Rare black hole 1 billion times the mass of the sun could upend our understanding of galaxy formation

Feb 25, 2023
24
0
30
There's actually a very simple explanation as to why there are more, and larger, black holes than scientists thought there should be, or would be, or could be. As pointed out in the article, the observations of the leading scientists of the day, who have access to the most powerful modern equipment, present significant contradictions to their own theories.
Consider this train of thought.
If we say that the cosmos has always been constant, we have this problem. WHERE DID THE FIRST STAR COME FROM? We keep going back to infinity past, and we can never find a beginning. A common explanation is the 'Big Bang'. According to this, there was an explosion of NOTHING (or an infinite point that contained all matter), which randomly turned into EVERYTHING. This raises several questions.
1. Where did the thing that exploded come from?
2. What caused it to go BANG?
3. How did the bang form orderly things? Never, in all of human observation, has an explosion produced order out of randomness.
Each of these questions conflict dramatically with the theory that the cosmos has always been constant from the time it was nothing.
If we say the cosmos is not constant, we have several other problems.
1. How do all the constant things remain constant? Orbits, gravity, stars reacting in a controlled manner, etc.
2. If the universe is not constant, ALL of evolution, and every evolutionary concept is utterly void. The observations of the last 100 years, (even if we generously say the last 1,000) is just a speck on the billions of years idea. To put this in perspective, 1,000 years of observation out of 10 billion years, is the equivalent of 19.03 seconds out of one year. Could we take a 19 second weather sample at a certain city and then declare the weather from the previous year? Obviously, no. The sample data is simply not comprehensive enough, and there are too many variables. If the universe is not constant, it is just as enormously ridiculous to theorize about the last 10 billion years.
There is a solution that answers every one of these questions.
Genesis 1. If we believe that an all-powerful, eternal Being created the universe, that answers all the questions! It tells us where matter came from, it tells us what happened to form the bodies in the universe, and it tells us how the universe became orderly, functional, and beautiful, and how they maintain that order. Now if God can create such a vast universe out of nothing, wouldn't it have been a little thing for Him to create black holes too? He could have made as many as He wanted, and made them as big as He wanted. No need to sweat over millions of years and how fast black holes grow. It's not that complicated!
 
Last edited:
Feb 25, 2023
2
0
10
In so many ways the big bang is much more impossible than a creator idea. Personally all religions in my mind are made up. This leads people to a creation without a higher power to validate themselves. There has to be a greater power than we can imagine for all of this to be possible. Religion has the right idea but as something made up by man it will always be tainted in our imperfections. Honestly none of what these scientists do is worth anything in our lives. It's interesting for sure but there is always an agenda to disprove God using money better spent elsewhere.
 
Feb 25, 2023
2
0
10
Bad reporting by Genesis writer by the way. All he got was God saying let there be light. How about a couple follow up questions on what happened prior to that and his background.
 
Feb 25, 2023
24
0
30
In so many ways the big bang is much more impossible than a creator idea. Personally all religions in my mind are made up. This leads people to a creation without a higher power to validate themselves. There has to be a greater power than we can imagine for all of this to be possible. Religion has the right idea but as something made up by man it will always be tainted in our imperfections. Honestly none of what these scientists do is worth anything in our lives. It's interesting for sure but there is always an agenda to disprove God using money better spent elsewhere.
I find this an interesting perspective. But if you believe that a 'higher power' exists, why would you not seek to discover it? Did it never occur to you, that if a 'higher power' created everything, including humans, and that includes YOU, then you are rightfully the property of said 'higher power'.
 
Feb 26, 2023
1
0
10
There's nothing wrong with wanting to understand how something works. If we did not have people who wanted to figure things out, we wouldn't have basic things we use today..
 
Feb 25, 2023
24
0
30
There's nothing wrong with wanting to understand how something works. If we did not have people who wanted to figure things out, we wouldn't have basic things we use today..
This is true, but I think you miss my point.
My point is that 'scientists' have been making theories about the origin of the universe, and specifically about black holes. That's ok.
But as technology improves, scientists' theories are often proved wrong. The article specifically mentioned that these new discoveries made big problems to his basic understanding of black holes. So these 'millions of years' philosophers get there underwear all bunched up trying to formulate a new theory every time improved technology proves their theory wrong.
The Bible has never been proven wrong, and it explains many of the things that confuse scientists. Yet these 'scientists' continue to wallow in their evolutionary concepts and are proven wrong time after time.
 
