sci.physics.electromag

On Apr 8, 7:12=A0am, dlzc wrote:
> Dear Autymn D. C.:
>
> On Apr 8, 1:14=A0am, "Autymn D. C." wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 6, 9:48=A0am, "N:dlzcD:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
> > wrote:
> > > "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?
>
> Colliding very energetic nucleii. =A0Already been done at lower energy
> levels, and Hawking radiation resulted. =A0Search on "dual to black
> hole".

nuclei, retard
And you said this wasn't a classic black hole--of course it's neither,
and not even. As I said, it's a dark star of a (not the) limitant
pionic [collapsar] nucleus. You wouldn't call a quark star a black
hole. Hm, as it's a pionic soliton, I wonder if my
http://google.com/groups?q=3DPlanck-charge is a el=E8ctronic soliton.

-Aut