3 ms·

This is yet another item on the cosmic formation hypothesis conveyor belt. These types of hypotheses have been coming and will continue to come forever. They ar

This is yet another item on the cosmic formation hypothesis conveyor belt. These types of hypotheses have been coming and will continue to come forever. They are non-falsifiable and are just stories. They will only ever be hypotheses. We cannot visit the past to see what exactly happened and test them to consider them theories. Being a strong skeptic means understanding that a hypothesis does not represent deep truths of the universe and should not be used to inform any decision. It's in human nature to need origin stories. Science's current one is the Big Bang. It is only a hypothesis and will never get to the next level of scientific rigor because it's impossible to test. I only believe in falsifiable theories. A good skeptic should realize the differences in scientific rigor and know that this is just a story with no truth behind it.

JulianGough123 1y ago
If it will help, you can check out the predictions this approach was able to make before the James Web space telescope sent back any data. https://theeggandtherock.substack.com/p/predictions-what-the-james-webb-space https://theeggandtherock.substack.com/p/predictions-what-the... And how they were validated later by the James Webb. https://theeggandtherock.com/p/killer-new-evidence-that-supermassive https://theeggandtherock.com/p/killer-new-evidence-that-supe...
- exe34 1y ago
  Do you have a link to the journal article?
MadcapJake 1y ago
Cosmology, like many sciences, is about learning the scientific truth through the remnants left behind. Just like we can see an early earth by digging, we can see an early universe by zooming. A well reasoned theory in any science should include and test for implications in the past and present. We can't just ignore time if we want a proper understanding of the universe.
pantalaimon 1y ago
> They are non-falsifiable and are just stories. It makes a falsifiable prediction: > What’s novel in my theory is the idea that all the supermassive black holes must form first, by direct collapse – before galaxies form, and indeed before there’s any significant number of stars, or (probably) any stars at all. This emerges directly from the application of Darwinian evolutionary logic to universes. It’s not predicted by any other theory, and if I’m wrong, my theory wobbles badly and a wheel falls off. So the theory is falsifiable. And in the other post > Most of the first generation of stars will, if I am right, contain traces of carbon at formation, because early quasars make it by fusion and distribute it into the clouds to seed star formation. And such stars will therefore be relatively efficient at fusion, element formation, etc. (They will still be very low in carbon, and other elements such as oxygen, relative to later stars; but not completely lacking, as Population III stars are theorised to be.) with more predictions: https://theeggandtherock.com/p/predictions-what-the-james-webb-space https://theeggandtherock.com/p/predictions-what-the-james-we...
- sesm 1y ago
  > What’s novel in my theory is the idea that all the supermassive black holes must form first, by direct collapse – before galaxies That's not novel. In quantum cosmology there are theories where primordial black holes appeared as fluctuations of some quantum field. In cyclical universe models primordial black holes are leftovers from previous cycle.
  - minitoar 1y ago
    Are primordial black holes supermassive?
    - Kbelicius 1y ago
      Don't know anything about the topic but saw you downvoted for asking a question so went down the rabbit hole. Turns out that no, primordial black holes aren't supermassive. In fact one could call them superlight since they could be the size of an atom.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
cozyman 1y ago
You're smart to be skeptical, read Thomas Aquinas he gives real proofs for his beliefs and demonstrated that there has to be a Prime Mover. God bless you.
AStonesThrow 1y ago
Currently the most enduring theory of galactic formation is how some kids showed up on Charn and rang a bell, awakening the White Witch; then they all witness a lion singing in the dark until it’s not so dark anymore. This theory has been widely accepted in the English speaking world for 70 years, and provided a model for expanding the theory sixfold. However a competing theory was introduced there at Oxford, which was more complex and had something to do with Illuvitar. Novelty and Theory are mutually exclusive to scientists. Likewise with Obscurity. Now a lack of empiricism and even less falsifiablilty has never stopped them. Paleontologists love to play Mad Libs with sedimentary layers and connect the dots with mythical lost worlds. If scientists want to weave myths to share with one another and entertain 8-year-old STEM aspirants, that’s fine, but we’ve boldly gone where Theories and Scientific Facts fear to tread.
scotty79 1y ago
> It's in human nature to need origin stories. Science's current one is the Big Bang. Isn't it funny how we always make the "true source of creation" just nearly outside of our observational capabilities? The God was just on top of the mountain, just behind the ocean, just behind clouds ... and now the creation was right before 13bln years ago, because that's how far we can look.
- layer8 1y ago
  That isn't quite right. The Big Bang is farther than we can look. We can only look as far as the CMB, some 380.000 years after the Big Bang. The timing of the Big Bang instead comes from calculating the density evolution of the universe backwards. Unless you define "look" as "calculate".
  - scotty79 1y ago
    I think 380000 when compared to 13000000000 counts as "nearly outside". Also math is definitely a way of looking even if it can lead you astray when you extrapolate your mathematical model beyond its range of applicability.

