First of all, this comes from someone that argued a black hole as massive as a mountain is safe, without realizing the gravity of the situation (literally).
Secondly, I'm not the only one that disagrees with these absorption calculations. They're deliberately slanted toward the results they want.
Third, it is a reason to suspect it's unsafe. If the LHC can produce micro black holes, then micro black holes must occur in nature. They'd have to take the form (at least in part) of the mysterious dark matter and dark energy. Dark matter apparently doesn't support normal matter under certain, observable conditions. Therefore, the danger is apparent.
Fourth, just how much mass (supposing they produce black holes) do you suppose might be represented by the cosmic ray collision figures, they calculated as having occurred naturally? Is it a lot?
Their ability to "eat" at all would be dependent on their relative velocity with the mass in question. Naturally occurring ones must have very high relative velocities with the mass it's formed in. The CERN ones would not have this prohibition.
Purposefully misleading. All you're saying is if they form, they would be captured, but if they don't form, they would not be captured. I obviously wouldn't argue that.
That's an arbitrary presumption.
However, there's already observed evidence that formation is likely (the RHIC fireball).
Oops. Please forgive the typo. I'll try to correct it in the future.
Haven't I been right so far? How much more must I endure to definitively prove they don't know what they're talking about? Their results are clearly slanted.
Give me a break. There's plenty of available research that suggests and anticipates black hole production. The CERN website itself called it a "black hole factory."
All you're saying is they're now backpedaling furiously to protect their precious experiment, at any cost!
Whiny baby crap. For two years I've been right, and you can no longer reasonably refute it.
I've clearly outlined the physical laws that might shorten the habitable lifetime of Earth, should this experiment proceed.
The dark matter concept you apply here is pretty interesting.
If the galaxy were dominated by unbelievable amounts of singularities ranging from masses of that equal to a quark, golfballs, cars, mountains, planets, and of course the multiple solar mass ones we've been able to find. A question of common sense comes up, I dont know so I'm just going to assume that astrophysicists have already measured these things.
The ratio of dark matter/age of galaxy should be pretty comparable for all like galaxy types. So however many years it took the milky way to accrue its current ratio of dark/visible matter should be comparable to more distant spiral galaxies, there should be a noticeably larger amount of dark matter in older galaxies. Which may also give insight to the nature of a quasar accretion disk as it must have a extremely high ratio of black holes to visible matter.
In any case, the evidence should be there, and if it were I cant imagine it hasn't been noticed yet.
That doesn't really contest any of your LHC concerns, just poking at the idea of dark matter being black holes.