Hypothetical 100% iron would not give the smallest number of MBH.
But no problem if you do not understand my last paragraph. It‘s ok, because I have told all what I had on my mind.
I think we should stop now in order to let others tell their arguments (as Mr. Conant or Prof. Rössler above).
Let‘s just hope that there is no risk, otherwise we will see us somewhere over the rainbow…

Many thanks. Keep to be critical and selfcritical. Peace! Niccolò
——-

For the rest, I haven’t read all of the references [67]-[73], but if your judgment about their “honesty” is based on the position of the tables and the wording of the captions, I am not particularly worried about it. And I still fail to understand (but please, don’t bother explaining it) your insistence on the fact that GM should repeat their calculation of the neutron-star bounds with 100% iron (or whatever else) flux. Indeed, “100% iron flux” falls into the category “less-than-10% proton flux”, which is already discussed in the paper. In that case, which the authors consider “unlikely”, the bounds from neutron stars are no longer valid. Note however that — as you can read in page 40 — the bounds from white dwarfs remain valid even in the case of a 100% iron flux.

However the last sentence in your first paragraph is exactly the point — and very honest!
I do not have a “problem” that GM gives these references.
The problem is, that not ALL of these references (even the ones which handle high energetic cosmic rays in LSAG) are completely honest. I explain:

Completely honest regarding the kind of these high energetic cosmic rays is only to make assumptions and (looking at the texts) this is not the case in all these references, but in some it is (believe me, I have seen it or please take a look yourself).
I know that there are assumptions (and some “signs”) for the composition of high and even ultra-high energy cosmic rays or particles but it is so that the real composition is not KNOWN, therefore they have tables with hypothetical 100% proton or/and 100% hypothetical iron fluxes.

(At the LHC we know we have protons or lead ions.)

As it is important to consider the worst case, one could say 100% iron is somehow thought for the worst case — but the worst case would be different, therefore my 2nd question.

Because the type of these rays or particles (possibly producing MBH) is not known for sure and only secondary “events” have been measured, one (or GM) would have to make calculations specially for the (at least) specific particles or most preferable even for exotic particles — if possible — which would produce the smallest numbers of MBH on neutron stars. The very best would be calculations for a hypothetical 100% flux, as they have made for protons or/and iron just for example in table 2.

Thank you very much. Sincerely yours, Niccolò
——-

As to your third (silly) question, isn’t the answer obvious? I hate humankind, and I want it to be swallowed by a black hole. Or, in alternative, CERN has kidnapped my family and threatens to annihilate them with antimatter if I don’t comply.

Agreed with your first sentence. I do not like to talk in circles nor to make you angry. The contrary: it was great to have such an intelligent and strong discussion partner like you over three pages, starting from here (thanks to all, to the moderation and to all readers):
http://lifeboat.com/blog/2012/04/einsteins-miracle/comment-page-1#comment-107513

But to answer your question: I have made the two examples of calculations (see link above), to show some real (corrected) numbers per real million years on single neutron stars, as to prove that the title of table 3 is incorrect. It was also to highlight the statement of GM, that the numbers of MBH on neutron stars “are too small to allow sufficient rate for all cases, and specially those at the highest black hole masses.” (GM, page 85).

Can I ask you three very final questions, in the hope to get a very honest answer?
1.) Do you agree that there is no proof of the type of these high energetic cosmic ‘ray‘ particles, possibly leading to MBH?
2.) Would you find it a good idea, to make calculations specially for the hypothetic particles which would produce the smallest number of MBH on single neutron stars or binaries?
3.) What is your motivation to be on the side of CERN?

Thank you very much. Sincerely yours, Niccolò
——-
But then to the comment of Prof. Rössler again…

Thank you for your question regarding the chargedness of black holes which is as maximally important as you point out.

To the best of my knowledge, the most high-ranking colleague of mine who shares in this result is Professor Richard J. Cook of the Airforce Academy in Colorado Springs. He wrote to me that he fully supports the Ch of my Telemach result (while he himself had independently arrived at T,L,M).

My Telemach paper in the African Journal of Mathematics and Computer Science gives the relvant references. I hope Professor Cook forgives me for pulling him into this discussion here which I consider to be sufficiently scientific in content.

This is a highlight in the public discussion of the LHC experiment. I hope your question will be followed by further questions by others in the same, purely objective spirit.

