Now..let's look at the big bang.

Assumptions - massive amount of mass that exploded outward and created everything.

Problems:

Speed of light. We have black holes which have MUCH (millions at least) less volume than this initial mass - and physics tell us that nothing travels faster than the speed of light. If so - how did it ever expand?

It's a simple problem with no answer - mass more infinite than a black hole that is "supposed" to expand - which, is, impossible according to theory. After all, there would be millions and billions times more mass here than ANY black hole.

So..what broke down? What didn't exist?

Gravity?
Speed of light exceeded (that can get you a ticket!)

Hmmmmm

---

With the black hole you have this situation: A stationary mass at a fixed point. This leads to a fixed radius, from which the calculated escape velocity happens to be so high that nothing can escape.

In the, "a few pico seconds after the big bang" situation, the mass itself is expanding, exploding. Pick any volumn and it may have more mass than the typical black hole today. This would at first seem to lead to your paradox. However, the mass and density of that volumn are rapidly decreasing.

---

www.onlinetasklist.com

---

www.onlinetasklist.com

It changes nothing. Especially when one considers the initial mass that there would be in the big bang. Also, for all practical purposes, it is stationary at first - which would basically say that at expansion, gravity, or the boundary of the speed of light did not exist.

---

> Now..let's look at the big bang.
>
> Assumptions

You just answered your own question. If the underlying subject is an assumption then isnt the paradox created by it also an assumption? As such if said paradox doesnt exist then it cant be solved. But if the assumptions are true and do in fact exist then your paradox cannot be solved by limiting yourself to modern physics. From what I've read for the Big Bang "to work" things were way to chaotic for the laws of physics to apply. Obviously something else was going on and until we can fancy a guess as to what that was and apply that knowledge there wont be a solution to your paradox. *whew*

Want some really heavy reading?
BEFORE THE BIG BANG — part 1
BEFORE THE BIG BANG — part 2

And that is just the cliff notes to this:
Inflation: An Open and Shut Case

> Also, for all practical purposes, it is stationary at first

At time=0 physics makes no prediction.

At time=0.000000001 we can predict quite well, that the universe was expanding (if memory serves) near the speed of light. The same calculations lead to the prediction of the microwave background radiation, which is measured to be the exact temperature that big bang (or inflation) theory predicts. Its temperature was predicted BEFORE the microwave background radiation was ever discovered.


> It changes nothing.

No? You just solved Einstein's space-time equations and came up with an answer that is different than what physicists has gotten for the last 60 years!? :-)


Anyway, there are much better 'paradox' to play with when you consider things like quantum mechanics and time travel. :-)

---

www.onlinetasklist.com

May I point out that the singularity do not appear as a good definition
of the big bang, according to recent physics. I have read that the big
bang did not occured at a one small define points, and then expanding
in "nothing" !

This representation of the big bang would suppose that there was two spaces.
One full of matter and light, that would progressivaly invade a second space,
empty and cold. In the big bang model there is only one space, uniformaly
filled with light and matter in expansion everywhere. All the points are
getting away uniformaly from each others. The deffinition of a extremely
dense point that would explodes in a flash of lights would imply that there
is a center in our universe, wich is not the case.

The big band, or the time in the universe history where the temperature
was at Plank limit, seemed to have occured everywhere and at the same time
in an already existing and expanding space. If there as been an "explosion"
we should look at it as an explosion that occured in each point of the space
that is "not sure" infinite.

---

<img src="http://boinc.mundayweb.com/one/stats.php?userID=2384&amp;trans=off"><img src="http://img98.exs.cx/img98/1999/hamradio.gif"><img src="http://img54.exs.cx/img54/3872/cqkey.gif">

This smashes the inverse black hole idea, which I happen to prefer over this:
PBS - NOVA - The Elegant Universe: Riddle of the Big Bang
QuickTime
RealMedia

Yes, but after the "Big Bang" was there an even bigger cigarette? ;o)

---

Stewie: So, is there any tread left on the tires? Or at this point would it be like throwing a hot dog down a hallway?

Fox Sunday (US) at 9PM ET/PT