Feb 26, 2023
3
0
10
Here's my 3 cents worth (3 not 2, inflation you know...)
I do think that there was some sort of a big bang all those years ago. Maby because there is a maximum size a black hole can have beyond which it goes BANG. However I'm also convinced that the universe was already full of stuff scattered all over the place. Things such as black holes and galaxies were already floating around. In other words the big bang was not the beginning, it was more like a messy rebirth or recycling event. Also, trying to explain any of this with religion will only lead to mas hysteria and human sacrifices 😬😁.
I have to run, there are people outside with pitchforks....
 
Feb 25, 2023
24
0
30
Here's my 3 cents worth (3 not 2, inflation you know...)
I do think that there was some sort of a big bang all those years ago. Maby because there is a maximum size a black hole can have beyond which it goes BANG. However I'm also convinced that the universe was already full of stuff scattered all over the place. Things such as black holes and galaxies were already floating around. In other words the big bang was not the beginning, it was more like a messy rebirth or recycling event. Also, trying to explain any of this with religion will only lead to mas hysteria and human sacrifices 😬😁.
I have to run, there are people outside with pitchforks....

Where did all the stuff that was floating around at the time of the big bang come from?
 
Feb 13, 2023
38
4
55
This is true, but I think you miss my point.
My point is that 'scientists' have been making theories about the origin of the universe, and specifically about black holes. That's ok.
But as technology improves, scientists' theories are often proved wrong. The article specifically mentioned that these new discoveries made big problems to his basic understanding of black holes. So these 'millions of years' philosophers get there underwear all bunched up trying to formulate a new theory every time improved technology proves their theory wrong.
The Bible has never been proven wrong, and it explains many of the things that confuse scientists. Yet these 'scientists' continue to wallow in their evolutionary concepts and are proven wrong time after time.
The bible is wrong about plenty of things. The various gospels contradict each other on many details, so they can't all be right. Your Jesus wasn't born in Bethelehem. That was made up to fulfill a prophesy. There is no evidence for the exodus.

The fact that theories are proven wrong demonstrates the strength of the scientific method. It is a process that is constantly modified and does not claim an absolute truth, as you theist nutters do.

You are violating the forum rules by proselytizing. Go take your sky daddy preaching elsewhere. This is Live Science.
 
Feb 13, 2023
38
4
55
This is true, but I think you miss my point.
My point is that 'scientists' have been making theories about the origin of the universe, and specifically about black holes. That's ok.
But as technology improves, scientists' theories are often proved wrong. The article specifically mentioned that these new discoveries made big problems to his basic understanding of black holes. So these 'millions of years' philosophers get there underwear all bunched up trying to formulate a new theory every time improved technology proves their theory wrong.
The Bible has never been proven wrong, and it explains many of the things that confuse scientists. Yet these 'scientists' continue to wallow in their evolutionary concepts and are proven wrong time after time.
The bible is written mostly by pseudonymous authors. The canon was selected by a counsel of men. There are many other gospels, not in the bible, that contradict it with vastly different events and meanings. Early Christianity didn't even have heaven, hell or souls. That was added later because Jesus didn't return. There are so many inconsistencies and errors that it's laughable. The fact that you think an iron age book full of magic better explains the universe is simply insane.
 
Feb 25, 2023
24
0
30
The bible is wrong about plenty of things. The various gospels contradict each other on many details, so they can't all be right. Your Jesus wasn't born in Bethelehem. That was made up to fulfill a prophesy. There is no evidence for the exodus.

The fact that theories are proven wrong demonstrates the strength of the scientific method. It is a process that is constantly modified and does not claim an absolute truth, as you theist nutters do.

You are violating the forum rules by proselytizing. Go take your sky daddy preaching elsewhere. This is Live Science.

I am sorry for any 'proselytizing' I may have said or implied that is in violation of forum rules.
I would like to point out that I was NOT the one who brought up Jesus, the gospels, or the exodous, or early Christianity. Even though I fully believe in these things, and would be happy to discuss them, we will let those subjects rest for the sake of the forum.
 
Feb 25, 2023
24
0
30
Now, lets get a few things straight, and then I'll continue to discuss.
1. Every definition of 'sience' in my dictionary, contains the word 'knowledge'. Science is knowledge relating to the natural universe. Therefore, 'knowledge' relating to the natural universe is Science, and is therefore valid on this forum.
2. 'Knowledge' is "acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition:"
3. It is within the rules of this forum to share knowledge gained from other people. (If not, we could not state the speed of light, the diameter of the earth, our distance from the sun, etc, since the person to identify this knowledge is probably not on this forum)
4. It is possible for knowledge, or at least perceptions perceived as knowledge, to be in error.

If any of these points are wrong, feel welcome to correct me.

