Quote:
Originally Posted by Pluto
You are miss understanding my position.
I do not have a position.
|
You have, in this very thread, accused supporters of BBT of “raping science” and said they “need to be shot”. More than a position, you may-well have an agenda.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pluto
Do you actually read the links?
|
Did you read my last post? It was irritating to review 9 scientific papers that you insisted that I needed to read in order to understand your position when
none of them had any agreement with what you've been saying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pluto
If you have read the links than you have read them out of context when they write about compact matter.
|
None of your links have the phrase “compact matter”.
In fact, a google search for
“compact matter” turns up
very few results and many (if not most) of them are not related to astronomy. Interestingly, 3 of google’s first page search results for “compact matter” were written by you, Pluto. So, it’s a very safe bet that you’re one of the very few people using this term to mean what I think it is you mean:
“Degenerate matter”
Most of your links (but not all) discuss "compact objects". This is important: "Compact object" is not the same as "compact matter" (i.e. degenerate matter). Black holes and Neutron stars are both compact objects, but only the neutron star has degenerate matter.
It seems very likely, given your past few posts that you are confusing "compact object" with "compact (degenerate) matter".
Only one of your 9 links from
post 598 discusses the possibility of compact (degenerate) matter sources as a substitute for traditional black holes. The relevant section says:
Quote:
The first BH, Cygnus X-1, was identified and established in 1972 via a measurement of its mass, which was shown to be too large for a neutron star (NS). The surest evidence for the existence of BHs continues to be through dynamical mass measurements. We now know of 20 additional compact binary X-ray sources (McClintock & Remillard 2006; Orosz et al. 2007) with primaries that are too massive to be a NS or any stable assembly of cold degenerate matter, assuming that GR is valid. Similarly, dynamical data have established the existence of supermassive BHs, most notably in the nucleus of our Milky Way Galacy (Schodel et al. 2002; Ghez et al. 2005a) and in NGC 4258 (Miyoshi et al. 1995).
Are these compact objects genuine BHs – pockets of fully collapsed matter that are walled off from sight by self gravity and that, like a shadow, reveal no detail — or are they exotic objects that have no event horizons but manage to masquerade as BHs? Most astrophysicists believe that they are genuine BHs. There are several reasons for this confidence...
Advection-Dominated Accretion and the Black Hole Event Horizon. Section 4: The Black Hole Event Horizon
|
The paper then goes on to describe the reasons that astrophysicists have concluded against strange stars or other compact sources of gravity and sided with black holes as they are described by general relativity. This contradicts your statements on the subject. For whatever reason, you are consistently saying one thing and posting links that say the exact opposite. For example, you say:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pluto
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.
|
talking directly about this paper:
On the X-ray/TeV connection in Galactic jet sources
which does
not discuss anything like that! The paper that you point out doesn't make any statements regarding the substitution of "compact objects" (i.e. some sort of star) over "ultra-compact objects" (i.e. black holes). It reports nothing of the sort.
But, there's no way to resolve this apparent disconnect between your claims and your sources because
you refuse to discuss the papers you post. At most we get "this is interesting" or "I don't agree with this, but it's interesting". It's very reminiscent of
Sun's Origin and make up.
You've said I'm misunderstanding your link's references to "compact matter". Show me where. Show me how.
~modest
