Minerval

← the claim it bears on

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

Giddings–Mangano inconsistency objection

This argument, if it holds, weighs against the claim.constitution →Eddington-limited accretion by metastable micro black holes would evade existing astrophysical observations.

The argument

Because linked claim, the quantities behind the claimed evasion are not derived from any single consistent model: the black-hole radii in the relevant mass range of 1 to 10^5 kg lie at 10^-25 to 10^-20 cm, far below the scales at which the macroscopic Eddington-limit argument applies, and a consistent application of the Casadio–Harms model yields a radiated power about twenty-three orders of magnitude below the scenario's figure; a scenario whose danger on Earth and invisibility in stars rest on incompatible applications of the same formulas cannot establish that its objects evade observation.

Does it work?

Not yet evaluated.

Premises

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 inference goes through: a scenario whose terrestrial danger and stellar invisibility depend on applying the same radiation and accretion formulas in incompatible regimes cannot establish that its objects evade observation, since the evasion figures are not outputs of any one consistent model. The argument rests on the finding that Plaga's scenario applies Hawking-radiation and accretion formulas inconsistently, which is supported, with the corroboration of the invoked model's own authors carrying particular weight. Plaga's published reply disputes the attribution of the twenty-three-order-of-magnitude discrepancy but has not been independently substantiated.