Black Holes A Opposed To The Big Bang

Since he hasn't put forward an alternative idea, the agenda was certainly implied in the question...reading between the lines, a religious agenda.

'That is totally untrue. It has been answered and a reputable scientific link also given.

Like I said, it has been asnwered.

There are some bright sparks about though, and people need to learn from them.....many learned facts and logical assumptions for example in the cosmology discipline.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Now ISDAMan, you have been given plenty of data and information re why the BB and a BH are two different beasts.
You have also been given evidence and reasons as to why the BB is the logically accepted mainstream theory on the evolution of the Universe.
And you have had it mentioned about the scientific method and what a scientific theory really is.
Sure we have the odd person on occasions that come here and obviously do not support the BB...but they are also not able to refute the data supporting the BB and probably like yourself, have an agenda.
I'll go as far as to say even a future QGT will not invalidate the BB...It will simply extend the parameters of its applicability. Much as GR does not invalidate Newtonian mechanics...just extends the parameters with even higher precision results.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

paddoboy, "Anyone putting forth an idea has an agenda", those are the words I said. "anyone asking a question must have an agenda", that's your misquote. If you refer to what I said, you might understand things differently. Furthermore, not a single person here has answered how that compressed universe could not have been a black hole. There have been plenty of insults toward me, assumptions about my intent, and snide remarks. Answers, those are yet to come forth. I'm not surprised but saddened that after all the years, the bullies, basking in the relative safety of their flat screen glows, are alive and well on this site.

So I have to get good enough to ask a question? Well then, in my current state, my question should be easy to answer. Regarding all the energy in a system, you can pick any three points. If point A is in equilibrium with point B and point C, points B and C must be in equilibrium with one another. The beautiful thing about an infinity compressed universe is that all the energy would be homogenized by the infinite compression in order for it to be infinity compressed at all. In that system, not only will any A, B, and C be subject to the zeroth law, because of the homogenization but, all points throughout the system will be in equilibrium. So, the zeroth law of thermodynamics would apply just as readily to that pre big bang energetic system as it would to any other.

My whole question is, how can they possibly not be the same outcome? One is in mini form. The other is in totality form. General relativity has no specific requirement for a star going supernova to be the reason a black hole is produced. All that is required is that something sufficiently compresses the matter. There is also no limitation as to how much matter can become a black hole. Therefore, there's nothing precluding the entire universe from having been a black hole under general relativity. This is especially true if there is nothing precluding the entire universe from having infinity compressed. If any of you have a reason why it couldn't, have become a black hole please, tell me. That's what I'm asking.

I'm not affirming or denying the expansion of the universe. I have continually asked, prior to the big bang, how could all that infinity compressed matter not be a black hole comprised of all the matter and space time that existed?

I'm looking for cogent discourse on subjects. Discovering facts that prove me wrong is more than agreeable to me. I would rather be becoming right and proven wrong than to be comfortably wrong surrounded by people who agree with me. Hence, just one of the places I have come to is a forum where I know that the environment is going to be a bit juvenile and hostile but, there will also be some strong thinkers. As far as education goes, I don't just stick to on campus.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not my misquote, your confusion. You have yet to put forward any idea. You asked a question, that question obviously has an agenda and that stands out like dog balls.
If you don't believe me here....

You need to be careful of who you are taking notice of.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

That's what an agenda does for you. It blinds you to truth, fact, and to deny what is even in front of your eyes.
In essence, you have been given answers, correct answers as to why the BB was not a BH...first and foremost being at that early time, we did not have gravity operating as gravity and so wanting to collapse that which wanted to expand.
Among other reasons you remain blinded to..shame!

That's a load of ridiculous word salad.
Again, the BB was what created spacetime....There was nothing before.
A BH forms in spacetime.
brucep appears to have hit the nail on the head in calling you a troll. Like other religious trolls you ignore all the evidence invalidating your idea...Ooops, sorry your question...You have yet to put forward any alternative idea or any alternative evidence to support it.

No, a BH forms in spacetime: The BB was all of spacetime. Are you being purposely obtuse?

Rubbish...Both GR and Newtonian mechanics tells us that once an object reaches a certain density where the escape velocity equals "c" [or the Schwarzchild radius] then a BH is the only outcome.

Yes there is as you have been told.

Because a BH forms in spacetime...The BB was an evolution of spacetime....there was no gravity as such that is the mechanism of BHs to recollapse the Universe/spacetime....the vacuum energy of the spacetime that was the instigator and reason for expansion, and that is evident today with the observation of acceleration.

You have been given answers.

No, you are not looking for discourse. You have been given many answers, reasons, some assumptions and some facts. Your agenda prevents you from seeing that.
There is also plenty on the Internet that will explain.

