Giddings and Mangano of CERN found that accretion and other mechanisms “cannot efficiently slow down neutral CR-produced black holes in Earth…and ordinary stars” (p 16). Yet an ordinary star like the Sun is about 70,000 times the diameter of a neutron star.

Regarding neutron stars, G&M concluded: “Thus, the black hole should rapidly penetrate the crust and enter…the core.” (p. 25). How far would it go if the effect of superfluidity were considered? Clear through and out? By failing to take this effect into account, G&M indeed “cheated.”

P.S. It is fun to be allowed to be outspoken. I owe this privilege to you as my teacher — I had not looked at this thread from the outside perspective before as you showed me how to do.

There must be a reason why no one except Rössler is claiming that massive particles could not get stuck in a massive body like a neutron star. As a small hint, it is not your conspirancy theory.

Looks as if this particular bunkerbuster has bust Hansel’s bunker, but let’s see. Certainly at least two of the Rossler critics here are beginning to look like trolls who will pop out of their caves even after a 1000lb bomb has been dropped on them.

We must admit Hansel’s claim — that beam collisions wouldn’t produce mBHs if cosmic ray collisions hadn’t — looked like the silliest thing said so far on the Rossler threads. But perhaps we misunderstood.

If so, and he corrects our impression, when will he and others allow Rossler to correct their impression of his Eq#1 and move on?

Otherwise we will have Rossler playing whack-a-mole till the end of time (local clock).

Also relevant are the requirements that the speed and energy of collided protons must be the same to result in a dramatic slow-down of the products to below escape velocity, as is possible in a collider (e.g., with both beams at 7 TeV) but not in cosmic ray collisions.

Hansel also falsely suggested that I was wrong in writing of “the bunches of 100 billion protons collided at once in the LHC…” The design scheme for the LHC is that there will be 2800 bunches of protons (currently up to 1380) and that each bunch of 100 billion protons is just a few centimeters long and 7 meters apart. According to CERN’s LHC Guide, “When the bunches cross, there will be a maximum of about 20 collisions between 200 billion particles. Bunches will cross an average of about 30 million times per second…so the LHC will generate up to 600 million particle collisions per second.”

Eleni Koutsos had asked about the possibility that collisions between cosmic ray particles could result in very slow-moving black holes. My answer was conventional and based on the conclusion of Giddings and Mangano of CERN, who wrote that “neutral black holes produced during head-on collisions of cosmic rays within the galaxy will freely escape the galaxy, not being trapped by either collisions with the interstellar medium and stars…” (p. 16). Obviously, all quotation is selective for one cannot include a 47 page paper in a comment. Check it yourself.

Also, check to find the words “superfluid” or “superfluidity” anywhere in the G&M paper. Not once are they mentioned. Yet superfluidity is a fundamental feature of neutron stars, already long known when they wrote in 2008 — a feature that puts in grave doubt their basic safety assumption that the density of such stars could stop a microscopic black hole. This is a clear example that, as Dr. Rossler put it, “G and M cheated by not quoting the evidence lying before them against their neutron-star safety argument.”

NASA’ s recent finding of “direct evidence” of the superflluidity of a neutron star was based on its being “transparent” to the transit of neutrinos from its core into space. This finding greatly reinforces Dr. Rossler’s 2008 hypothesis that the superfluidity of neutron stars may render them transparent to the transit of microscopic black holes. Dr. Rossler is to be commended for his keen insight in correctly perceiving this crucial flaw in the neutron star safety argument, a flaw that G&M deceitfully hid.

No difficulties, thanks, with basic algebra. Just your messy and bitty informal quarrels with Rossler’s definitions of his terms, and whether a certain statement is an equation or simply a scheme of coexisting variables without a known relation between their values except whether one is bigger than the other.

In effect you keep claiming the better credentialed and publicly committed Rossler is a donkey who gets the simplest thing wrong, in your anonymous book, but it is suggestive to me of a Pekinese wrestling with his pants leg and claiming it prevents him from driving his Ferrari.

Maybe it does, but let’s see it laid out in a way that suits the level of scientific knowledge of the politicians and media reporters you would like to convince (since you have never denied that you are acting as a hit squad for CERN, whether known or unknown to their staff).

“The G and M text says precisely what he says it says. ”

Yes, if someone cites as selctively as Houston. Yes, cosmic rays are not found in the form of LHC-like bunches. But that does not matter because in both cases we are dealing with collision events statistically independent from each other AND with comparable center of mass energies.

BTW: Even if I were wrong with this it would have no effect on the Rössler critic. Science is not based on personal credibility but on facts. And the fact is that Rösslers paper is inconsistent. That was proven several times on this blog. If you have difficulties with that kind of very basic algebra you should perhaps go back to school rather than discussing things beyond your level of scientific knowledge.

It looks as if there is no hope for any satisfactory resolution here, then, as Roger said. We were all hoping for Alsatians chasing Rossler, and all we got are Pekinese.

He is right. All high level physicists I have spoken to admit it freely. Your comment further “explanation” is verbally challenged gobbledegook, contradicting a straw man — Hosuton did not say what you are attacking. The G and M text says precisely what he says it says.

This is a fine example of how you cannot be trusted as a Rossler critic, which is unfortunate, since your claim is that your view can be trusted as textbook stuff while Rossler is, you claim, a crackpot. Compared with this comment he looks like a professor at the University of Edinburgh, the most reliable institution in higher education.

You will have to do better if you are to retain your position as Robin to TRMG’s Batman!