Hi, Helen! We had some discussions going which were very interesting to me before a number of threads went hopelessly down the drain. I am trying to pull everything back into something coherent so we can finish and allow anyone that wants to jump in have a little more focused thread. You had pointed out that the stars could be divided in Population I and Population II stars and were offering that the Population II stars were the morning stars and created on Day 1 and that the Population I stars were created on Day 4. I had pointed out that there were physical traits of these groups, notably size and metal content, and had asked for explanations of these traits according to your cosmology. (Feel free to correct any mistakes I have made in summarizing and to clarify anything you wish in your response.) You had replied with the following from Barry: I had a hard time with this explanation to begin with but I was able to track down a paper from Flambaum and Berengut which I assume is the basis for the above. (For the interested http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0001/0001022.pdf )Having read the paper a few times I have a much better understanding of what was being described but I also have some objections. 1. There is a great deal of speculation here and chief is the assumption, against what is mainstream accepted, that black holes do not completely evaporate but instead end up at some minimum mass. There is still much debate on both sides of this but theory leans towards black holes completely evaporating. 2. The paper is very specific that atoms formed from this process would have shifted spectral lines compared to normal, equivalent atoms and gives the method to calculate the difference. Where is the spectroscopic evidence for this? The paper suggests that scientists should look for these spectral differences implying that the differences are within our measurement ability. If most of the metals in Population I were from black hole atoms then it seems resonable that scientists would have noticed the shift in spectral lines from the sun and other bodies as important as spectroscopy is to astronomy. Since this is not the case, it seems reasonable to assume that very little of the sun, if any, is made from black hole atoms. 3. The paper states that the abundance of elementary black holes would be about 10^-15 of the abundance of hydrogen. The abundance of hydrogen in the sun is only about 50 times the abundance (by mass) of metals. Now, only a fraction of these elementary black holes could be the negatively charged variety from above. How to explain such an extreme concentration of black hole atoms relative to their overall abundance? If instead, black hole atoms make up little to no mass of the sun then this would explain why these spectral differences have not been seen. 4. There is no reason to suppose that the elementary black holes that would have been in or near Population II stars should not have also been acquiring protons, electrons, and electrons and forming atoms. This means there must be some reason to keep the elementary black holes away from the Population II stars and concentrated near the Population I stars. This treatment also completely ignores the issue of the mass of the Population I and II stars. Why are the only Population II stars around the very low mass stars that would have been expected to last billions of years to still be around today in a Big Bang model?