The early universe was crammed with stars 10,000 times the of our sun, new study suggests

Feb 13, 2023
38
4
55
" The first stars in the cosmos may have topped out at over 10,000 times the mass of the sun, roughly 1,000 times bigger than the biggest stars alive today, a new study has found.
Nowadays, the biggest stars are 100 solar masses"

Am I missing something ? 100 x 1000 = 100,000. That would make them 100,000 solar masses.
 
Aug 27, 2020
31
1
4,555
" The first stars in the cosmos may have topped out at over 10,000 times the mass of the sun, roughly 1,000 times bigger than the biggest stars alive today, a new study has found.
Nowadays, the biggest stars are 100 solar masses"

Am I missing something ? 100 x 1000 = 100,000. That would make them 100,000 solar masses.
Caught that, too, but what's a magnitude of 10 among friends? ;-)
 
Feb 23, 2023
3
0
10
They have no idea what they're talking about.
1.4 solar masses and it's a black hole.
10 000 sm it's a definite blackhole devouring everything even before bang.
It is OK to fantasize about stuff that never happened and can never be observed, but numbers? simple arithmetic?
And the guy gets paid!
What a stupid stupid world.
Come Lord Yeshua and fix this mess.
 
Apr 4, 2020
29
4
4,555
They have no idea what they're talking about.
1.4 solar masses and it's a black hole.
10 000 sm it's a definite blackhole devouring everything even before bang.
It is OK to fantasize about stuff that never happened and can never be observed, but numbers? simple arithmetic?
And the guy gets paid!
What a stupid stupid world.
Come Lord Yeshua and fix this mess.
Well, please correct me if I am wrong, but a collection of gas much more massive than 1.4 solar masses will not form a black hole if it does not collapse within the Schwarzschild radius. The article mentioned that the original belief was that these gas clouds could not begin to collapse into protostar nebulae because of fragmentation of the cloud due to pockets of cooling. However, the article went on to mention how the study contradicted that belief, mentioning that the original gas was an inefficient radiator, so cold clustering would not happen. Instead, the clouds remained continous and were able to condense around a central point. However, this does NOT mean all of the gas in the cloud could condense to the point of causing collapse within the Schwarzschild radius. Instead, at some point, the pressure and heat inside the protostar's core would cause fusion, which would release radiation that prevented further collapse of the cloud. The star's ignition would lead to rapid burning and eventually supernova.

Is there something wrong with that understanding?
 
Feb 23, 2023
3
0
10
Well, please correct me if I am wrong, but a collection of gas much more massive than 1.4 solar masses will not form a black hole if it does not collapse within the Schwarzschild radius. The article mentioned that the original belief was that these gas clouds could not begin to collapse into protostar nebulae because of fragmentation of the cloud due to pockets of cooling. However, the article went on to mention how the study contradicted that belief, mentioning that the original gas was an inefficient radiator, so cold clustering would not happen. Instead, the clouds remained continous and were able to condense around a central point. However, this does NOT mean all of the gas in the cloud could condense to the point of causing collapse within the Schwarzschild radius. Instead, at some point, the pressure and heat inside the protostar's core would cause fusion, which would release radiation that prevented further collapse of the cloud. The star's ignition would lead to rapid burning and eventually supernova.

Is there something wrong with that understanding?
Yes. Everything is wrong with that "understanding".
Which original belief? Remember that "belief" until yesterday was a FACT over which they would have crucified people. Just like they will do over this one. This one you are calling understanding. The old one, belief.
Not to mention that EVERYTHING you said was exclusively and only imaginary. And see how you talk confidently about your narrative, as if it were a fact and everyone is already informed and it is now common knowledge.
Science is observation and experimentation, visible and testable. Then narrative is just detestable. Like a Jehova's Witness watchtower with the most paradisiacal and heavenly pictures to illustrate a moronic story.
 
Feb 23, 2023
3
0
10
How's that working out ? I didn't know he preached about black holes.
It's going very well so far. He hasn't heard any of us on this matter. We've been lucky.
Black holes. He didn't preach about them, but their best description is, surprise surprise, given by Him, in His Book. Which description the official narrative stole, embellished it, tried every day to claim proof of them and guess what? to stun everyone, the official narrative itself, ties the black holes inexorably to the anthropic principle,
 
Apr 4, 2020
29
4
4,555
" The first stars in the cosmos may have topped out at over 10,000 times the mass of the sun, roughly 1,000 times bigger than the biggest stars alive today, a new study has found.
Nowadays, the biggest stars are 100 solar masses"

Am I missing something ? 100 x 1000 = 100,000. That would make them 100,000 solar masses.
The author(s) have a technical excuse. The set of "biggest stars" has an undefined lower limit, and thus an undefined average as well. So, who is to say the average is 100 or 10 M?