"In Search of the Big Bang" (brief review)

"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.

Also, I thought big bang theory implied the universe began as a sea of
energy (photons?) which wouldn't have been affected (or have) gravity until
the other forces interacted enough to create objects with mass?

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

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

" wrote in message
ups.com...


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


The so called "big bang" is actually the knee of the gravitational
contraction curve and occurs when the velocity of fall (in absolute terms)
equals 0.707 times the velocity of light. From that point on the internally
observed redius of the universe increases as its internally observed radius
continues to contract to the Horizon Radius.At this point the internally
observed radius is infinite. Once this knee is passed, radiation pressure
balances gravitationl attraction to produce the well behaved universe we
observe. If your mind is not already set in concrete and if you are willing
to question the foolishness you have been taught try
http://members.isp.com/einsteinhoax....nhoax/site.htm.

Einsteinhoax wrote:

[....]
At this point the internally
observed radius is infinite.

[....]




Show me one single observation of such a radius, or of such an infinite
radius, and I'll ask you for the specific evidence.

There is no such (metaphysical or physical) thing or (epistemological) idea
of anything infinite, or of any infinity, in the universe of existents.

That is a total Platonic mathematical hoax.

Concepts are universal, and they may be applied continuously to produce
particular results, e.g., in mathematics. Mathematical results are
particular, not universal.

There are no universal particulars in the physical universe or in
mathematical ideas; that is a contradiction. That contradiction is the hoax
of infinity.


Ralph Hertle

There always is gravity Twake. But it is nonsigular. It is spread out.
The original energy must be spread out so that its gravity won't
be so strong as to prevent the big bang expansion.
Light/energy has gravity in General Relativity.

Began as light?
The original energy couldn't be light. It would produce matter/anti
matter in
equal amounts. Matter/anti matter would be alltogether in one place
without any possibility of seperating out.

Not possible.

wrote:
There always is gravity Twake. But it is nonsigular. It is spread out.
The original energy must be spread out so that its gravity won't
be so strong as to prevent the big bang expansion.
Light/energy has gravity in General Relativity.

Began as light?
The original energy couldn't be light. It would produce matter/anti
matter in
equal amounts. Matter/anti matter would be alltogether in one place
without any possibility of seperating out.

Not possible.

well dick.

what does nonsigular mean?

gravity works on mass. the original energy consisted of massless
photons. how did gravity play?

it produced matter/antimatter in almost equal amounts. your
understanding of this subject is so bad its painful.

how do you like that dick?

yt56erd wrote:
wrote:
There always is gravity Twake. But it is nonsigular. It is spread out.
The original energy must be spread out so that its gravity won't
be so strong as to prevent the big bang expansion.
Light/energy has gravity in General Relativity.

Began as light?
The original energy couldn't be light. It would produce matter/anti
matter in
equal amounts. Matter/anti matter would be alltogether in one place
without any possibility of seperating out.

Not possible.

well dick.

what does nonsigular mean?

gravity works on mass. the original energy consisted of massless
photons. how did gravity play?

it produced matter/antimatter in almost equal amounts. your
understanding of this subject is so bad its painful.

how do you like that dick?

well how do you like it?

yt56erd wrote:
yt56erd wrote:
wrote:
There always is gravity Twake. But it is nonsigular. It is spread out.
The original energy must be spread out so that its gravity won't
be so strong as to prevent the big bang expansion.
Light/energy has gravity in General Relativity.

Began as light?
The original energy couldn't be light. It would produce matter/anti
matter in
equal amounts. Matter/anti matter would be alltogether in one place
without any possibility of seperating out.

Not possible.

well dick.

what does nonsigular mean?

gravity works on mass. the original energy consisted of massless
photons. how did gravity play?

it produced matter/antimatter in almost equal amounts. your
understanding of this subject is so bad its painful.

how do you like that dick?

well how do you like it?

yt56erd wrote:
yt56erd wrote:
wrote:
There always is gravity Twake. But it is nonsigular. It is spread out.
The original energy must be spread out so that its gravity won't
be so strong as to prevent the big bang expansion.
Light/energy has gravity in General Relativity.

Began as light?
The original energy couldn't be light. It would produce matter/anti
matter in
equal amounts. Matter/anti matter would be alltogether in one place
without any possibility of seperating out.

Not possible.

well dick.

what does nonsigular mean?

gravity works on mass. the original energy consisted of massless
photons. how did gravity play?

it produced matter/antimatter in almost equal amounts. your
understanding of this subject is so bad its painful.

how do you like that dick?

well how do you like it?

Nick wrote:
nothing

well dickwad. i am going to follow whereever your asslike posts appear.
you are nothing but vapourus questions. do you even know the answer to
what time it is?

go to school, graduate, get a job, get laid, get a life then try to
talk to the big boys here dickwad.