Groups > sci.physics > #557537 > unrolled thread

Lagrange points not modelled correctly on black hole merger simulations?

Started by	7 <7@enemygadgets.com>
First post	2016-02-28 11:24 +0000
Last post	2016-02-28 16:03 +0000
Articles	12 — 2 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

#557537 — Lagrange points not modelled correctly on black hole merger simulations?

From	7 <7@enemygadgets.com>
Date	2016-02-28 11:24 +0000
Subject	Lagrange points not modelled correctly on black hole merger simulations?
Message-ID	<djg3odFpkqtU1@mid.individual.net>

Lagrange points not modelled correctly on black hole merger simulations?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just looking at some of the videos of black hole merger simulations
and the thing that strikes you is the simulations don't facilitate
Lagrange points and their effects on black hole mergers.

If you got two black holes of different sizes merging,
the Lagrange points exist all the way into the gaps
between the merging black holes while they spin
and generate gravitational waves. But at some point,
these Lagrange points swing right into the surface
of the smaller black hole and cut right the way in
into interior of the smaller black hole and rip it open.

As soon as the Lagrange surfaces hit the black hole
surface, a test mass, or a photon that comprise the
black hole shall no longer be modelled
as being inside a black hole, and so its trajectory
is no longer that of the black hole material itself.

So the animations are wrong.

The modelling has failed.

The LIGO result showing massive gamma ray burst 
(about 1 sun of energy per second conversion)
is proof that the smaller black hole got ripped open
for a short period of time during the merger when
the Lagrange surfaces penetrated the black hole.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#557539

From	Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Date	2016-02-28 13:07 +0100
Message-ID	<2121908.8izju0EPdB@PointedEars.de>
In reply to	#557537

7 wrote:

> Lagrange points not modelled correctly on black hole merger simulations?
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

You do not have to repeat the Subject line.

> Just looking at some of the videos of black hole merger simulations
> and the thing that strikes you is the simulations don't facilitate
> Lagrange points and their effects on black hole mergers. […]

Lagrangian points are related to the orbits of three astronomical bodies 
(e.g., Sol, Terra, and a spacecraft), where the masses of two of them are 
dominant (e.g., Sol’s and Terra’s).

How many black holes are there?

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point>

PointedEars
-- 
Two neutrinos go through a bar ...

(from: WolframAlpha)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#557541

From	7 <7@enemygadgets.com>
Date	2016-02-28 12:25 +0000
Message-ID	<djg7arFqk34U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#557539

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> 7 wrote:
> 
>> Lagrange points not modelled correctly on black hole merger simulations?
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> You do not have to repeat the Subject line.
> 
>> Just looking at some of the videos of black hole merger simulations
>> and the thing that strikes you is the simulations don't facilitate
>> Lagrange points and their effects on black hole mergers. […]
> 
> Lagrangian points are related to the orbits of three astronomical bodies

Fail again.

You are back again filtering one line out of context with shiiite logic. As 
before, your shiiite logic leads to shittt synthesis.

You can read the original post again and take care to count and read
there are two black holes and one test mass in the experiment.

Lagrange points not modelled correctly on black hole merger simulations?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just looking at some of the videos of black hole merger simulations
and the thing that strikes you is the simulations don't facilitate
Lagrange points and their effects on black hole mergers.

If you got two black holes of different sizes merging,
the Lagrange points exist all the way into the gaps
between the merging black holes while they spin
and generate gravitational waves. But at some point,
these Lagrange points swing right into the surface
of the smaller black hole and cut right the way in
into interior of the smaller black hole and rip it open.

As soon as the Lagrange surfaces hit the black hole
surface, a test mass, or a photon that comprise the
black hole shall no longer be modelled
as being inside a black hole, and so its trajectory
is no longer that of the black hole material itself.

So the animations are wrong.

The modelling has failed.

