I saw a 2012 post by Clara arguing that "everything you think you know about black holes is wrong." I thought, "At last! Someone will agree with me that black holes can't finish coming into existence relative to us!," which means that for our purposes there is no such thing as a black hole. But I was wrong. She wrote what she wrote for other reasons. Clara blurbs up above that the Milky Way's black hole "is a messy eater." No it isn't. It doesn't exist, relative to us. The logic is simple: Relative to distant observers -- us -- all collapsars never stop being collapsars. As the collapsing material approaches its own event-horizon-in-formation, relative to us, it approaches the event-horizon-in-formation asymptotically -- slower and slooooooooower and sloooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooower, relative to us. That is why we call it an "event horizon," is it not? So, every single one of these things which astronomers call "black holes" aren't "black holes." They are collapsars with accretion disks -- without exception. For these things to be black holes, relative to us, we have to be non-distant observers. When we are non-distant observers, the perfect paradox of relativity is experienced -- what doesn't exist relative to distant observers "suddenly" "begins" to "exist" relative to us for the same object. It was this logic which made me think that those who expressed a fear that what they referred to as "mini black holes" might be created by the Collider might be correct. In fact, the objects would be permanently-extant-and-perpetually-destructive "mini collapsars," just as dangerous as the imagined black holes, carving their way through Earth with ever-growing super-hot accretion disks and jets!