[zeidrich]

Science is composition.

We build a bit, we test, if it's solid, we build a bit more. We don't need to come up with hypothetical black hole computers.

The paper and the concept of TOW dynamics has been referenced in http://www.nature.com/articles/srep13253 which shares one of the authors and is interesting in a different way.

I get tired of people saying things that aren't exciting enough shouldn't be published. It's not the exciting things that make the breakthroughs, it's understanding a bit more about the things we've always figured are obvious. To me this is more interesting than some hypothetical black hole computer. Sure it's not blowing me away.

It's just a block. A little block. Other ideas can choose to use that block or not. I haven't seen that system of tug-of-war dynamics described before. It seems solid, so why not describe it?

Or does it need to be antimatter hoverboards to be worth publishing?

[jerf]

Read my post more carefully before leaping to conclusions, please. You appear to have been blinded by some words and failed to read through them properly. You're trying to lecture me about how science works, when in fact you're the one who is being quite wrong about it. Especially re-read my last sentence, carefully.