Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > sci.physics > #557552

Re: Lagrange points not modelled correctly on black hole merger simulations?

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>

Show all headers | View raw


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 | NextPrevious in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


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