Sincerely yours,
Otto E. Rössler

Besides, what would a “naive reader” do with the information that a
neutron star in a binary system absorbs a given number of black holes
per million year? The relevant message of section 8 is that, if micro
black holes were: 1) existing; 2) lighter than 14 TeV; 3) neutral; 4)
stable; and 5) able to accrete at a rate dangerous to Earth, a typical
neutron star in a binary system would be destroyed by them, even if
the cosmic rays contained only 10% of protons. Again, this information
is clearly written and fully explained in the paper, and it is
accessible to anybody who bothers to read the text instead of just
looking at the pictures. And remember, this is a paper published in a
specialist journal, aimed at actual physicists. If you and your “naive
readers” get confused by the “tricky” tables — or are unable to
understand eq.(8.1), to make another example — well, that is just your
problem.

As to the LSAG report, it’s a different matter. That report is much
shorter, much less technical and addressed to a wider public. The
issue of micro black holes is just one among several that are
considered, and the bounds from white dwarfs and neutron stars are
discussed (without numbers) in just two paragraphs in page 8. I don’t
know why the LSAG authors did not specify that the bounds refer to
neutron stars in binary systems. Probably they thought that the “naive
reader” would not care about the subtlety, and the expert one would be
able to read (and understand) the details in the GM paper.

Thanks for your first comment on page 3, it leads me to the idea that you could help me to find some additional misleading points in GM.
To you comment on page 2:
http://lifeboat.com/blog/2012/04/einsteins-miracle/comment-page-2#comment-107736
You can tell me what you want but I do not agree with your statement: “Nobody who is even vaguely used to reading such papers would doubt that the table is in section 8.1.1.” Even because of the misleading title of table 3. (And please do not tell I would not know how to read publications, because you do not know me.)
However, your point with LaTeX is true but anyway a publication — especially such an important one — should be made carefully enough, so far that most of the readers can understand it quickly and may not get a wrong opinion. This is important because such a risk assessment should be suitable for an open discussion between various people and one does not know, who anymore could have an important idea regarding it.

I would say, that it would generally not matter whether we would have a table with the numbers of MBH on neutron stars per million years or per entire lifespan of the NS. I agree that the most important point would be “per lifespan”, but the lifetime varies. (You know that I know, so please stop trying to convince naive readers that I would not understand anything.)
If we talk about NS, naturally the only important parameters in order to find out, whether there is a proof of safety regarding neutral, stable, slow MBH, possibly produced at the LHC are as follows: the lifespan of the NS, the exact type of ‘neutron‘ star and its core, the number of trapped MBH per time scale, the size of the MBH (or else its smaller and stable remnant), the space between the particles of the NS and the time of accretion.
If one does not know the accretion rate then it does also matter whether the MBH is trapped at the beginning or at the end of lifespan of the NS.

But again: just one (not the most) important point in my long comment on page 1 here is that the title of table 3 is “Summary of black hole production rates, per million years, induced by proton cosmic rays impinging on a R = 10 km neutron star” and does not mention “million years of FCE” nor “binaries” in any way.
LSAG handles single neutron stars resp. generally “neutron stars” and GM (8.1 and elsewhere) too. Therefore where is a table with a correct title or an argument with some real numbers on single neutron stars (which is the main issue) and (if you still think that table 3 is mostly for the binary section) then why does the title not mention “per million years of FCE”?
The ‘trick‘ would be, just to make the publication (and all tables) as easy understandable and as less misleading as possible, which does not seem to be the case here.

Also I would say that naive readers do not think about LaTeX.
It would not be so difficult to put the tables in the right section (instead of above the title of the section resp. instead of at the end of the solitary section), with the real final (corrected) numbers, for example for MBH per real million years for single NS, MBH per lifespan of NS, MBH per million years FCE (for binaries) or whatever. But I already know you will very probably see it different again.

Thanks to Mr. Conant for the question concerning the neutrality of MBH. Dear PassingByAgain Naturally I agree that it makes sense to investigate the worst-case scenario but I do not agree with your argument that “of course there is no special reason why the black holes should be neutral (and stable)”, because there is not only the paper of Prof. Rössler regarding it. Charge can be seen as “information” too and we do not know whether any information can come out from the black hole. Hawking radiation is not anymore on the public safety page of CERN and there is a reason for it. Not only Prof. Rössler says something against Hawking Radiation.

You mention the worst case scenario but you did not yet answer my argument, that GM should have considered all possible particles, rays and all thinkable sorts of exotic particles, mostly cosmic rays which would give the smallest numbers of MBH trapped on a (single or else binary) neutron star.

Thanks for discussion. Best regards, Niccolò