Combining these points, my knowledge of the origin of the universe began with Genesis 1. As an avid outdoorsman, everything I have observed in nature has strengthened my belief that the universe was designed and created by God. I have never observed anything that contradicted my belief, and so I believe it to be true.
@Stephan Gunther, The only purpose I can perceive in your posts is to try to prove my belief wrong. This is certainly no less "proselytizing" than for me to state my "knowledge of science". In your defense, you are just as entitled to your opinion (which I perceive to wrong) as I am to mine (which you apparently perceive to be wrong).
 
Feb 25, 2023
24
0
30
Back to the topic of this thread, I already shared an explanation as to why the newly discovered black holes make perfect sense to me. I'm still waiting for one of you bangers to explain how the recently learned knowledge of black holes fit into YOUR theory. Until you explain THAT, I will consider myself to be at +1 point.
The black holes do not conflict with my theory in the slightest, but according to the article, this discovery DOES indicate that at least some part of the bang theory is wrong.
 
Feb 13, 2023
38
4
55
Now, lets get a few things straight, and then I'll continue to discuss.
1. Every definition of 'sience' in my dictionary, contains the word 'knowledge'. Science is knowledge relating to the natural universe. Therefore, 'knowledge' relating to the natural universe is Science, and is therefore valid on this forum.
2. 'Knowledge' is "acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition:"
3. It is within the rules of this forum to share knowledge gained from other people. (If not, we could not state the speed of light, the diameter of the earth, our distance from the sun, etc, since the person to identify this knowledge is probably not on this forum)
4. It is possible for knowledge, or at least perceptions perceived as knowledge, to be in error.

If any of these points are wrong, feel welcome to correct me.

Combining these points, my knowledge of the origin of the universe began with Genesis 1. As an avid outdoorsman, everything I have observed in nature has strengthened my belief that the universe was designed and created by God. I have never observed anything that contradicted my belief, and so I believe it to be true.
@Stephan Gunther, The only purpose I can perceive in your posts is to try to prove my belief wrong. This is certainly no less "proselytizing" than for me to state my "knowledge of science". In your defense, you are just as entitled to your opinion (which I perceive to wrong) as I am to mine (which you apparently perceive to be wrong).
My point is that you are preaching in a science forum. I don't need to prove a negative. You have the burden of proof in you claims that the bible explains the origin of life, Earth and the cosmos, but this isn't the place to do that.
 
Feb 13, 2023
38
4
55
Back to the topic of this thread, I already shared an explanation as to why the newly discovered black holes make perfect sense to me. I'm still waiting for one of you bangers to explain how the recently learned knowledge of black holes fit into YOUR theory. Until you explain THAT, I will consider myself to be at +1 point.
The black holes do not conflict with my theory in the slightest, but according to the article, this discovery DOES indicate that at least some part of the bang theory is wrong.
Except the bible makes no mention of black holes. Relativity predicted them and observation confirmed it. You have earned no points except in the fantasy of your own mind.
 
Feb 13, 2023
38
4
55
This is true, but I think you miss my point.
My point is that 'scientists' have been making theories about the origin of the universe, and specifically about black holes. That's ok.
But as technology improves, scientists' theories are often proved wrong. The article specifically mentioned that these new discoveries made big problems to his basic understanding of black holes. So these 'millions of years' philosophers get there underwear all bunched up trying to formulate a new theory every time improved technology proves their theory wrong.
The Bible has never been proven wrong, and it explains many of the things that confuse scientists. Yet these 'scientists' continue to wallow in their evolutionary concepts and are proven wrong time after time.
I know of some YT call in shows. You can call in and present your evidence that your god is real and responsible for the diversity of life rather than evolution.
 
Feb 25, 2023
24
0
30
@Stephan Gunther thank you for your input. You've contributed more posts to this thread than anyone else. Every post is ad hominem, (except #18, which simply is entirely irrelevant), and that's ok with me personally. But that kind of interaction might be marginal in regards to "forum rules", so I would encourage you to try discussing something slightly more relevant to science.

You may post more ad hominem posts if that's all you can manage to type, but first, I want to hear you answer two questions.
1. What have I posted that is "preaching", specifically since post #11 when you brought "proselytizing" to my attention?
2. As far as I know, all of my posts have been "scientific" according to the 4 points I listed in post #14. But you seem to disagree. Which of the 4 points that I listed in post #14 is incorrect?
 