The LIGO result showing massive gamma ray burst 
(about 1 sun of energy per second conversion)
is proof that the smaller black hole got ripped open
for a short period of time during the merger when
the Lagrange surfaces penetrated the black hole.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#557546

From	Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Date	2016-02-28 14:23 +0100
Message-ID	<23126347.FeYo1dQXMP@PointedEars.de>
In reply to	#557541

7 wrote:

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Just looking at some of the videos of black hole merger simulations
>>> and the thing that strikes you is the simulations don't facilitate
>>> Lagrange points and their effects on black hole mergers. […]
>> Lagrangian points are related to the orbits of three astronomical bodies
> 
> Fail again.

Yes, you failed to comprehend *again*.  Will you *please* learn what 
Lagrangian points are and what a black hole is?  Thank you in advance.

> [nonsense]

Repeating this does not make it true.  Adjust your attitude or go away.


Score adjusted

PointedEars
-- 
“Science is empirical: knowing the answer means nothing;
 testing your knowledge means everything.”
   —Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss, theoretical physicist,
    in “A Universe from Nothing” (2009)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#557548

From	7 <7@enemygadgets.com>
Date	2016-02-28 13:32 +0000
Message-ID	<djgb7mFri26U2@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#557546

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> 7 wrote:
> 
> Will you *please* learn what
> Lagrangian points are and what a black hole is?  Thank you in advance.

Nope.

Read the original post and weep if you must:

Lagrange points not modelled correctly on black hole merger simulations?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just looking at some of the videos of black hole merger simulations
and the thing that strikes you is the simulations don't facilitate
Lagrange points and their effects on black hole mergers.

If you got two black holes of different sizes merging,
the Lagrange points exist all the way into the gaps
between the merging black holes while they spin
and generate gravitational waves. But at some point,
these Lagrange points swing right into the surface
of the smaller black hole and cut right the way in
into interior of the smaller black hole and rip it open.

As soon as the Lagrange surfaces hit the black hole
surface, a test mass, or a photon that comprise the
black hole shall no longer be modelled
as being inside a black hole, and so its trajectory
is no longer that of the black hole material itself.

So the animations are wrong.

The modelling has failed.

The LIGO result showing massive gamma ray burst 
(about 1 sun of energy per second conversion)
is proof that the smaller black hole got ripped open
for a short period of time during the merger when
the Lagrange surfaces penetrated the black hole.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#557543

From	Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Date	2016-02-28 14:03 +0100
Message-ID	<2266566.rmCSWFARhr@PointedEars.de>
In reply to	#557537

7 wrote:

> […] But at some point, these Lagrange points swing right into
> the surface of the smaller black hole and cut right the way in
> into interior of the smaller black hole and rip it open.

Utter nonsense.  Lagrangian points are nothing more than positions in space 
where relatively stable can be achieved, and black holes cannot be "ripped 
open". 

> As soon as the Lagrange surfaces

There is no such thing as a "Lagrange surface".

> hit the black hole surface,

A black hole has no surface that could be “hit” as in a collision.  The 
Schwarzschild surface, which has been called “the surface of a black hole”, 
is merely an event horizon.  The only thing that changes for something that 
crosses that boundary (from the outside) is that it cannot come back again 
because its escape velocity would have to exceed that of the speed of light 
(and it may also be ripped apart by shear forces there if the black hole is 
rather small).

Do you even know what a black hole is?

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole>

> So the animations are wrong.

*You* are wrong.  Dead wrong.

> The modelling has failed.

*You* have failed (except perhaps in trolling, I would grant you that).

> The LIGO result showing massive gamma ray burst

It does not.  The gamma-ray burst (GRB) that coincided with GW150914 was 
observed by researchers with the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope instead.
And it is not "massive" at all (only 50 keV), compared to previous GRBs.

V. Connaughton et al. (2016–02–11). “Fermi GBM Observations of LIGO 
Gravitational Wave event GW150914”. arXiv. arXiv:1602.03920v3 [astro-ph.HE], 
<http://arxiv.org/abs/1602.03920>

Subsequent analysis by researchers with the INTEGRAL telescope indicate
that GW150914 has nothing to do with that GRB.

