Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #557552
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics |
| Subject | Re: Lagrange points not modelled correctly on black hole merger simulations? |
| Date | 2016-02-28 14:52 +0100 |
| Organization | PointedEars Software (PES) |
| Message-ID | <5115780.jfpZlZfC3U@PointedEars.de> (permalink) |
| References | <djg3odFpkqtU1@mid.individual.net> <2266566.rmCSWFARhr@PointedEars.de> <djgb44Fri26U1@mid.individual.net> |
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)
Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Lagrange points not modelled correctly on black hole merger simulations? 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-02-28 11:24 +0000
Re: Lagrange points not modelled correctly on black hole merger simulations? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-28 13:07 +0100
Re: Lagrange points not modelled correctly on black hole merger simulations? 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-02-28 12:25 +0000
Re: Lagrange points not modelled correctly on black hole merger simulations? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-28 14:23 +0100
Re: Lagrange points not modelled correctly on black hole merger simulations? 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-02-28 13:32 +0000
Re: Lagrange points not modelled correctly on black hole merger simulations? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-28 14:03 +0100
Re: Lagrange points not modelled correctly on black hole merger simulations? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-28 14:21 +0100
Re: Lagrange points not modelled correctly on black hole merger simulations? 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-02-28 13:30 +0000
Re: Lagrange points not modelled correctly on black hole merger simulations? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-28 14:52 +0100
Re: Lagrange points not modelled correctly on black hole merger simulations? 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-02-28 13:59 +0000
Re: Lagrange points not modelled correctly on black hole merger simulations? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-28 15:04 +0100
Re: Lagrange points not modelled correctly on black hole merger simulations? 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-02-28 16:03 +0000
csiph-web