trailCatastrophic growth does not occur in Plaga's metastable micro black hole scenario.
Published LHC black hole risk analyses do not establish that catastrophic risk is negligible.
Model authors' growth analysis· for
In warped brane-world models, micro black holes cease growing far below catastrophic mass.
Evaporation of warped brane-world micro black holes outpaces accretion above a small critical 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.
◌
Internal inconsistency of the scenario· for
Plaga's metastable black-hole risk scenario applies Hawking-radiation and accretion formulas inconsistently.
Plaga's metastable black-hole scenario adopts the Casadio–Harms quantum black-hole model.
Plaga's scenario estimates metastable black-hole Hawking power at approximately 10^16 watts.
Consistent application of the Casadio–Harms model yields micro black-hole radiated power far below hazardous levels.
◌
Astrophysical exclusion· for
Black holes capable of Eddington-limited accretion and radiation are also subject to astrophysical retention bounds.
If TeV-scale black hole production is possible in particle collisions, cosmic rays striking white dwarfs or neutron stars would produce such black holes.
✓
◌
↑
Stable microscopic black holes produced by cosmic rays striking white dwarfs or neutron stars would be stopped inside those stars, whether charged or neutral.
◌
↑
A black hole accreting hazardously fast on Earth would accrete faster inside white dwarfs or neutron stars.
◌
✕
Survival of white dwarfs and neutron stars constrains TeV-scale black hole accretion rates.
◌
◌
+1
Astrophysical bounds from stellar survival do not exclude metastable collider-produced black holes.
Plaga's continued defense· against
Plaga maintains his metastable black-hole risk scenario despite published rebuttals.
atomic
claim · empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →claim page ↗︎
Catastrophic growth does not occur in Plaga's metastable micro black hole scenario.
↑SupportedEvidence favors the claim, but the chain is incomplete or the sources are secondary.constitution →credence 0.92Credence, 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 →
1depended 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.