Eddington-limit objection
The argument
If accretion by micro black holes inside dense stars is capped at the Eddington luminosity, and given that the Eddington limit depends on the black hole's mass rather than on the density of its surroundings, a black hole accreting hazardously fast on Earth would accrete at a comparable capped rate inside a compact star, not a faster one.
Does it work?
Not yet evaluated.
Premises
- ContradictedThe evidence, examined directly, weighs against the claim.constitution →Accretion by micro black holes inside dense stars is limited by the Eddington luminosity.
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
The objection would sever the density-scaling bridge if its premise held, so it lives or dies on the Eddington-limit premise, which is now assessed as contradicted: in the optically thick degenerate interior of a compact star, radiation is trapped and advected inward rather than halting infall, and published calculations uniformly find hyper-Eddington, roughly Bondi-rate accretion. The separately supported finding that Plaga's scenario applies its Hawking-radiation and accretion formulas inconsistently further undermines the objection's source. With its sole load-bearing premise contradicted, the objection does not defeat the claim.
- Jul 19, 2026
The inference would sever the density-scaling bridge if its premise held, so the objection lives or dies on linked claim. That premise has not survived scrutiny: the separately assessed finding that Plaga's scenario applies Hawking-radiation and accretion formulas inconsistently stands supported, the originators of the underlying quantum black-hole model found growth ceasing far below dangerous mass, and the classical Eddington cap does not straightforwardly apply inside degenerate stars, where photons are trapped and pressure is set by degeneracy rather than radiation. As the objection currently stands it does not defeat the claim.