 

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/universe.html

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae649.cfm

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/according-to-the-big-bang/


http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2a7cam/how_did_the_big_bang_not_form_a_super_massive/


https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/faq.htm

 

Now again ISDAMan, I have given you the evidence supporting the BB.
You have yet to refute any of it.
I have given you three reasons why the BB cannot possibly be a BH and that refutes your own misconception.
You are unable to refute any of it.
Why do you believe that mainstream science accepts the BB as the logical theory of Universal evolution?
What is your alternative?
God?, some magic pixie in the sky? or do you have an alternative scientific explanation?

 

paddoboy,

I always loved how these things would descend in to rabbit trails of accusations, insults, and quote wars.

If gravity din't act like gravity back then, why... what evidence do we have of this?

If there's a limit, what is the limit of how much matter can become a black hole?

How could matter's compression possibly eliminate space time... what evidence do we have of this? To claim that the universe's expansion increases space time is understandably logical. To claim that the universe was compressed to a single point without there also being a single point of space time is illogical.

 

I'll look over your latest links. Since I might not be as smart as you and its going to take me time to run this through my big agenda machine, it might take me a while to read all those words on my screen. I will get back to you though. In the meantime, however, you might want to consider that you are the one with an agenda. You seem to be quite violently holding on to your position. Are you scared?

 

This is a science forum.
When trolls with obvious agendas and known outcomes post, they inevitable invoke insults against silly agenda driven accusations. Not sure about your quotes?? I have given reputable links explaining accepted cosmology. Perhaps it isn't what you wanted to hear?

It is logically assumed that between t=0 and t+10-43sec, when our models break down, that extrapolating backwards, temperatures were such that matter could not exist, and the four know forces were combined into one superforce.
Couple that assumption with the observed expansion, and the BB reigns as the logical likely outcome.

Where did I say there was a limit to how big a BH can be?
Theoretically a BH is as big as all the matter/energy that passes beyond the EH.
Of course you do realize though that a BH is not any all purpose vacuum cleaner?

?????

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Who said that? Matter's compression warps spacetime then gravity does the rest.

The expansion of the Universe is the expansion of spacetime.

???

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Who said that?
The Universe is spacetime!
The observed expansion of the Universe/spacetime, invokes the logic that in the past it was smaller.
And of course something I have yet to mention, the laws of physics, GR, the BB, and our particle zoo theory of matter, all fit together like a hand in a glove, each supporting the other.
One of the beauties of present day cosmology and the advancements it has undertaken.

 

No, I don't have an agenda, other than wanting to know, and insisting having evidence supporting scientific theories and I detest religious and other trolls that do come here with an agenda for one purpose.
The question more to the point is probably, are you scared?
I mean science and cosmology is pushing back the need for any deity into complete oblivion. Is this what is bugging you? Is this what is promoting such dishonest dialogue and ignoring of real scientific evidence? Is this what is forcing you to be so obtuse in some of your replies in post 27?

 

No, ISDAMan, that is not what I am trying to say.
What I am trying to say is that to be able to competently refute any Theory - you must first fully understand the Theory.
Your "question" seems to indicate that, for whatever reason, you fail to understand that the Big Bang Theory has at it's basis, the "assumption" that whatever was or was not in existence immediately prior to the "Event" was and is NOT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DEFINE, period.
Therefore, any "question" pertaining to what was Prior to the Big Bang...is not answerable by the Big Bang Theory.

I am sorry if you got the impression that I was "trolling" you , by somehow DEMANDING that you "get good enough to ask a question".
That was not, and still is not my intention.

I cannot argue with anything that you stated above, ISDAMan. And you posit some excellent queries...but like I said previously, you most likely will not find the answers on this Forum.
You seem to be quite aware of what you will find on this Forum....so....

BTW, you should not state anything like : "I may not be as smart as you."!!
From what I have read, in this Thread - your Posts are as "smart", if not smarter than, the overwhelming majority.
But, hey ISDAMan. that is just me...so...

 

According to the BB there was nothing before it, since time evolved at the BB, along with space.
Anything esle is speculative...

That's obviously incorrect. We have many experts on this forum, including cosmology. And the questioner in this instant has been answered correctly.
Of course any science forum is not the be all and end all of knowledge.
In fact being of the open nature that it is, we attract many trolls, religious, anti mainstream, and just plain nutty ones.
That is obvious in the alternative hypothesis pushers we have from time to time, all claiming to invalidate 20th/21st century cosmology, but all generally without exception, full of hot air. The four TOEs from four different delusionary alternative pushers 100% support that view.

 

Please....do not quote my Posts...PLEASE?

Maybe, put me on IGNORE...maybe, PLEASE?

