[HN Gopher] Early universe's 'little red dots' may be black hole...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Early universe's 'little red dots' may be black hole stars
        
       Author : rbanffy
       Score  : 21 points
       Date   : 2025-07-30 21:18 UTC (1 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.science.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.science.org)
        
       | jjbinx007 wrote:
       | If true, does this give more credence to the so called "Blowtorch
       | Theory" that was featured on HN a couple of months back?
        
         | belter wrote:
         | "The Blowtorch Theory: A new model for structure formation in
         | the universe" - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44115973
        
         | mr_mitm wrote:
         | That text does not deserve the title "theory".
        
           | conradev wrote:
           | Are you commenting on the style or the substance?
        
       | db48x wrote:
       | Just in case you somehow don't know what a Black Hole Star is,
       | check out Kurzgesagt's video about them
       | <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeWyp2vXxqA>
        
         | mlhpdx wrote:
         | Did SoundGarden have it right in 1994 (author misheard a news
         | report, apparently)? /s
         | 
         | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hole_Sun
        
       | voxleone wrote:
       | Upon reading the title, I would have expected some gravitational
       | redshift to be part of the explanation, which made me wonder--are
       | we sure none of that deep gravity well effect is contributing to
       | the redness? That said, I understand the community tends to favor
       | AGN-related causes: rapid Doppler broadening of emission lines,
       | infrared dust reprocessing, and cosmological redshift seem to
       | account for most of what's observed.
        
         | dylan604 wrote:
         | I'm no astronomer trying to have work published, but wouldn't a
         | mistake like that be one of the most obvious things to attempt
         | to test your own work against before releasing the results? Is
         | the fear of releasing an obvious mistake and the damage to
         | one's reputation just not present anymore, or is first to
         | publish so critical that mistakes are forgiven? To me, if I was
         | going to present a paper that goes against existing
         | conventional thinking, I'd want to make sure my paper stood up
         | to the most rigorous review including (especially?) from HN
         | commenters.
        
       | mosesbp wrote:
       | Making progress on these key issues in galaxy evolution and black
       | hole growth is exactly the kind of research that will not happen
       | (or at minimum be extremely limited) under the current
       | administration's grant cancellations, funding cuts, and staffing
       | reductions at the NSF and NASA, the two of which account for
       | almost all of US astronomy research funding.
        
       | chasil wrote:
       | Here is a Kurzgesagt video describing what these are.
       | 
       | https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aeWyp2vXxqA
        
       | BurningFrog wrote:
       | Forgive me for being off topic, but I must say how astonished and
       | happy I am that Soundgarden's nonsense song title from 1994 now
       | is a real science concept:
       | 
       | https://youtu.be/3mbBbFH9fAg?si=cnB-WVsE9OLuF-GK
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2025-07-30 23:00 UTC)