Were The Earliest Stars Already Black Holes?

Elaine Meinel Supkis

Astronomers continue to try to fit new data into the presuppositions already held concerning how the universe formed 13+billion years ago right after the Big Bang. The most recent data shows the earliest ‘stars’ were too ‘big’ to be stars as we know them from studying events that are closer in time.

&hearts The earliest stars as black holes makes a lot of sense to me.

By Robert Roy Britt
Senior Science Writer
posted: 18 December 2006

Astronomers might have seen the very first stars in the universe. If so, these are incredible stars, some 1,000 times as massive as the Sun.

The alternative is just as interesting: The objects might be early black holes consuming gas voraciously and spitting out radiation like crazy as nascent galaxies form.

‘Consuming gas and spitting out radiation’...this means the gravity pools of these ‘first whatevers’ attracted anything in their vicinity and as these gases were compacted, the atoms were split and this created ‘radiation.’ The interesting question here is, how many of these ‘things’ were there and does this number correspond with the number of galaxies we see, say, a billion years old instead of 13 billion years old.

If galaxies are merging with each other----and we see this happening all around us right now---then there would be far fewer galaxies compared to the number of these earliest black holes. If we are still rapildly expaning, no galaxies would have even the slightest possibility of merging with any others so the question is, are we at the midpoint where galaxies can’t fly further apart, or we could be flying faster apart because some mysteriious force is attracting us or we could be falling towards the Great Attractor.

There is no easy answer to all this but there is rational thoughts that are possible. The idea that something is forcing everything apart is very out dated and sticks around only because of the natural tendency of people to cling to previous ideas and there has to be some explanation about the way light is warped by time and space and making up some mysterious force saves one from having to think we are really falling kind of backwards, so to speak.

A little math therefore shows that these newfound objects are indeed the infants of the universe. But what are they? If they are stars, they are about 10 times more massive than theories suggest the first stars would have been.

The mysterious objects are in clusters. If they are each stars, then the clusters might be the first mini-galaxies. And if so, each apparently has a mass that's less than a million suns. Our Milky Way, by contrast, holds the mass of about 100 billion suns and is thought to have been built up by mergers of smaller galaxies—perhaps like those the astronomers now think they might be seeing.

Everywhere we look in the past, all celestial objects are in clusters. I would suspect a law of nature would be, ‘After the Big Bang, all things will form clusters’. People have devised all sorts of mathematical models for nature and the reliance on these formulae is the foundation of science. But before one comes up with these scripts, they first have to have an ideological mental framework that sets the stage for understanding the math which is basically an attempt to quantify nature’s functions.

She has this tendency to set iron rules that simply can’t be violated. Learning these rules and using them for our own ends has been the quest of all humans since we first picked up a stick or stone and threw them. The first human to take a bone and scratch onto it the number of days for the moon to wax and then wane was someone quantifying nature. Early humans were puzzled by women bleeding every month when they were not with child or nursing a child. Tallying the moon’s phases and then setting this within the idea of menstral periods was an intellectual feat. Indeed, the ancient term for female bleeding comes from the word for ‘moon.’

All of nature is full of such influences and subtilties. For thousands of years, early astronomers and others universally called the beginnings of our existence in the deepest pasts, a time of Chaos. Astronomers see the past based on this ancient grid that is deep within our culture. Now that we get some data coming from that very time period, the challenge of understanding it is made harder by the fact this grid exists.

From the article:

"There's ongoing debate about what the first objects were and how galaxies formed," said Harvey Moseley of Goddard, a co-author on the new papers.

Some think our galaxy and other large galaxies grew through mergers. One recent study questioned that notion, however.

How much force did the Big Bang have? The assumption right now is, the force was so great, it blew apart everything and we are still in the grip of this trajectory only few astronomers want to view this as a ‘trajectory’ for this means what goes ‘up’...must come ‘down’. When one looks at all the laws of nature, something becomes very clear: there is no infinity. Even stasis isn’t eternal. The worship of ‘eternity’ and why all religions call upon this force is due to humans wanting stasis. The dynamism of nature is frightening because it all has this built-in trajectory leading to mergers and death.

Galaxies merge. Stars die. Black holes suck down everything they can. Things become destabilized and blow up. Matter degrades over time. When things merge, they change and cease to be what they were before. Everything ages. Entropy.

