Re: In the Beginning
- From: "Henry Haapalainen" <kirppu@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 01:21:25 +0300
"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts@xxxxxxxxxx> kirjoitti viestissä
news:dj16lk$6jc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Jack wrote:
> > So does this mean that the expansion velocity was above light speed?
>
> No.
>
>
> > Because if the expansion velocity was at or below light speed and the
> > density was high enough to be a black hole, then I can't really accept
the
> > answer that GR doesn't use the black hole mathematics to describe the
big
> > bang.
>
> It doesn't matter what you accept, the math is clear: the big bang is
> not a black hole.
>
> The reason for this is that GR is a theory expressed as a differential
> equation, and the solutions to that equation depend not only on the
> fields (including energy and momentum densities, etc.) but also on
> boundary conditions. For a singularity like the big bang there is no
> boundary, and one must specify the fields in a self-consistent way on a
> suitable Cauchy surface. If you use a surface "near" the big bang
> singularity, you find that the boundary conditions are not at all like
> those of a black hole; neither are the solutions.
>
> IOW: the "big bang" is a feature of the FRW class of manifolds in GR
> used as the basis of cosmological models. None of them is a black hole.
> <shrug>
>
>
> Tom Roberts tjroberts@xxxxxxxxxx
Explanations concerning big bang are not science. Not at least If we want
science to obey some rules and logic.
Henry Haapalainen
.
- References:
- Re: In the Beginning
- From: Jack
- Re: In the Beginning
- Prev by Date: Re: johnreed take 19
- Next by Date: Re: MMX Expected Shft.
- Previous by thread: Re: In the Beginning
- Next by thread: Re: In the Beginning
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|