Quote:
Originally Posted by Pluto
As for compact matter, as I mentioned before you can also call it and also refered to as degenerate matter, ultra dense compact matter, ultra dense plasma matter, dark matter, dark energy and there is other names.
|
The proper, scientific term which would avoid confusion is
"degenerate matter". This refers to matter which has higher than normal density because it is compressed to such a degree that it is supported by degeneracy pressure rather than only being supported by normal thermal pressure.
Dark matter and dark energy are NOT synonymous with degenerate matter.
Dark matter is unseen or 'missing' matter which has a measurable gravitational effect.
Dark energy is an energy density associated with empty space which has negative pressure, also having a measurable gravitational effect.
While theories have been put forward claiming that quark matter/strange matter (which could also be a form of degenerate matter) may be responsible for dark matter effects, the terms "degenerate matter" and "dark matter" are certainly not equivalent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pluto
|
This paper never once says "dark matter", because the term
'dark matter' is meant to refer to something different than
'degenerate matter'. It uses the term
'dark mass' interchangeably with
'compact object' which both refer in this case to a likely supermassive black hole.
It's also notable that you've once again posted a paper that disagrees with your position completely. It argues strongly against your idea of a compact object made of degenerate matter at the galactic core.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pluto
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Maddog
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Pluto
If the BBT is correct than the biggest problem that it cannot explain is the formation of the super cluster of cluster of local galaxies where in the centre lives a monster so called black hole that has jets ejecting matter far greater than the matter accreting to the black hole.
|
Unsupported -- not true - unfounded -- Just conjecture on your part. |
What part do you think is unsupported and what part is general information? |
It's all unsupported
Maddog is correct. You have claimed these things as fact, but done nothing to support, explain, or validate it. That's what unsupported means. It means you said something was true, but didn't offer any corroborating argument or evidence.
It's not the responsibility of everyone else to work proving your claims false. It's your responsibility to support your claims. Can you prove that supermassive black holes eject more matter than they accrete? Can you prove that galactic superclusters are incompatible with BBT? Or, is this just unfounded conjecture?
~Modest
