JTankers

Certainly, “black holes do not radiate” [1] “The possibility that non-radiating `mini’ black holes exist should be taken seriously; such holes could be part of the dark matter in the Universe” [2] “the effect [Hawking Radiation] does not exist.“ [3] “2) infinitely delayed Hawking radiation; 3) infinitely weak chargedness of black holes“ [4] “it is possible that… the behavior of the black hole is stable“ [5] [1] Adam D. Helfer PHD, Trans-Plankian Modes, Back-Reaction, and the Hawking Process, (2000) arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0008016 [2] Adam D. Helfer PHD, Do black holes radiate? Do black holes radiate? (2003) arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0304042v1 [3] Prof. VA Belinski, On the existence of black hole evaporation yet again On the existence of black hole evaporation yet again (2006) arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0607137 [4] Prof. Dr. Otto Rössler, Abraham-Solution to Schwarzschild Metric Implies That CERN Miniblack Holes Pose a Planetary Risk (2008) www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/OTTOROESSLERMINIBLACKHOLE.pdf [5] M. D. Maia, E. M. Monte, On the Stability of Black Holes at the LHC (2008) arxiv.org/abs/0808.2631

That assumes that black holes radiate which is not at all certain (several papers conclude that black holes do not radiate). Have you read Dr. Hawking's prediction that black holes radiate? Not entirely convincing.[1] [1] S. W. Hawking, Particle Creation by Black Holes (12 Apr 1975), projecteuclid.org/DPubS/Repository/1.0/Disseminate?view=body&id=pdf_1&handle=euclid.cmp/1103899181

The theory is compelling. I like the line of conjecture at bigcrash.org.

You are correct, particles entering a black hole would cause growth. Common sense. 30 years ago Dr. Hawking appears to have made a mistake and for 30 years other physicists have tried to explain how his conjecture might be plausible. Conjectures that anti-matter contains negative energy (wrong) and conjecture that in order to conserve energy, energy must some how tunnel out of the black hole (again wrong). Recent speculation predicting the existence of dark energy tends to suggest that quantum effects may cause black hole growth, Reverse Hawking Radiation. Observational evidence of rapid growth for all but the most massive black holes tends to give some credibility to this conjecture.

I think that is quite a leap of faith to believe that an rare more powerful cosmic ray consisting of a single proton colliding with a relatively stationary particle on Earth would create the same results as tight groups of thousands of protons (or protons to anti-protons) colliding head-on at 99.9999991% of the speed of light at temperatures lower than space with powerful magnets designed to compress and focus the particles together as they collide head-on creating results potentially thousands of times larger than might be capable of being created by a single stray cosmic ray. I don't see the safety argument. This is not comparing apples to apples. I have heard conflicting estimates, but the math was done by Germany's Dr. Otto Rossler, father of Chaos Theory, and his calculations indicate possible accretion of the entire Earth by a single micro black hole in as little as just years or decades." wissensnavigator.com/documents/OTTOROESSLERMINIBLACKHOLE.pdf

Hello Graviphoton, I have some understanding of relativity and a year of college physics (from more than 20 years ago, I am independently studying again now...). Could you please help me answer and calculate the following? 1. If a high energy cosmic ray of 1 proton strikes 1 relatively stationary proton (equal mass) on Earth and the cosmic ray generates 10^20 eV, what percentage of the speed of light was the particle traveling? 2. If the speed of the particle was c' (99.999...?% the speed of light), then if you observer the same collision in a reference frame where the Earth and the cosmic ray are traveling at the same speed (c'/2 and -c'/2). Then what energy will each particle generate? I know that the value would be exponentially smaller, not just half, but what is this value? (This reference frame would be that of a space ship traveling a c'/2 toward Earth coming from the same direction as the cosmic ray...) Thank you, JTankers jim_tank@hotamil.com (Calculations above appear to also help graphically illustrate the preferred reference frames of special relativity... http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/PrintHT/Newton_bucket.html: Absolute space-time is a feature of special relativity which, contrary to popular belief, does not claim that everything is relative.)