Last edited:
Feb 25, 2023
24
0
30
Ok, lets get back to science. Let my try to make it very clear.
The reason I started into this conversation (post #2) was because I read the article by Ben Turner, discussing the black hole recently discovered by ALMA. The article quoted Ryan Endsley saying that its existence was a "big challenge" to explain. The article also mentioned that data from JWST was analyzed and astronomers discovered 6 galaxies "that were in tension with 99% of cosmological models."
I presented my viewpoint as a solution to this "big challenge", because from my viewpoint, the black hole at the center of COS-87259 is quite easy to explain.
Additionally, apparently my personal mental "cosmological model" is in the 1%, as the 6 giant galaxies fit perfectly into my understanding of the universe.

The goal of science is to ultimately settle on a solution or theory that presents the fewest (or zero) inexplicable or conflicting scenarios.
I already told you how my viewpoint is in perfect harmony with the discoveries mentioned in the article.

The article mentioned that both of the discoveries conflicted with the current Big Bang evolutionary viewpoint.

You may forget all the things I said if you like, but I simply want to hear someone explain how these discoveries fit into the Big Bang theory.
 
Last edited:
Feb 13, 2023
38
4
55
@Stephan Gunther thank you for your input. You've contributed more posts to this thread than anyone else. Every post is ad hominem, (except #18, which simply is entirely irrelevant), and that's ok with me personally. But that kind of interaction might be marginal in regards to "forum rules", so I would encourage you to try discussing something slightly more relevant to science.

You may post more ad hominem posts if that's all you can manage to type, but first, I want to hear you answer two questions.
1. What have I posted that is "preaching", specifically since post #11 when you brought "proselytizing" to my attention?
2. As far as I know, all of my posts have been "scientific" according to the 4 points I listed in post #14. But you seem to disagree. Which of the 4 points that I listed in post #14 is incorrect?
Instead of citing your post numbers you need to quote what you said, if you want me to respond specifically.
 
Feb 13, 2023
38
4
55
Ok, lets get back to science. Let my try to make it very clear.
The reason I started into this conversation (post #2) was because I read the article by Ben Turner, discussing the black hole recently discovered by ALMA. The article quoted Ryan Endsley saying that its existence was a "big challenge" to explain. The article also mentioned that data from JWST was analyzed and astronomers discovered 6 galaxies "that were in tension with 99% of cosmological models."
I presented my viewpoint as a solution to this "big challenge", because from my viewpoint, the black hole at the center of COS-87259 is quite easy to explain.
Additionally, apparently my personal mental "cosmological model" is in the 1%, as the 6 giant galaxies fit perfectly into my understanding of the universe.

The goal of science is to ultimately settle on a solution or theory that presents the fewest (or zero) inexplicable or conflicting scenarios.
I already told you how my viewpoint is in perfect harmony with the discoveries mentioned in the article.

The article mentioned that both of the discoveries conflicted with the current Big Bang evolutionary viewpoint.

You may forget all the things I said if you like, but I simply want to hear someone explain how these discoveries fit into the Big Bang theory.
The discoveries of large galaxies and black holes a few hundred million yrs after the big bang don't fit the current model. That's exciting, and means they will have to alter it. That is the beauty of science. You act like the big bang is some definitive, end all, be all explanation of cosmic origin. It isn't. It's a limited description based on the CMBR and rewinding cosmic expansion. Physics breaks down in the singularity. It is currently rudimentary, but will continue to be expounded upon.
Without any evidence whatsoever you insert your god of the gaps as an explanation. People have been doing that for ages. When science provides an answer you all just apply it to the next unknown. That will continue as long as humans are around. What is the evidence of you god claim ? I'm still waiting for it. What is your evidence it is the biblical god rather than Zeus, Brahma, or a highly advanced alien from another universe ?
 
Last edited:
Feb 25, 2023
24
0
30
I hoped to keep this thread as uncluttered as possible, but @Stephan Gunther is apparently unable to scroll back and read a specific post, that is why I am quoting them.

Now, lets get a few things straight, and then I'll continue to discuss.
1. Every definition of 'sience' in my dictionary, contains the word 'knowledge'. Science is knowledge relating to the natural universe. Therefore, 'knowledge' relating to the natural universe is Science, and is therefore valid on this forum.
2. 'Knowledge' is "acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition:"
3. It is within the rules of this forum to share knowledge gained from other people. (If not, we could not state the speed of light, the diameter of the earth, our distance from the sun, etc, since the person to identify this knowledge is probably not on this forum)
4. It is possible for knowledge, or at least perceptions perceived as knowledge, to be in error....."

Every post that I posted, especially since this post,
...... You are violating the forum rules by proselytizing. Go take your sky daddy preaching elsewhere. This is Live Science.

has complied with the four principles quoted above.

After both of the posts I quoted in this post, Stephan Gunther said
My point is that you are preaching in a science forum. I don't need to prove a negative. You have the burden of proof in you claims that the bible explains the origin of life, Earth and the cosmos, but this isn't the place to do that.

