[fasteddie31003]

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]

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...

And how they were validated later by the James Webb.

https://theeggandtherock.com/p/killer-new-evidence-that-supe...

[exe34]

Do you have a link to the journal article?

[pantalaimon]

> 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-we...

[thicktarget]

Your suggestion about carbon is not falsifiable observationally. With real data you can only place an observational upper limit, you cannot measure the abundance is exactly zero. Without a quantitative calculated prediction of the carbon abundance it cannot be falsified. Similarly you can only test direct collapse black holes if you have some way of finding them, their observational properties depend on the formation scenario. You also need the expected number density and redshifts of such objects to reject anything.

[justlikereddit]

Dark matter is also not falsible observationally, every time a supposed DM effect fails to be observed it's just assumed it's darker than expected.

One could re-postulate the theory as the innumerable tiny hands of god pushing on mass in the divinely chosen direction and nothing really changes but the name it theory.

The hands are there, they're just smaller than the resolving power.

At some point it's time to admit fault, but so far that's not happening despite the ever accumulating pile of evidence against DM. For a supposedly mature main stream theory the proponents are surprisingly fragile.

[sesm]

> 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]

Are primordial black holes supermassive?

[Kbelicius]

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.

[minitoar]

Yeah I think I was downvoted because that’s fairly well known in cosmology and is a refutation of the parent comment.

[MadcapJake]

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.

[scotty79]

> 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]

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]

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.

[AStonesThrow]

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.

[cozyman]

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.