Well... This is bad...? >http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_w

>>8450750
OMG WORLD IS ENDING!
Same old thing every month.
At least they aren't protesting to destroy the LHC now, though.

>>8450757
Nothing to do with what I'm trying to say.

Rather: Does this mean that we fuck us at any time?

>>8450761
Is that new to you? Look at the amount of material in the universe. Be happy that you can life for atleast 100 years without being hit or eaten by a blackhole.

>>8450800
Is there any chance that one hits us during the next 10,000 or 100,000 years?

>>8450750
>>8450813

Try actually reading the article

Even if one passed through the earth it would be almost undetectable

File: 1473433988211.png (143KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 1920x1080px

>>8450750
>>8450757

>>8450816
These small black holes have the mass of a moon at a minimum, this is not bad? I say, the gravitational influence is "big" a comparison of an asteroid, it would affect us something? And if a black hole with the mass of the moon (which is just the thickness of a hair) passes through Earth what would happen?

File: 56017230.jpg (67KB, 400x294px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 400x294px

>>8450750

>>8450826
Black holes of that dimension don't really last long. However, I do think smaller ones are much more unpredictable and can fuck you up more than super massive ones. Spaghettification is an example: you body moves at two very different speeds and it doesn't turn out very well.

Still, the risk is like below zero. We're more likely to be quickscoped by a GRB without realizing it.

>>8450826
>what would happen?
Ever heard of the expression "missing person"?

Or, "the Bermuda triangle".

bump

Any response to this? >>8450826

>>8450750
>crackpot theory with no observational evidence
no

>>8450826

>what would happen

Same with any impact on that scale

Mass of moon + impact velocity + Earth = whatever amount of energy is released

>>8451588
Fuck... this is bad...

>>8450750
>dailygalaxy
successor of dailymail ? Seems they're conveying the same level of nutjob shit

File: AAAAAAAAAAA.gif (87KB, 192x197px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 192x197px

>>8450750
>Well... This is bad
Yeah

>Will happen?
Yeah, with the probability of 0,00001% and even more low.

This is bad? We should we worry about this?
microscopic black holes (the thickness of one hair with the mass of the moon)

Wouldn't a microscopic black hole disintegrate nearly instantly due to Hawking radiation ?

Are we should we worry about these microscopic black holes?

>>8452181
Bumping for last time...

>>8452181
We won't be able to do anything about it anyway so no we shouldn't worry.

>>8450750
Did you know that earth is also vulnerable to large rocks? There are billions of times more large rocks than microscopic black holes

is this some guy forcing his new epic meme

he's been reposting his "black whole phobia" in shitty mexican English every day

>>8451588
Nah, an object that dense would transfer only a minute fraction of its energy to Earth. It would be like a bullet moving through a vacuum. We're gonna be fine, senpai.

You're still gonna die of heart disease or cancer, tho.

>>8452129
dis

>>8452641
>Luckily, this will probably never happen. These black holes would only pass between the Earth and Sun every 100 million years or so, and would statistically take longer than the age of the Universe to pass through Earth. "Though such an event is absurdly unlikely ... It would cause some havoc," Brandt said.

>"Though such an event is absurdly unlikely ... It would cause some havoc," Brandt said.

What do Brandt mean by this?

I thought microscopic black holes are unstable and pop out of existence in seconds or something.

I just had a question about black holes

So they decay because virtual particle-antiparticles pairs can spawn at the event horizon and an antiparticle could get absorbed into the black hole while the other particles gets off, right? But isn't there an exact chance of the opposite happening? Why can't the particle spawn within the event horizon, feeding the black hole with mass, while the antiparticles gets off and destroys an equivalent amount of mass somewhere else? Because if that happens, that means black holes don't really decay, do they?