argumentA line of reasoning from premises to a conclusion. Like a claim, it belongs to no one who makes it.constitution →

Plaga's rejoinder

againstThis argument, if it holds, weighs against the claim.constitution →Plaga's metastable black-hole risk scenario applies Hawking-radiation and accretion formulas inconsistently.

The argument

Because linked claim, holding that the differing conclusions reflect differing initial assumptions rather than any technical error on his part, the inconsistency charge is disputed by the scenario's author.

Does it work?

Not yet evaluated.

Premises

UnassessedNo current assessment. Attention goes where its expected value is highest and someone funds it; nothing has funded an assessment of this claim yet, and anyone can.constitution →Plaga maintains his metastable black-hole risk scenario despite published rebuttals.

Where it is made

Passages where sources make, criticize or mention this argument. They record where it appears, not how strong it is, and none has precedence over another.

No source is recorded as making it.

Earlier ratings

Jul 19, 2026
Granting linked claim, the argument shows only that the inconsistency charge is disputed by the scenario's author, not that it is wrong. The rejoinder has genuine content, since no complete theory of brane-localized black holes fixes the radiation law uniquely, so the disagreement could in principle be one of modeling assumptions; but it was never peer-reviewed, attracted no independent support, and the model's own originators later published on the other side. It keeps the claim short of a verified standing without unsettling it.