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?

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"The fool thinks himself wise; the wise man knows himself a fool."

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