<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.gmaildefault
{mso-style-name:gmail_default;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>> <b>On Behalf Of </b>John Clark via extropy-chat<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [ExI] ligo results suggest two different types of neutron star mergers<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 8:19 PM spike jones via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in'><p class=MsoNormal><span class=gmaildefault><i><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>> </span></i></span><i>it starts right out with an obvious mistake</i><o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:13.5pt'>I'm glad to hear you say that, I thought I was the only one confused by that article. I could be wrong but what I think that badly written story was trying to say is that after the merger the massive object stuck around as a Neutron Star for several milliseconds before collapsing into a Black Hole. If that is indeed what it was trying to say, and it may not be, that would be surprising because Neutron Star theory says anything more than 2.7 solar masses should immediately collapse into a Black Hole even if it's spinning very fast, 2.2 if it's not spinning at all.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:13.5pt'> John K Clark</span> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>John I have been working out what I think they meant and made a cool discovery from fooling with the equations, one anyone can do, without mastery of general relativity (well, kinda.)<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Imagine two neutron stars are in a decaying circular orbit. We can envision, even without calculating anything, a steady ringing signal as they spiral in.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Now imagine two neutron stars in a highly elliptical decaying orbit where at closest approach their combined mass gets you damn close to adios amigos but their mutual aphelion (apneutrion?) is way out there. In the second scenario, the peri…neutrion(?) doesn’t change much while the apneutrion is reeled on in like a prize sailfish.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Wouldn’t those two have different decay signals?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Retract maybe it does require a good understanding of general relativity to answer that one, and I have insufficient mastery of the 4-vector calculus.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I think we need to wait for the next paper from CalTech.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>spike<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></div></div></body></html>