<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no,location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\nThe problem with current attempts to observe cosmic-ray-created black =\nholes is that they are trying to observe Hawking radiation. If this =\ntype of black hole is dangerous, it will be because Hawking radiation =\ndoes not work. If Hawking radiation does not work, then black holes =\nwill be undetectable by this method. Current results suggest either =\nthat cosmic-ray-created black holes do not exist, or that they are =\ndangerous. Finding them via Hawking radiation more or less demonstrates =\nthat they are safe.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>The problem with current attempts to observe cosmic-ray-created black =
holes is that they are trying to observe Hawking radiation. If this =
type of black hole is dangerous, it will be because Hawking radiation =
does not work. If Hawking radiation does not work, then black holes =
will be undetectable by this method. Current results suggest either =
that cosmic-ray-created black holes do not exist, or that they are =
dangerous. Finding them via Hawking radiation more or less demonstrates =
that they are safe.
Alan
Jul15-04, 04:57 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no,location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>"James Blodgett" <bjames1@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message\nnews:001101c4692e\\$f2ec48c0\\$471dc318@nycap.rr.com...\n>\n> The problem with current attempts to observe cosmic-ray-created black =\n> holes is that they are trying to observe Hawking radiation. If this =\n> type of black hole is dangerous, it will be because Hawking radiation =\n> does not work. If Hawking radiation does not work, then black holes =\n> will be undetectable by this method. Current results suggest either =\n> that cosmic-ray-created black holes do not exist, or that they are =\n> dangerous. Finding them via Hawking radiation more or less demonstrates =\n> that they are safe.\n\nHave you done or seen a calculation that estimates how long\nbefore \'catastrophe \', once a non-radiating mini Black Hole\nis produced and begins oscillation or orbit within the Earth?\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"James Blodgett" <bjames1@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:001101c4692e$f2ec48c0$471dc318@nycap.rr.com...
>
> The problem with current attempts to observe cosmic-ray-created black =
> holes is that they are trying to observe Hawking radiation. If this =
> type of black hole is dangerous, it will be because Hawking radiation =
> does not work. If Hawking radiation does not work, then black holes =
> will be undetectable by this method. Current results suggest either =
> that cosmic-ray-created black holes do not exist, or that they are =
> dangerous. Finding them via Hawking radiation more or less demonstrates =
> that they are safe.
Have you done or seen a calculation that estimates how long
before 'catastrophe ', once a non-radiating mini Black Hole
is produced and begins oscillation or orbit within the Earth?
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
Jul20-04, 04:25 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no,location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\nAlan wrote:\n>\n> Have you done or seen a calculation that estimates how long\n> before \'catastrophe \', once a non-radiating mini Black Hole\n> is produced and begins oscillation or orbit within the Earth?\n\nNo.\nWhat is it?\n\n--\nDirk\n\nThe Consensus:-\nThe political party for the new millenium\nhttp://www.theconsensus.org\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Alan wrote:
>
> Have you done or seen a calculation that estimates how long
> before 'catastrophe ', once a non-radiating mini Black Hole
> is produced and begins oscillation or orbit within the Earth?
No.
What is it?
--
Dirk
The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org
gileadm
Aug4-04, 02:19 AM
How long would it take for a mini-black hole to eat the Earth?
This answer was copied from "Ask an astronomer" site at Cornell University":
How long would it take a primordial black hole to eat the earth if one fell to the center of it? Would it just sit there forever eating an atom at a time? (assuming event horizon the size of an atomic nucleus with 1,000,000,000 tonnes mass.)
A billion tons may seem like a lot, but it's actually miniscule compared to the mass of the Earth, which weighs about 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 tons! A black hole that weighs a billion tons would have an event horizon that's only about 10^-15 meters. So it would be so small that it would really only eat particles that happened to run into it, which wouldn't happen very often. If you were to plant it in the center of the Earth, it would just sit there forever, never consuming enough matter for anyone to notice.
If instead of setting it in the Earth's core, you were to drop it from the surface of the Earth, it would sink down through the middle, pop out the other side, and slide back and forth through the Earth for all eternity. If you assume that the black hole would only consume atoms that it happens to run into, then I calculate that it would take about 10^28 years for it to consume the entire Earth. This assumes that the black hole wouldn't lose any mass due to Hawking radiation. If you factor that in, it would probably *never* consume the whole Earth.
September 2003, Christopher Springob (more by Christopher Springob)