Astrophysical exclusion
The argument
Because linked claim, any black hole undergoing the Eddington-limited growth phase Plaga describes would also be produced by cosmic rays striking white dwarfs and neutron stars, and the observed survival of those stars rules out the dangerous cases whether or not growth saturates intrinsically. This line fails only if astrophysical bounds from stellar survival fail to exclude metastable collider-produced black holes.
Does it work?
Not yet evaluated.
Premises
- SupportedThe evidence favors the claim, but the examination is incomplete or the evidence is indirect.constitution →Black holes capable of Eddington-limited accretion and radiation are also subject to astrophysical retention bounds.
- ContradictedThe evidence, examined directly, weighs against the claim.constitution →Astrophysical bounds from stellar survival do not exclude metastable collider-produced black holes.
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 is valid and notably independent of the unresolved theory of black holes in warped geometries: it requires only that the accretion behavior Plaga posits would also arise from cosmic-ray production in dense stars. It rests on linked claim, which is supported at high confidence, and its stated failure condition, that stellar-survival bounds fail to exclude metastable collider black holes, is contradicted by the evidence, so the exclusion stands.