On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 04:47:24 -0800 (PST), "G=EMC^2"
wrote:

On Feb 20, 7:33*am, Painius wrote:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 09:44:55 -0800, "Mike Painter"

wrote:
Painius wrote:
Harlow soliloquied...
To me, since observations end at the event horizon, this
amounts to mental masturbation.

An opinion you're entitled to, of course. *Now please do tell... If
gravity contains BH singularities from expanding, and since OUR
initial singularity had to be dense enough to contain all that we see
and... perhaps even more, then how did that initial singularity expand
under the containment of what must have been a whole s___load of
gravity?

Perhaps for the same reason that a piece of straw broke the camels back.

Interesting gravitational analogy, there, Mike.

Raises questions such as, "What exactly served as the 'straw' in the
case of the initial singularity (the camel)?" and, "How precisely did
this allow the singularity to begin to expand instead of being even
more thoroughly crushed (broken) than it had been (like the camel's
back)?"

So it would appear by this line of questioning that the Big Bang was
impossible to pull off, wouldn't it?

There is no known way for any singularity to begin to expand under the
crushing weight of its own gravitational field. *So why would any
reasonable scientist continue to believe that it were possible? *They
don't believe that the asteroids in the asteroid belt were the result
of a fully formed planet blowing up, because there is no known way for
a fully formed planet to explode. *So if there is no known way for a
singularity to expand under the crushing weight of its own
gravitational field, then wouldn't it be unreasonable to continue to
support the Big Bang hypothesis?

Painius my critical mass density theory has the singularity formed at
the exact time the critical mass density is reached. TreBert

So if the singularity is at critical mass the moment it is formed,
wouldn't this result in an explosion rather than an expansion? It
would have been an explosion of immense proportion, but then anything
of mass would have fallen back down to the point of origin because of
the immense gravitational field.

The Big Bang calls for an expansion, not for an explosion. According
to Alan Guth's Inflation theory, the super-quick inflationary
expansion lasted from 10^-36 seconds after the Big Bang to sometime
between 10^-33 and 10^-32 seconds. The Universe grew quite huge in an
extremely short time. That inflation was supposedly driven by a
negative-pressure vacuum energy density. The value of the vacuum
energy in free space here in the present time is believed to be 10^113
Joules per cubic meter, and may have been much higher in the past.

However, even that magnificent value for the driving vacuum energy
density would not have been able to overcome the mother of all
gravitational fields, which would have been in place in the same
instant that the singularity, with its critical mass, came to be. It
would have been impossible for the singularity to even begin to
expand. And if it had instead exploded, then it would have not
continued to expand into a Universe, but instead the out-rushing parts
of the explosion would have risen to great level, slowed their ascent,
turned around and dropped back to the origin point.

No matter how you look at it, the Big Bang is unreasonable and
illogical. It is an impossibility and not a part of reality.

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"History is extremely kind to those who write it."