JulianGough123 1y ago

If it will help, you can check out the predictions this approach was able to make before the James Web space telescope sent back any data. https://theeggandtherock.substack.com/p/predictions-what-the-james-webb-space https://theeggandtherock.substack.com/p/predictions-what-the... And how they were validated later by the James Webb. https://theeggandtherock.com/p/killer-new-evidence-that-supermassive https://theeggandtherock.com/p/killer-new-evidence-that-supe...

exe34 1y ago
Do you have a link to the journal article?

MadcapJake 1y ago

Cosmology, like many sciences, is about learning the scientific truth through the remnants left behind. Just like we can see an early earth by digging, we can see an early universe by zooming. A well reasoned theory in any science should include and test for implications in the past and present. We can't just ignore time if we want a proper understanding of the universe.

pantalaimon 1y ago

> They are non-falsifiable and are just stories. It makes a falsifiable prediction: > What’s novel in my theory is the idea that all the supermassive black holes must form first, by direct collapse – before galaxies form, and indeed before there’s any significant number of stars, or (probably) any stars at all. This emerges directly from the application of Darwinian evolutionary logic to universes. It’s not predicted by any other theory, and if I’m wrong, my theory wobbles badly and a wheel falls off. So the theory is falsifiable. And in the other post > Most of the first generation of stars will, if I am right, contain traces of carbon at formation, because early quasars make it by fusion and distribute it into the clouds to seed star formation. And such stars will therefore be relatively efficient at fusion, element formation, etc. (They will still be very low in carbon, and other elements such as oxygen, relative to later stars; but not completely lacking, as Population III stars are theorised to be.) with more predictions: https://theeggandtherock.com/p/predictions-what-the-james-webb-space https://theeggandtherock.com/p/predictions-what-the-james-we...

sesm 1y ago
> What’s novel in my theory is the idea that all the supermassive black holes must form first, by direct collapse – before galaxies That's not novel. In quantum cosmology there are theories where primordial black holes appeared as fluctuations of some quantum field. In cyclical universe models primordial black holes are leftovers from previous cycle.
- minitoar 1y ago
  Are primordial black holes supermassive?
  - Kbelicius 1y ago
    Don't know anything about the topic but saw you downvoted for asking a question so went down the rabbit hole. Turns out that no, primordial black holes aren't supermassive. In fact one could call them superlight since they could be the size of an atom.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

cozyman 1y ago

You're smart to be skeptical, read Thomas Aquinas he gives real proofs for his beliefs and demonstrated that there has to be a Prime Mover. God bless you.

AStonesThrow 1y ago

Currently the most enduring theory of galactic formation is how some kids showed up on Charn and rang a bell, awakening the White Witch; then they all witness a lion singing in the dark until it’s not so dark anymore. This theory has been widely accepted in the English speaking world for 70 years, and provided a model for expanding the theory sixfold. However a competing theory was introduced there at Oxford, which was more complex and had something to do with Illuvitar. Novelty and Theory are mutually exclusive to scientists. Likewise with Obscurity. Now a lack of empiricism and even less falsifiablilty has never stopped them. Paleontologists love to play Mad Libs with sedimentary layers and connect the dots with mythical lost worlds. If scientists want to weave myths to share with one another and entertain 8-year-old STEM aspirants, that’s fine, but we’ve boldly gone where Theories and Scientific Facts fear to tread.

scotty79 1y ago

> It's in human nature to need origin stories. Science's current one is the Big Bang. Isn't it funny how we always make the "true source of creation" just nearly outside of our observational capabilities? The God was just on top of the mountain, just behind the ocean, just behind clouds ... and now the creation was right before 13bln years ago, because that's how far we can look.

layer8 1y ago
That isn't quite right. The Big Bang is farther than we can look. We can only look as far as the CMB, some 380.000 years after the Big Bang. The timing of the Big Bang instead comes from calculating the density evolution of the universe backwards. Unless you define "look" as "calculate".
- scotty79 1y ago
  I think 380000 when compared to 13000000000 counts as "nearly outside". Also math is definitely a way of looking even if it can lead you astray when you extrapolate your mathematical model beyond its range of applicability.