The challenge you pose at the end is too heavy for me to answer quantitatively (misplaced concreteness is a big danger here — the formulae of G&M have a magic quality to them unless we believe in higher revelation standing behind).

Since no one knows the energetic threshold at which black holes exist, only the assumption of a very concrete value — fallen from heaven as it were — allows one to come up with numbers. My “A rational and moral and spiritual dilemma” paper of May 2008, sent to G&M when fresh and published as they knew in July 2008, only gives a rough probability of the experiment’s being successful: “16 percent.” (At half the energy, the probability is roughly to be halved.)

How many of those produced will be slow enough to stay inside earth is a question G&M are more competent to answer. As Dr. Landua correctly emphasized towards me, the intrinsic quantum jiggle of the colliding quarks renders the percentage of sub-Keplerian (slow enough to stay inside earth) specimens quite small even if the two beams are exactly calibrated.

Therefore, one can hope that only a rather high cumulative luminosity brings about the full risk. To my knowledge, CERN’s publications give no information about the relevant numbers already obtained — and scheduled to be obtained if the experiment is to be re-ignited in two weeks’ time at five times the previous efficiency.

Only CERN itself can tell the planet what percentage of the estimated 8 percent danger has likely been achieved during last year’s run, and what the approximately six-fold total increase planned to be reached by the end of the present year therefore means for the likelihood of life’s continuing.

The new unchargedness has two further implications:
i) The probability of CERN’s suceeding in producing black holes is increased by many orders of magnitude since string theory suddenly has an empirical basis.
ii) CERN’s detectors have become blind to its own most hoped-for success.

(My oft-repeated warning that “nature has posed humankind a trap” is therefore understandable. The refused scientific dialogue has a tragic dimension to it. I can only ask humankind’s forgiveness for my inefficiency in making my results known.)

Telemach is the most important safety-relevant result. It proves what Giddings and Mangano presupposed as a mere game of thought in their “Safety Report” of late 2008: Lack of Hawking radiation and lack of chargedness of black holes. Every CERN-member knows that these two – Hawling radiation and chargedness – are the only safety assurances anyone takes really seriously at CERN (just ask them). So forgive me that I always mention Telemach in the first place as my most important safety-relevant result.

My second safety-relevant result communicated to Dr. Mangano in early 2008 is the well-known exponential growth rate of quasars, which G and M then refused to consider in their paper. And with it, the consequence – the predictable analogous behavior of micro-black holes inside ordinary matter (earth). Instead they naively presented a more or less linear accretion rate inside earth. Of course they would have been welcome to offer counter-arguments to my disproof of their own results, as the world expects them to do for more than three years.

Thirdly they “forgot” to dismantle my third unsafety-proving result, sent to them in the spring and in published form in July of 2008: the immunity, shown by neutron stars towards natural ultrafast analogues to the micro black holes, explicitly planned to be produced at CERN. It is explicable by the superfluidity of their cores.

The first result of my trias obviously belongs to the theory of relativity, the second to chaos theory, the third to quantum mechanics. In at least one of the three fields, the two authors in question could and should have displayed competence – if I may say so without using a politically incorrect tone which is far from being my intention.

But I do want to shout to the whole planet: Please, do either offer a counterproof to one of the three points offered for years, or stop the experiment immediately!

They have a point — in isolation Telemach does not negate the G&M conclusion, as G&M derive an accretion rate of billions of years even if HR was ineffective — as your Telemach theorem suggests. Therefore I have suggested you work at your paper on accretion rates.

How do you know? Why dare they not say so themselves if this is the case? Eschewing discussion is the utmost proof of weakness — especially so when combined with absolute silence for 4 years in a row while the planet is kept waiting for the overdue update.

Your no doubt well-meaning defense of theirs is turning them into minors who cannot speak up for themselves — although they represent the only defense CERN ever could muster.

They have a chance to reply: Can you exert a good influence on them so they cease hiding?

Is this the only defense CERN can muster on the planet?

And dear Tom: Please, stop defending a paper which was openly fraudulent from the beginning. If Giddings and Mangano cannot defend themselves, it is counterproductive to try and defend them. Which fact does not mean that I do not admire your own straightness in thinking. But it is simpy too late to return to a debate which went on for 4 years in vain without noticing in the first place that the two authors along with CERN refuse to this very day to update a 4 year old alleged “safety report.”

Do I have to remind you that the clock is ticking, saying in plain shamelessness on CERN’s website “15 days left” today?