sci.physics.electromag

On Apr 6, 9:48=A0am, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
wrote:
> Dear Benj:
>
> "Benj" wrote in message
>
> news:483e7416-c055-4346-94b2-b471c11f7dab@a22g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Apr 6, 1:44 am, "FrediFizzx" wrote:
> ...
> >> Most likely we just don't know what all the
> >> quantum objects are yet. =A0Or their possible
> >> interactional configurations. =A0Hopefully we
> >> will get some more clues after the LHC
> >> has been running for awhile.
>
> > Well, provided it doesn't open a black hole
> > and the earth gets sucked into it...
>
> Let us hope Hawking was right, then. =A0That way, if we do manage
> to make a classical black hole out of a few nucleii, it will
> entirely evaporate in a tiny super hot fireball in fractions of a
> second.

nuclei
Well, how do they make a classic black hole if black holes are
relativistic? They don't. Classic dark stars cannot make any dumb
event horizon as their mass is finite. We are safe if Hawking is
wrong--and he was for the destruction of information.

For further talks about "black hole", substitut "unicorn".

-Aut