 

As I have said continually ISDAMan, if any one rejects the BB then they need to offer an alternative model with evidence.
You are not the first to try and invalidate it here, and you won't be the last.
All have failed dismally by the way.
Obviously of course, since if anyone at all, did have anything really invalidating the BB, or evidence to the contrary, they would not be on this or any other science forum. They would be writing up a scientific paper, undergoing appropriate peer review, and generally banging on the doors of Academia.
As I said, the nature of this forum and others, being open, attract many and all kinds.

Let me remind you though, that with this thread, you are in the science section.
We have other sections, for alternative hypothesis, religious discussions and ghosts, goblins and other pseudo stuff.
You will also need to run the gauntlet and face the cynics in those, if they rail against science, just as it should be, but at least you will be in the right sections.
Just a friendly reminder.

 

21/07/06/02...edit...!!??

 

ISDAMan:
If we would like to speculate beyond the BB, it could theoretically be said that the BB maybe the arse end of a BH....a White Hole in other words, or the time reverse of a BH. [remember we are speculating]
The BH could be part of another Universe, that creates an out pouring of space and time and in what we view then as our Universe.
Railing against that though is the fact that we have never seen a WH, and some seem to think that they contravene the second law of thermodynamics.
But again, we are speculating and it is beyond the parameters of what the BB entails.

 

dunno if it has been mentioned but for a black hole to exist there must be space for it to exist in. a black hole refers to the event horizon. as there was no space at the time of the bb then there could be no black hole. a naked "singularity" now... But then we know these don't exist either.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The BB is simply a singularity. And a singularity means only one thing: The theory which predicts this singularity becomes wrong at least near the singularity.

So, we can talk about after some moments after the singularity, with matter densities where we can make some reasonable claims supported by some evidence. Everything else is speculation. In particular, your superforce (some GUT??) is speculation. (Even if, admittedly, a very popular one, if you mean some GUT).

Then, your difference makes not much sense. Singularity is in this case singularity. For someone inside a collapsing star, after it is too late to escape, all what he can reach in future would be of the same type, time reversed, to what we see in our past.

Last but not least, the cosmological constant plays a role only in the late universe, not in the early one. It has nothing to do with inflation. Of course, a large enough cosmological constant could have caused something similar to an inflation, except that such an inflation would not stop without changing the "constant".

 

No wrong. The BB certainly arose from a singularity, but the BB was the evolution of space and time in the first instant.

The Superforce is a theoretical scenario certainly, based on what we already know with regards to what we know about the forces and cosmology.
We actually are in the dark from the instant of the BB at t=0 to t+ 10-43 seconds, but we are allowed to make logical predictions at least back to t=0, based on what we know.

No, not at all. Once again the BB singularity was a singularity of spacetime and there was neither space nor time as we know them that existed prior to or at the BB.
While of course as we all know, a BH singularity certainly needs spacetime to form in.
Boris2 at post 37 put it quite succulinity.

Again what ever the vacuum energy density was, it was what caused the Universe/spacetime to expand and probably Inflation also.
Since the Universe/spacetime is now less dense then it was at that epoch, gravity's effects are less pronounced. and once again the vacuum energy density which we have termed DE, and may be the CC of Einstein fame, is acting now to accelerate the expansion.
This of course has been observationally verified by the data from WMAP.

 

It depends on what you name "big bang". If you mean only an extremely dense state of the universe - which, even at these "early" moment, was as infinite and flat as today - fine. If you mean the singularity, not at all.

You should not forget what is the major evidence for inflation: It is the fact that the visible fluctuations on the microwave background are of much larger size that they could be in the szenario without inflation.

The reasons for inflation are unknown. There are very popular theories related with various GUTs, but they are all speculations. All the evidence allows to prove is that there was an early period of inflation, that means, of an acceleration of the expansion. That means, there was some period with a''(tau) > 0, and this period was long enough that the expansion rate before inflation was much smaller than after inflation. Any empirical evidence that it was, before inflation, positive at all? There is none. Maybe it was negative, and the big bang was a bounce? Maybe. Nobody knows for sure, there is no evidence nor in favour of this, nor against.

If CC means Einstein's cosmological constant (and not some variant of it which is not constant), then it cannot play any role in the early universe, simply because its importance increases with the size of the universe in comparison with matter.

Then, the evidence for accelerating expansion today is much weaker than usually assumed. First, there is an effect proposed to be important by Wiltshire, that the increasing inhomogenity of matter distorts the measurements, which leads to an impression of acceleration in regions with a lot of matter. (Higher matter density -> greater time dilation in comparison with average time, so, greater expectation of the average expansion, starting with the moment where the inhomogenity becomes important.) The Wiltshire group claims that this is sufficient to explain all acceleration. Second, recently there is increasing doubt about the accuracy of SN1a as candles, because there seem to be two different types of them, and their probability depends on time.