But my point is that they aren't established holes. If you grab a slice of cheese in the dark, it may have holes (ie Swiss) or it may not. If one says the cheese has holes, then the claim is that it is, indeed, Swiss cheese, but it's simply a currently untestable prediction.Helio, my point is that a variety of unobserved objects and initial conditions are used routinely in the BB model to explain how the universe evolved all natural and randomly by a series of fortuitous accidents Mainstream science has no problem here apparently but the methodology at work, especially creating processes not observed operating in nature today and *objects* not seen in nature today, in my thinking looks suspect and shows the paradigm has holes in that should be clearly documented to the public when science explains how the universe evolved and appeared.
Essentially, all theories start with varying degrees of darkness since all theories must make predictions. Predictions require this area of darkness, though it must start with enough light on it to make it a new theory since all theories are objective-based. Like hope, it's something that doesn't become fact (or failure) until some future time, when events bring the answer forward.
Yes, but I suspect there is no highly respectable answer as to their mass yet since you can't put H and He in a lab and make a star. Computer modeling is limited, IMO, due to the complexity and areas of, well, darkness such as in MHD (Magneto Hydro Dynamics). It was advanced MHD that finally restored the nebular theory as mainstream. I think we should a few grains of salt on a 10k-mass first stars as well.Concerning low mass Population III stars, this subject has been around for some time now in astronomy.