this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2025
90 points (98.9% liked)
Space
1754 readers
61 users here now
A community to discuss space & astronomy through a STEM lens
Rules
- Be respectful and inclusive. This means no harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
- Engage in constructive discussions by discussing in good faith.
- Foster a continuous learning environment.
Also keep in mind, mander.xyz's rules on politics
Please keep politics to a minimum. When science is the focus, intersection with politics may be tolerated as long as the discussion is constructive and science remains the focus. As a general rule, political content posted directly to the instanceโs local communities is discouraged and may be removed. You can of course engage in political discussions in non-local communities.
Related Communities
๐ญ Science
- !curiosityrover@lemmy.world
- !earthscience@mander.xyz
- !esa@feddit.nl
- !nasa@lemmy.world
- !perseverancerover@lemmy.world
- !physics@mander.xyz
- !space@beehaw.org
๐ Engineering
๐ Art and Photography
Other Cool Links
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Headline is factually incorrect.
The observations are direct. LRDs are thought to be either clusters of stars or a black hole. The spin is such that it is incompatible with a cluster of stars.
The maths is non-trivial, so needs to be confirmed by others.
As for the primordial part. Black holes are thought to form 1 of 2 ways. Slow build up, in the core of a galaxy, or crushed together by the pressures just after the big bang. This object has a galaxy too small, and too young, to explain it's size by slow growth. This implies that the galaxy formed around the hole, not vice versa.
This all seems pretty direct to me.
This is common in scientific writing. Evidence, no matter how direct, will always suggest a conclusion, never prove it