V. Savchenko; C. Ferrigno, S. Mereghetti et al. (2016–02–12). “INTEGRAL 
upper limits on gamma-ray emission associated with the gravitational wave 
event GW150914”. ApJL (submitted). arXiv:1602.04180v1 [astro-ph.HE], 
<https://arxiv.org/abs/1602.04180>

> (about 1 sun of energy per second conversion)

Energy is not measured in “sun”.

> is proof that the smaller black hole got ripped open
> for a short period of time during the merger when
> the Lagrange surfaces penetrated the black hole.

Utter nonsense.

PointedEars
-- 
I heard that entropy isn't what it used to be.

(from: WolframAlpha)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#557545

From	Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Date	2016-02-28 14:21 +0100
Message-ID	<1671334.9yOO7G6Agg@PointedEars.de>
In reply to	#557543

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> 7 wrote:
>> […] But at some point, these Lagrange points swing right into
>> the surface of the smaller black hole and cut right the way in
>> into interior of the smaller black hole and rip it open.
> 
> Utter nonsense.  Lagrangian points are nothing more than positions in
> space where relatively stable can be achieved, and black holes cannot be
                               ^orbits
> "ripped open". […]


PointedEars
-- 
I heard that entropy isn't what it used to be.

(from: WolframAlpha)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#557547

From	7 <7@enemygadgets.com>
Date	2016-02-28 13:30 +0000
Message-ID	<djgb44Fri26U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#557543

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> 7 wrote:
> 
>> […] But at some point, these Lagrange points swing right into
>> the surface of the smaller black hole and cut right the way in
>> into interior of the smaller black hole and rip it open.
> 
> Utter nonsense.  Lagrangian points are nothing more than positions in
> space where relatively stable can be achieved, and black holes cannot be
> "ripped open".

Then do me a favour and read the original post and explain where it all went 
wrong for you and why existing modelling methods are correct.

Lagrange points not modelled correctly on black hole merger simulations?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just looking at some of the videos of black hole merger simulations
and the thing that strikes you is the simulations don't facilitate
Lagrange points and their effects on black hole mergers.

If you got two black holes of different sizes merging,
the Lagrange points exist all the way into the gaps
between the merging black holes while they spin
and generate gravitational waves. But at some point,
these Lagrange points swing right into the surface
of the smaller black hole and cut right the way in
into interior of the smaller black hole and rip it open.

As soon as the Lagrange surfaces hit the black hole
surface, a test mass, or a photon that comprise the
black hole shall no longer be modelled
as being inside a black hole, and so its trajectory
is no longer that of the black hole material itself.

So the animations are wrong.

The modelling has failed.

The LIGO result showing massive gamma ray burst 
(about 1 sun of energy per second conversion)
is proof that the smaller black hole got ripped open
for a short period of time during the merger when
the Lagrange surfaces penetrated the black hole.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#557552

From	Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Date	2016-02-28 14:52 +0100
Message-ID	<5115780.jfpZlZfC3U@PointedEars.de>
In reply to	#557547

7 wrote:

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> 7 wrote:
>>> […] But at some point, these Lagrange points swing right into
>>> the surface of the smaller black hole and cut right the way in
>>> into interior of the smaller black hole and rip it open.
>> Utter nonsense.  Lagrangian points are nothing more than positions in
>> space where relatively stable can be achieved, and black holes cannot be
>> "ripped open".
> 
> Then do me a favour and read the original post

You did not have to post it all again below.  It is still there where it 
originally was, I can read it there.

> and explain where it all went wrong for you

It went wrong (objectively, not just for me) starting at “Lagrange points 
swing”.  Lagrange/Lagrangian points do not swing.

It then went crazy with “swing right into the surface of the smaller black 
hole and cut right the way in into interior of the smaller black hole and 
rip it open.”  I have already explained why, at great detail.

Your problem is that *you* do not care to read, and you are projecting that 
failure onto others.

> and why existing modelling methods are correct.

You mean, why not considering Lagrangian points in the models of the merger 
of black holes does not make those models wrong, contrary to what you have 
claimed?  Well, Lagrangian points are irrelevant there.

