N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear T Wake:

"T Wake" wrote in message
...

"Nick" wrote in message
ups.com...
The big bang could not have started
as a mass singularity. If it did its
gravity would make it a black hole without
any possibility of expansion.

So do we take away gravity?
No. Because if we do we automtically
produce universal boudaries/an open
universe. Otherwise without gravity
the cosmology is one that violates
the No Boundary Proposal.

No gravity equals a violation of
the no boudary Proposal.

How do you like that?

So if you keep gravity and you don't
want a black hole the original matter
must be spread out. If it's spread out
it will not have a gravity so strong
as to not be able to expand/inflate.

In a high energy, low mass environment gravity
is a non-effective force. Current models of the
universe give it around 10^-37 seconds before
gravity kicks in. This is a very long time.

When the average particle energy is huge, yes.

Also, I thought big bang theory implied the
universe began as a sea of energy (photons?)

Probably quarks first, then the strong and weak interactions,
*then* EM forces (and the photon).

which wouldn't have been affected (or have)
gravity until the other forces interacted
enough to create objects with mass?

Photons also create curvature, and respond to curvature. But in
a small closed Universe, with uniform mass/energy distibution,
gravitation pulls uniformly in all directions. Net: no
particular pull, except to localized "lumps".

David A. Smith