[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.