Which is obvious to anyone who knows what Lagrangian points are and what 
black holes are.  Which obviously does not include you (yet).

PointedEars
-- 
Q: What happens when electrons lose their energy?  
A: They get Bohr'ed.

(from: WolframAlpha)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#557554

From	7 <7@enemygadgets.com>
Date	2016-02-28 13:59 +0000
Message-ID	<djgcqlFrusuU2@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#557552

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> 7 wrote:
> 
>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> 7 wrote:
>>>> […] But at some point, these Lagrange points swing right into
>>>> the surface of the smaller black hole and cut right the way in
>>>> into interior of the smaller black hole and rip it open.
>>> Utter nonsense.  Lagrangian points are nothing more than positions in
>>> space where relatively stable can be achieved, and black holes cannot be
>>> "ripped open".
>> 
>> Then do me a favour and read the original post
> 
> You did not have to post it all again below.  It is still there where it
> originally was, I can read it there.

I left the original here for you in case it expired.

>> and explain where it all went wrong for you
> 
> It went wrong (objectively, not just for me) starting at “Lagrange points
> swing”.  Lagrange/Lagrangian points do not swing.

Fail again. 

In a decaying spiral orbit that generates tidal waves?

Sheesh! You need to learn physics before you can begin to take all this in.

Read the original post. And look up tidal waves and Lagrange
points contradicting your post before posting:

Lagrange points not modelled correctly on black hole merger simulations?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just looking at some of the videos of black hole merger simulations
and the thing that strikes you is the simulations don't facilitate
Lagrange points and their effects on black hole mergers.

If you got two black holes of different sizes merging,
the Lagrange points exist all the way into the gaps
between the merging black holes while they spin
and generate gravitational waves. But at some point,
these Lagrange points swing right into the surface
of the smaller black hole and cut right the way in
into interior of the smaller black hole and rip it open.

As soon as the Lagrange surfaces hit the black hole
surface, a test mass, or a photon that comprise the
black hole shall no longer be modelled
as being inside a black hole, and so its trajectory
is no longer that of the black hole material itself.

So the animations are wrong.

The modelling has failed.

The LIGO result showing massive gamma ray burst 
(about 1 sun of energy per second conversion)
is proof that the smaller black hole got ripped open
for a short period of time during the merger when
the Lagrange surfaces penetrated the black hole.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#557556

From	Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Date	2016-02-28 15:04 +0100
Message-ID	<1710369.1jSe9Q1Y3S@PointedEars.de>
In reply to	#557554

7 wrote:

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> 7 wrote:
>>> Then do me a favour and read the original post
>> You did not have to post it all again below.  It is still there where it
>> originally was, I can read it there.
> 
> I left the original here for you in case it expired. […]

Usenet postings do not expire after a few hours.

> Fail again. […]

OK now, feeding time is over.  May you die in ignorance.

*PLONK*
 

F'up2 poster

PointedEars
-- 
Q: Why is electricity so dangerous?  
A: It doesn't conduct itself.

(from: WolframAlpha)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#557580

From	7 <7@enemygadgets.com>
Date	2016-02-28 16:03 +0000
Message-ID	<djgk1nFtstnU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#557556

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> 7 wrote:
> 
>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> 7 wrote:
>>>> Then do me a favour and read the original post
>>> You did not have to post it all again below.  It is still there where it
>>> originally was, I can read it there.
>> 
>> I left the original here for you in case it expired. […]
> 
> Usenet postings do not expire after a few hours.
> 
>> Fail again. […]
> 
> OK now, feeding time is over.  May you die in ignorance.
> 
> *PLONK*


Were you talking to the man in the mirror when you were ranting?

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

csiph-web

Lagrange points not modelled correctly on black hole merger simulations?

Contents

#557537 — Lagrange points not modelled correctly on black hole merger simulations?

#557539

#557541

#557546

#557548

#557543

#557545

#557547

#557552

#557554

#557556

#557580