Hacker News Reader

Comment by boopity2025 | Hacker News Reader

boopity2025

[flagged]

A user emailed us to point out that this seems to be an LLM-generated summary of the article that contains inaccuracies. Please don't do this.

We've marked the comment off-topic and moved some of the replies to be root comments, where appropriate.

Well, the black hole isnt hydrogen. This is the gas around it. And being pure hydrogen seems sus as there should be some helium in there according to most models.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis

Not only that, but getting stars to form using pure hydrogen is tricky. That helium helped early stars collapse and ignite. Not seeing any helium in an early-universe object is a big deal, suggesting some sort of error.

Bug fixes:

- Corrected an infrequent issue with getResultingProtonCount that would cause it to always return 1 for certain origin bodies.

(In the merge request comments: "This why we don't let junior devs commit unreviewed code to critical branches, guys.")

> It’s pure hydrogen

The gas around it is pure hydrogen. We can't know what's inside. Could be stacks of little green men and ponies in there.

Arguably, it makes no difference at all as to what's inside (apart from the inference that the early universe had lots of singularity seeking ponies and little green men)

Maybe, lazy or tired light, and everything shifts towards specific spectral lines or frequencies/wavelengths at distant observation. Attenuates? Asymptotes to the hydrogen line?

that doesn't work out. from the spectra we're seeing hydrogen spikes red shifted, so the lack of any other spikes is very strong evidence

If light got tired it would make ordinary chemistry impossible. You wouldn't see spectra because atoms themselves would work differently (and probably not at all).

The fact that we can tell that it's hydrogen makes it extremely unlikely that light behaved differently there.

Was it wrong, or based on incomplete data?

If you draw conclusions from incomplete data, they tend to be wrong. Even Prof. van Dusen and Sherlock Holmes knew that. So if there were any difference, it would be sheer luck.

Both at the same time? Weird question.

In most fields it's impossible to have complete data.

https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~gamvrosi/thelastq.html

Thanks , very helpful.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com