baragon-kun wrote:I fixed some of my terrible grammar for my questions
1.- what is supposed to be the actual energy for micro black holes in collisions according to either the standart model or GR
2.- what evidence does support this and is agaisnt the other subteories who predict the micro black holes atlower energies
Lower energy black holes coming into existence seem to be consistent with observations. What isn't consistent, no matter how people twist things, is a low energy black hole that doesn't evaporate and/or otherwise fail to gather mass at a reasonable rate.
There is even a model (cannot remember if it was disproved) that uses a rapidly rotating micro black hole with a charge as being ... an electron. (The speed of rotation causes the singularity to pass the event horizon, and it forms a naked ring...)
3.- Is True that All theories are predicted as true, and did Eisntein predicted micro black holes.
This is not a question, and it is nonsense.
4.- How is possible that all of Eisntein predictions came right, and did he predicted the impossibility of micro black holes at LHC
No, not all of Einstein's predictions came true? He was wrong about a bunch of quantum mechanics problems, and spent decades trying to solve problems he failed at.
5.- And how is know that the model of accrettion are logical (the ones who said that theres no danger until a long time)
Because the universe is engaging in a version of the experiment we are doing very often. We have detected higher energy collisions than we are going to do in the LHC, we just haven't been sitting right next to them with huge sensory apparatuses to look at them. From knowing roughly how often they happen, something like "strangelets" or "micro black holes that eat the earth" isn't something that could happen from them, because if that was a result of the experiment, it would have happened already.
Between neutron stars and the known planets, we have a range of densities and a huge duration of experiment (billions of years), and it gives us lots of data about the macroscopic results of something like the LHC collision.
i admit that i have some slighty paranoia, but i dont try and even intent to be like some people like (You may know who), but i still waiting a answer for this questions if you dont mind.
It might be because you aren't expressing what you want to express due to your lack of ability to express yourself in English, but... that sentence sounds like a crazy person.