So how could our galaxy be, relative to all previous things we see from the past, be ‘speeding up’ if it is ‘flying away’? Absent some accelerating action, we should be slowing down unless we are...falling. Namely, we must be on the ‘falling back to earth’ phase. This is, like all things in nature, a trajectory. We can’t be flying towards some ‘attractor’ unless it is some monster black hole object that is attracting a lot more than our lonely, little galaxy.

Why would there be just one thing ‘pulling’ on us, making us move faster and faster while not doing that to all other things? And if ALL galaxies are moving towards some mysterious thingie that is making them accelerate, this would mean this giant thingie is all over creation and is bigger than the entire universe in size! And then it ceases to be anything at all but makes our universe into this big balloon whereby the balloon is a force, itself?

I cannot accept this visualization. If astronomers cannot put into simple mind-pictures, what is going on, this means they messed up. Picturing black holes which are super-dense and grow in size as the assimulate more and more mass, is logical and easy. When first proposed, many astronomers rejected this only due to inertia within their own brains.

But this new idea that we are flying apart faster and faster flies in the face of Nature herself. Either we are falling into something denser than we are or we are propelling ourselves forwards due to the energy of the Big Bang.

If that were so, no small galaxies would be falling towards us. They should have shot past us long ago and been out of here, flying madly in a straight line towards infinity, faster and faster if there is this ‘mysterious force’ attracting them!

But they aren’t attracted to some distant, mysterious force, they are attracted to our bigger galaxy! And we have proof a number of these smaller galaxies have also been attracted to our galaxy and this would be utterly impossible if they were individually flying straight outwards!

Perhaps the first eons, say the first 2 billion years, smaller galaxies might have fallen into bigger ones but the ones like the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds certainly would not be anywhere near our galaxy 11 billion years later! And all the dirt our galaxy is vacuuming up even now, wouldn’t be here if space were expanding. Nature is logical, she loves laws and strictly adheres to them and she hates a vacuum. And infinity. And eternity.

We are coming into Christmas where the Christians celebrate the 'birth' of a human that died, sprang out of his grave and then flew to the Heavens to Life Forever. Humans want desperately to believe in infinite, death-defying gods! The ancient Egyptians build all sorts of amazing structures that stood for thousands of years in the hope of gaining infinite life after death. All religions try to defy destruction. This is why they ask their believers to not pay attention to Mother Nature and Her nasty, inflexible laws. We strive to jump the cow over the moon and make the dog laugh.

Mother Nature gets the last laugh. And this all takes me back to the thing that always bothers me: after 4.5 billion years, our itsy-bitsy sun, a very minor star, is still far outside the Galactic Center, we are at the very outer edges. And yet whole small galaxies are being sucked in! Um....isn't that interesting. I noticed in the news that the comet material brought back last summer isn't what they expected at all. It seems it is really 'old' stuff from back in the sun's 'beginning.' Evidently, we and it have been traveling together, in a group, since the material was knocked together to birth the sun. We know so little, the more we see, the less we really know.

Culture of Life News Main Page

Comments

[JSmith]

Here's an interesting article for you.

By the time stars formed, the universe was 100 milion years old. What was going on then?

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=0002BE5A-D608-152F-960883414B7F0123&pageNumber=1&catID=2

[Elaine Meinel Supkis]

Thanks for the article, Smith. Just read it. Heh. The data is right under everyone's noses: ALL matter is merging in one way or another, REPEATEDLY.

[blues]

Space_The Final_Rant_01

There sure is lots of room for speculation about cosmology. I tried for an hour to find the link, but some physicist calculated that if our universe happened to exist within a five-dimensional black hole, everything would be exactly the same as it is right now! In other news:

NASA Finds Direct Proof Of Dark Matter (August 21, 2006)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/

‹—›2006/08/060821133930.htm

[Rodney Reid]

The electric sun hypothesis is pretty cool:

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm

[JSmith]

Wheeee... that site's not quite as "out there" as McCanney's, but it's close. Check this out for grins:

http://www.jmccanneyscience.com/Opening%20Statement.HTM

Hey, Elaine... there's a report in this week's Science about material returned to Earth from comet 81P/Wild 2:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/314/5806/1707

The cover is interesting - shows the particle collector.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol314/issue5806/cover.dtl

[Elaine Meinel Supkis]

Heh. Maybe we are lint inside of a black sock that God tossed into the hamper and the washingmachine ate it and now he has only one sock and is really pissed off at us.

(scratching head)

[fire alarm systems]

Dome cameras are ideal for both inside and outside and because of their ability to resist.