trailPlaga's metastable black-hole risk scenario applies Hawking-radiation and accretion formulas inconsistently.
A metastable black hole accreting matter at the Eddington limit would emit hazardous Hawking radiation.
Published LHC black hole risk analyses do not establish that catastrophic risk is negligible.
Astrophysical bounds from stellar survival do not exclude metastable collider-produced black holes.
+3
Giddings–Mangano power-estimate critique· for
Plaga's scenario estimates metastable black-hole Hawking power at approximately 10^16 watts.
atomic
Consistent application of the Casadio–Harms model yields micro black-hole radiated power far below hazardous levels.
Evaporation of warped brane-world micro black holes outpaces accretion above a small critical mass
↑
◌
◌
Giddings and Mangano's radiated-power estimate misapplies the Casadio–Harms model
Corroboration by the framework's authors· for
In warped brane-world models, micro black holes cease growing far below catastrophic mass.
Stable micro black holes in warped extra-dimension scenarios could accrete to macroscopic mass within Earth's lifetime
◌
◌
Large extra dimension models predict TeV-scale black hole production at the LHC.
◌
Plaga's rejoinder· against
Plaga maintains his metastable black-hole risk scenario despite published rebuttals.
atomic
assumed
Plaga's metastable black-hole scenario adopts the Casadio–Harms quantum black-hole model.
claim · empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →claim page ↗︎
Plaga's metastable black-hole risk scenario applies Hawking-radiation and accretion formulas inconsistently.
↑SupportedEvidence favors the claim, but the chain is incomplete or the sources are secondary.constitution →credence 0.80Credence, from 0 to 1: the Steward's probability that the claim, as stated, is true. Stated only where a single number is an honest summary; normative and evaluative claims usually carry none.constitution →
6depended on by
this rests on ↓
claimA box is a claim: a single proposition the graph assesses, with its own page and map. Click any claim to centre the map on it.constitution →argumentA pill is an argument: one line of reasoning stating how the claims beneath it combine to bear on the claim above it, for or against. Arguments are not destinations; click their claims to explore.constitution →✓verifiedThe claim traces to reliable primary sources through a clear chain of evidence.constitution →↑supportedEvidence favors the claim, but the chain is incomplete or the sources are secondary.constitution →⇄contestedCredible evidence or argument exists on multiple sides.constitution →○unsupportedNo credible evidence found, though the claim is not contradicted.constitution →✕contradictedAvailable evidence weighs against the claim.constitution →?unknownInsufficient information to assess.constitution →◌unassessedNo current assessment — the Steward prioritises higher-importance claims, so this one is likely still queued.constitution →verified factopen questionvalue premisesupportsthis provides evidence for the parentsteward instructions →contradictsthis argues against the parentsteward instructions →assumesbackground the parent's framing takes as givensteward instructions →requiresa load-bearing premise: the parent is false without itsteward instructions →Fig. — detail falls off with distance; every claim is an address.