The retrieved global constancy of *c* in the equivalence principle implies that the vertical distance to the surface of the neutron star has increased compared to the traditional view: the indentation into the “cloth” of spacetime has become deeper.

The stronger the gravitational acceleration, the deeper the trough. The new *globally* *constant-c* result due to Noether implies that the spatial distance right down to the “horizon” (surface) of a black hole has become infinite. This novel *spatial* distance valid from the outside corresponds with the well-known infinite *temporal* distance valid from the outside for light sent down to, or coming up from, the horizon (Oppenheimer and Snyder, 1939).

So black holes are never finished in finite outer time. But I hear you ask: Is it not quite well known that one can fall-in onto a large black hole in finite astronaut time? Yes, this is correct.

How come? This is the last Noetherian point: The on-board clocks of the astronaut are infinitely slowed. Also our rotating wheel comes to a virtual standstill of its rotation on the horizon (the tangential velocity of the wheel staying invariant in reality while the wheel’s diameter invisibly approaches infinity).

So the *Noether wheel* teaches us that there is *no* *Hawking radiation.* And that general relativity can be *re-scaled* so that it no longer masks the new *c*-global constraint. Noether’s genius thus implies that a whole new simpler version of general relativity exists – predictably without any remaining incompatibility to quantum mechanics: a bonanza for young physicists.

*c*-global forms a no longer ignorable reason to renew the 7 years old Safety Report LSAG of the *LHC* experiment in Geneva which, in light of Noether’s result, will now with a certain probability produce miniature black holes that can only grow exponentially inside matter.

*Dear young generation:* I publish this “call to you in 4 parts” on *Lifeboat.com* before CERN can start to double their in the universe unheard-of center-of-mass collision energies on one celestial body – yours – in the no longer valid hope to create Hawking-evaporating black holes down on earth.

Such* pre-Noetherian experiments* are scientifically outdated by now and will, if endangering the planet as the Noeterian result implies, in addition constitute a crime against humanity if attempted. Can you help me persuade CERN to kindly reply to this objective criticism of what they have announced to do – *before* starting to “shoot sharp” in June as still officially planned?

1/ “So black holes are never finished in finite outer time.“

2/ “will now with a certain probability produce miniature black holes “

You are contradicting yourself with the above two statements. What your theory actually suggests is that black holes, and miniature black holes, cannot exist.

As regards “unheard-of center-of-mass collision energies on one celestial body”:

We have higher center-of-mass collision energies all the time when typical UHECR impact on metallic asteroids, i.e basic p-Fe collisions, the center-of-mass energy involved works out at: Sqrt ((100,000,000,000,000,000,000 eV) x 2 x (55.845 x 931,494,061 eV)) = 3,225,501,072,284,583 eV = 3,225.5 TeV. That’s far higher than the 1,066 TeV center-of-mass energies in Pb-Pb collisions planned at CERN — and this using just typical figures for UHECR impacts.

For the arguments that the products of these evade gravity capture, I refer you back yet again to the more complex study of CR exposure on white dwarf & neutron stars:

Discussions on the Hypothesis that Cosmic Ray Exposure on Sirius B Negates Terrestrial MBH Concerns from Colliders. Thomas B. Kerwick. 20th May 2014.

http://www.vixra.org/abs/1208.0005

http://www.vixra.org/pdf/1208.0005v6.pdf

Neutron Star Safety Assurance Concerns to Particle Collider Operation of TeV-Scale p-p Collisions. Thomas B Kerwick. 23rd September 2014.

http://vixra.org/abs/1406.0077

http://vixra.org/pdf/1406.0077v4.pdf

Micro Black Holes — Hypothetical Terrestrial Flux and a Re-Visitation of Astrophysical Safety Assurances. Thomas B Kerwick. 20th Feb 2015.

http://vixra.org/abs/1503.0066

http://vixra.org/pdf/1503.0066v1.pdf

And the heavier G&M analysis: Astrophysical implications of hypothetical stable TeV-scale black holes. Steven B. Giddings, Michelangelo M. Mangano. 23rd Sept. 2008.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.3381

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0806.3381v2.pdf

This is a misunderstanding, dear Tom.

FINISHED black holes exist nowhere in the universe, as is known since 1939. (Only Hawking does not seem to know this.)

But owing to Birkhoff’s theorem, almost-finished black holes are just as dangerous as finished ones; so that always pointing to that formal distinction would be misleading.

Okay?

Second: Center-of-mass collisions ON a celestial body (my words) did not refer to what you apparently understood (passing through it).

I thus see no discrepancy between our two views here.

Only you for some reason feel assured by a 7 years old statement of safety.

You obviously seem to expect that this was a defensible position.

Everyone would be maximally interested to learn from you and CERN how come.

I mean such a consensus never existed before in the history of science.

So can you, please, explain this consensus between you and CERN and the UN and the unified media of the globe?

The world is holding its breath in anticipation.

Your answer will make this blog famous.

Well firstly, the world is not holding its breath in anticipation. This is outsider debate. About collision energies — you are the one misunderstanding — These collisions occur ON celestial bodies — that is clear from the point of impact. It is their products which pass on through — Hence the follow-on analysis on the capture of the products which is the only difference in the LHC case. I should also point out that HR is just as applicable to ’ almost-finished black holes’ — You just moved the goalposts. In this regard, no actual disproof (of HR) is presented in any case.

Center-of-mass collisions on a celestial body was the key word which you try to hide from view. (This makes CERN’s endeavor unique in the cosmos as you know.)

But it is interesting that you return to Hawking Radiation (HR) as CERN’s real dogma on which it bets the planet.

Don’t be silly Otto — I wasn’t trying to hide anything from view. I was referring to the centre-of-mass energy of collisions ;-). I’ll decline entering debate on HR ‘dogma’ — as you know, I am more interested in analogy and observation as a safety reassurance.

I apologize for having used a false word. Okay?

I forgot to mention my co-authored book “Chaotic Harmony.”

And I would like to mention ottorossler on WordPress.com as an opportunity for further exchanges.

Sorry, I meant: https://ottorossler.wordpress.com