The Big Bang time paradox

[KrazyHorse]

I think this website will really clear things up for you, diadem.

[Diadem]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Diadem, I suggest you compute the Schwarzschild radius for a Universe of critical density. Compare to the radius of the visible Universe.

You might be surprised at the result.

Come on, this is basic stuff.

The Schwarzschild radius of the uniform sphere of the critical density (of the universe) is equal to the radius of the universe. Give or take a few millionth of a percent (a bit more accurate even, iirc. But I don't know the numbers by heart, I must admit).

That's obvious. If the universe is denser as the critical density it will collapse. So that means it has to be at most as big as its Schwarzschild radius. After all that's what the Schwartzschild radius is: The radius at which, if a mass is compressed to within that radius, that mass will continue to collapse into a singularity no matter what.

And we already know that the density of our Universe is equal to the critical density give or take a few millionth of a percent. Heck, is that fact not the very reason (or one of them, anyway) for inventing inflation theory in the first place?

None of this, however, has got anything to do with the topic at hand. A mass compressed smaller than its Schwartzschild radius is not a singularity. It is just doomed to become one.

[Diadem]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Honey, if you're going to storm out of an argument and claim that it's useless to continue the discussion then it's probably a good idea to stay gone.

I see your knowledge of English is even worse than your knowledge of physics. I don't know where you got the idea that I 'stormed out' from, but it's rather deluded. I was just playing a rather long multiplayer game of civ4

Coming back means that you continued to read the thread. Which means that you give a **** what other people think. It's not smart to show that kind of weakness.

Oh yes, I forgot. We are not having a enjoyable internet debate, we are fighting a war. A war in which being honest is equal to showing weakness, and throwing around personal insults equals 'intellectual honesty'.

Dude, did anyone ever tell you that you are insane?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Diadem


Come on, this is basic stuff.

The Schwarzschild radius of the uniform sphere of the critical density (of the universe) is equal to the radius of the universe. Give or take a few millionth of a percent (a bit more accurate even, iirc. But I don't know the numbers by heart, I must admit).

Now, what does that mean for the location of the coordinate singularity assuming a finite extent of the Universe?

[KrazyHorse]

In other words, trace back any timelike trajectory to any point at which the Universe has finite extent.

Is the proper time for this trajectory finite and well-defined? What does that mean?

[Diadem]

What does that mean? Well... Ehm... Nothing! It's irrelevant for the matter at hand.

You have proven you can use a lot of expansive sounding terminology. Well done. We are all very proud of you. Do you want a lollipop?

You have, however still proven exactly nothing. Still given exactly zero arguments. Well, zero real arguments. I've seen a lot of personal attacks, trolls, and lame attempts to get me to ignore you. But those don't really count as arguments, now do they?

[KrazyHorse]

Are you just being silly here?

Our coordinate system does not undergo any catastrophes for as far back as we can project. Thus the preinflationary Universe of finite extent is not a singularity in any proper sense of the word.

[Diadem]

Indeed. General Relativity is perfectly able to describe what happened in the pre-inflationary universe.

Are you aware that you are contradicting yourself? First you state we can not describe what happens before inflation. Now you are saying we can.

No wait, you are saying that there's no singularity as far as we can project back. Well that's a tautology. Because by definition can not make projections about what happens inside a singularity. "We can calculate everything we can calculate". Well doh...

Either way, you are not making sense.

[KrazyHorse]

If you can maintain a consistent set of coordinates for a given range then you are not required to "stop time" at any point in that range.

Running time backwards the Universe collapsed to an actual point (rather than simply being very small) then you would be required to do something like that. Your coordinate system would have collapsed along with the Universe. Time would be required to have a starting point.

Have I plodded slowly enough for you now?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Diadem
Indeed. General Relativity is perfectly able to describe what happened in the pre-inflationary universe

I'm not claiming that, son.

Time might have had a beginning. It's one of the possibilities.

IT IS NOT A REQUIREMENT. OUR UNDERSTANDING STOPS SHORT OF THE POINT WHERE OUR BACKWARDS PROJECTIONS WOULD FORCE IT. THAT IS MY ONLY POINT. THERE IS NO REQUISITE SINGULARITY AS THERE WAS PRIOR TO THE INFLATION HYPOTHESIS.

[KrazyHorse]

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

I like explaining math. to people who I feel are genuinely interested

I'm honestly much nicer than I let on a lot of the time. But it's the OT. I don't come here to be nice to you guys. I come here to engage in battle. Anybody who gets hurt at something they read here needs to take a step back. It's a free-for-all, and that's what I like about it. Sauve qui peut.

I would never get very far with his attitude.

Check out what happens when you ask a question nicely instead of assuming that you understand something and trying to point out a problem with it. Hell, half of cohomology theory doesn't make any sense to me but I don't start threads arguing that there are philosophical problems with it. I just assume that I don't understand it well enough.

Now he may argue that he doesn't care about you guys, but then why does he even post here? The truth is, he secretly loves all of you and this is his way of expressing it, so you should all give him some slack!!

I'm a pussycat. I admit it.

And you have to admit that the basketball picture was funny.

I know that you're not as bad in real life.
You would probably get beaten often if you were.
And yes the basketball picture made me laugh
But so what the rebuttal about how it was a poorly chose one...

[KrazyHorse]

You would probably get beaten often if you were.

Most of the people I deal with on a daily basis wouldn't have a chance against me. I'm in a physics department, remember?

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I think this website will really clear things up for you, diadem.

Arg!
I had avoided all your previous such traps, but you got me this time.
Worse is I even checked the link at same time but my finger was too fast and clicked anyway.

[KrazyHorse]