ray emission, since a secondary pair radiation component may be significant in these energy ranges. Finally, we discuss that in fact the presence of the star can indeed have strong impact on, beside the non-thermal radiation production, the jet dynamics.
|
It seems that if the Ultra compact objects are treated as compact objects without the constraints of Black hole restrictions research untaps further information about compact bodies and the resultant jet formation.
|
Where the abstract says "massive and hot star" you seem to be thinking that is an alternative to a black hole. That is not the case. The paper isn't proposing a "compact object" as a substitute for an "ultra compact object". That is not at all what the paper is saying.
The paper discusses x-ray emissions and jets in
X-ray Binary Star Systems. These are sometimes called 'microquasars' as they have quasar-like characteristics, but are much smaller and closer to earth (they're in our galaxy). X-ray binaries are binary systems. This means there are two gravitational sources (two objects) orbiting one another—a star and a black hole (or neutron star depending on the mass of the particular system in discussion). The black hole/neutron star is stripping the normal star of its mass and accreting it. The BH/NS makes an accretion disc, forms jets, and emits x-rays. These are all quasar-like characteristics.
It's reference to "the star" is then understood to mean the normal star that's orbiting with the BH/NS. It's not a substitute for the black hole, it's orbiting with the black hole. To think otherwise is a fundamental misunderstanding of the paper's intent. Section 2.2, for example, titled "the role of the star" describes how the companion to the black hole/neutron star influences the microquasar characteristics.
Another example of the strong disconnect between your sources and your conclusions:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pluto
[0803.0322] Advection-Dominated Accretion and the Black Hole Event Horizon...
Quote:
|
Abstract: As the luminosity of an accreting black hole drops to a few percent of Eddington, the spectrum switches from the familiar soft state to a hard state that is well-described by a distended and tenuous advection-dominated accretion flow (ADAF). An ADAF is a poor radiator, and the ion temperature can approach 10^{12} K near the center, although the electrons are cooler, with their temperature typically capped at ~10^{9-11} K. The foundational papers predicted that the large thermal energy in an ADAF would drive strong winds and jets, as later observed and also confirmed in computer simulations. Of chief interest, however, is the accreting gas that races inward. It carries the bulk of the accretion energy as stored thermal energy, which vanishes without a trace as the gas passes through the hole's event horizon. One thus expects black holes in the ADAF regime to be unusually faint. Indeed, this is confirmed by a comparison of accreting stellar-mass black holes and neutron stars, which reside in very similar transient X-ray binary systems. The black holes are on average observed to be fainter by a factor of ~100-1000. The natural explanation is that a neutron star must radiate the advected thermal energy from its surface, whereas a black hole can hide the energy behind its event horizon. The case for an event horizon in Sagittarius A*, which is immune to caveats on jet outflows and is furthermore independent of the ADAF model, is especially compelling. These two lines of evidence for event horizons are impervious to counterarguments that invoke strong gravity or exotic stars.
|
|
Why would you underline and bold the sentence above? It is evidence for the presence of an event horizon associated with a black hole. It observationally distinguishes between a stellar-sized black hole and a neutron star. That seems to be at complete odds with your stated claims.
Notice the last sentence of the abstract: "
These two lines of evidence for event horizons are impervious to counterarguments that invoke strong gravity or exotic stars."
The paper argues against compact, exotic stars as sources for AGN and other black hole-related phenomenon.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by paper linked above
The case for event horizons in both Sgr A and in the stellar-mass BHs is robust against appeals to strong gravity or the leading models of exotic stars... many indicators show that the event horizon is an inescapable reality.
|
It supports the case for general relativistic black holes and remarks that no form of degenerate matter can be viable in cases such as massive x-ray binaries or galactic nuclei.
Honestly, to support the case for a degenerate-compact-matter-like, exotic galactic core—you cite a paper arguing against any such degenerate-compact-matter-like, exotic galactic core. The paper strongly supports what I've been saying... and you ironically tell me that I need to actually *
open the links*!
I should tell you, Pluto. If you want to continue criticizing other people's positions (which are well-backed by evidence and theory) with your own strange claims then you need to do better than "you get this feeling If you know what I mean".
~modest