If all of my posts fit the 4 principles I listed, then they are Science, not preaching, and therfore valid in this forum. But Stephan Gunther said that I am "preaching", so I am asking you to specifically list which posts I posted that are "preaching". Be sure to identify which of the 4 principles it violates, or else identify what is wrong with the 4 principles.
 
Feb 25, 2023
24
0
30
The discoveries of large galaxies and black holes a few hundred million yrs after the big bang don't fit the current model. That's exciting, and means they will have to alter it. That is the beauty of science. You act like the big bang is some definitive, end all, be all explanation of cosmic origin. It isn't. It's a limited description based on the CMBR and rewinding cosmic expansion. Physics breaks down in the singularity. It is currently rudimentary, but will continue to be expounded upon.
Without any evidence whatsoever you insert your god of the gaps as an explanation. People have been doing that for ages. When science provides an answer you all just apply it to the next unknown. That will continue as long as humans are around. What is the evidence of you god claim ? I'm still waiting for it. What is your evidence it is the biblical god rather than Zeus, Brahma, or a highly advanced alien from another universe ?
The two paragraphs in this message are very separate points, so I will address them separately.

If I understand the first paragraph correctly, your saying it's "exciting" that we've discovered something that proves your current belief WRONG. You say "that is the beauty of science". Before the recent discoveries, you would have agreed that "Scientifically, a black hole larger than xxxxx cannot exist."(we'll call this theory M) But now, we have PROOF that theory M was wrong. Go back in time a little, and we find that theory M was actually formulated because evidence proved theory L wrong, and theory L was proposed because theory K was proven wrong. We can go back, lets just say 100 years (that doesn't even get us back to Darwin) and these theories have changed many times. If evolution is true, then evolution will continue to evolve. So theory N will be invented to explain this big black hole, and you doubtlessly will continue to be excited as theories O, P, Q, etc. follow. As each theory is proven wrong, a new one temporarily takes it's place until it too, is superseded.
There's one small caveat though. You are actually NEVER totally right, because as you continue to "expound" on Science, you prove that some part of your previous theory was wrong.

The Creation story that I believe hasn't changed once since Moses wrote it as God inspired him 3,500-4,000 years ago. Yes, I know it's been translated several times, and yes, I know that some people believe half of it or none of it. Even if we only give it credit since the KJV translation, it still has over 400 years of undisproven history. Evolution hasn't even stopped changing today, and what you believe now contradicts some of what you believed a few years ago.
 
Feb 25, 2023
24
0
30
......
Without any evidence whatsoever you insert your god of the gaps as an explanation. People have been doing that for ages. When science provides an answer you all just apply it to the next unknown. That will continue as long as humans are around. What is the evidence of you god claim ? I'm still waiting for it. What is your evidence it is the biblical god rather than Zeus, Brahma, or a highly advanced alien from another universe ?

@Stephan Gunther, earlier you complained about me "proselytizing" but now you asked me for my evidence, so here it is.

Let's start with one of the most elementary points.

WHERE DID THE UNIVERSE COME FROM?

First, an important statement to answer your inevitable question, " Where did God come from?" I believe that God always existed from eternity past and will exist through eternity future. If He is not eternal, than He couldn't possibly be God, because if He isn't from eternity past, then He was either created or evolved. If He was created or evolved, than whatever created Him or caused Him to evolve is greater. I am also quite comfortable saying I don't understand eternity past. If I could understand absolutely everything about God, He couldn't be my God, because I would know as much as Him.
The first verse in my Bible says "In the beginning"(that's when time began) "God created the heaven" (space) "and the earth"(matter). Every scientist understands that time, space, and matter are inseparable fundamentals of the universe. You cannot have time without space, and you cannot have space without time, and matter cannot exist outside of space and time. So there you have the basic elements of reality simultaneously created. The rest of the chapter explains how God organized the universe and created a beautiful, complex, functional, living Earth.
I know of only three proposed basic theories of the origin of the universe. Creation, evolution, or a big bang.
1. We all know that no explosion ever created order, much less life, let alone something sustainable. In addition, where did the substance for the explosion come from? And what triggered it?
2. Evolution proposes that life evolved from dead matter, and that a form of unintelligent life became more capable, organized, and intelligent with time. This is entirely opposite of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Even if we could reconcile this stark contradiction, it still doesn't provide an answer for where the original matter came from.
3. Creation explains where matter came from, how it became organized, and how life began.

That alone is compelling evidence for me. If you can disprove any part of my post, please do, and if you don't understand something, feel free to ask.