Scientists Say Mini-Black Holes Easier to Make

There are a lot of areas 'we' should be investing our resources.

But that kind of money doesn't buy you much these days.
One Olympic Summer Games, or two international Airports (or half of one if you're Saudi Arabia), or a handful of B-2s. Tops.

The US's contribution, like that of most countries, was in value anyway, not cash.
I.E. stuff developed and build in the U.S.



I'm saying you committed a logical fallacy know as argument from incredulity.

Not very scientific.
And since physicists have no problem with the concept of microscopic black holes there's obviously something you have missed.

Something like… how about we use all our talent to ensure that all people have food and water and time to consider true progress working together… The wealthy could give up the resources required to do so… they would still be rich… but we would not see children's faces covered with flies... and be able to perhaps solve the more complex problems... was kind of more of what I had in mind...

I'm pretty sure that even the US government donates many times what they donated to this project to fight poverty.
It's not either/or.
America is fucking rich, you can do both.

If you want rich people to contribute more to public expenses than stop voting for their stooges.

And just image what you can contribute, a buck a day will feed several kids in the world's poorest countries.

Unlike buying yet more military hardware (which is one of the main reasons the US can't balance its books, not publicly funded scientific research) this particulate expenditure actually enriches mankind as a whole.
Arguing we shouldn't do anything worthwhile until one particular problem is solved would stop the human race dead in its tracks.
Nothing would be accomplished any more.

So, you have averted my direct question. Is the speed of light subject to the laws of relativity, or is the speed of light constant? From your explination, it seems you think the speed of light is relative. This is logically flawed considering the existing laws of physics. Explain.

I didn't bring up the speed of light, you did.

You said: "I doubt any object defined as "mini" generates enough gravity to capture light." and immediately jumped to a conclusion: "There is no such thing as a mini black hole."

I just found it amusing that someone trying to pontificate so authoritatively on a scientific subject would use such excruciatingly bad logic.
And that's not even mentioning your ignorance of the physics involved.
You are today's poster boy for the Dunning-Kruger effect.

You still have not answered my question. Is the speed of light relative or constant? I did not bring up the subject of the speed of light, rather, it was an implied factor in a discussion about black holes. I love how you move right past the question and continue directly to the personal insults. I am guessing that you cannot answer my question.

It is a good question. It would seem that in order for a mini-black-hole to exist, the speed of light would have to be relative to scale of size. It makes sense.

Mr. 35798449 is right. There is no danger here.

At least not from so-called "black holes". But there are other possibilities some scientists worry about, like the idea that "strange matter" (composed entirely of s-quarks) could be created, and that this matter would then catalytically convert regular matter to more strange matter until the entire Earth is a big lump of s-quarks.

The idea reminds me of the scenario in Kurt Vonnegut's "Cat's Cradle", where scientists create a new water variety called Ice-9. This has the interesting quality of having lower inherent energy than liquid water, which means if a small crystal of Ice-9 were to be dropped outside the lab, all water would quickly freeze in Ice-9 form, killing all life on Earth.

I'll leave some suspense by not telling you how the story ends...

Might I suggest that you start by reading this: [link to en.wikipedia.org]

Black hole physics rolls out of the Theory of General Relativity.
No TGR, no black holes.
In a classical Newtonian universe, if such a thing can exist, you could only have black stars.

The speed of light is constant, the shape of time and space is not.


Pointing out your demonstrated flawed logic, your ignorance of the subject matter, and your ignorance of that ignorance, is not an insult.
Calling you dumb and arrogant would be.


Some things can only be dumbed down so far.
If I had said that a black hole is an area where space is so warped that every possible path a photon can take bend toward the centre would that have even made sense to you.

Worry about harmonics. Space time fabric control is dangerous business. Let us not forget strangelets.

You bring up an interesting point but remember, general relativity and quantum mechanics at this point in our understanding don't jive. That's the whole point of the LHC. Scientists around the world are trying to come up with a UNIFYING theory. String theory is just one of those areas of research. Just because the two theories don't fit together right now doesn't mean they won't in the future. In quantum mechanics, there is strong evidence that the behavior of certain particles changes as the scale gets smaller, thus violating the laws of general relativity. Your argument is defeated because you don't accept quantum mechanics.

Bumping this thread like it ain't no thang!