1 - Where did a singularity come from?
Problem, you can't rely on any matter or energy because they didn't exist yet.
Good question. No-one knows. Where did a supernatural god come from? "It just is that way." Is a valid answer to both questions.
2 - A singularity is a black hole? all the matter of the universe is compressed into a theorized pinhead that means the atoms can not move, therefor the matter is in a thermodynamic dead end. it can not change state.
Two problems:
1. The big bang doesn't have to start from a singularity. It can start from a small, dense hot object that isn't a black hole.
2. Atoms not moving is against the rules of quantum mechanics. Stephen Hawking showed that black holes are not a thermodynamic
dead end in the 80s (or 90s.) He showed that black holes have a temperature and, over massive time scales will radiate their mass
away as energy.
3- How long in time was the singularity stayed the way it was?
Probably some infinitesimally short time. (Like .000000000000000000000000000001 seconds. Give or take 10 to 20 zeros.)
AFAIK there's no way the big bang could have been a stable object that had any kind of lifespan. It could only go boom.
(Does time stop in a black hole?, I dont know.)
It does. As you get pulled close to and over the event horizon you accelerate to almost the speed of light. So, yes,
time dilates massively for you.
4 - What mystical force caused the explosion / expansion of the singularity?
As I said above, the BB doesn't have to start from a singularity. It can start from a small, dense ball-o-really hot stuff.
5 - I might be wrong on the name here but the hubble's constant of the expanding universe combiend with the gravity of the matter of the universe force would have to match to a accuracy ratio of 1 to 1 million million million in relation to each other otherwise the universe will
A - collpase on itself.
B - explode.
That's right. But, when you add dark energy to the picture, it looks like we live in an open universe where everything flies apart,
the universe cools to absolute zero and becomes silent, empty and boring.
6 - With the BB I read you only get hydrogen / heiliem atoms. This means you should get a steady cloud of gas expanding at 10^70 the speed of light
Yes, hydrogen and helium were created in the BB. The expanding gas at 10^70 part is complete nonsense. No physicist would ever
say that as we all know the maximum speed is c (the speed of light.)
As the universe expands, the gas cools. Over a billion years or so it collapsed into galaxies, stars, clusters, etc...
A - What causes the cloud to condense into galixies at the gas is uniformed.
As the gas cooled, it wasn't uniform. Small instabilities in density are magnified over time, creating what we have today.
B - Why wouldn't the gas collapse back to the sigularity?
This one I'm not so sure on. I think the expansion of the universe (Hubble constant) and the outward energy of the
explosion ensure the gas won't collapse back in on itself.
Do you want me to go on about how gas clouds can't form galaxies because they require a working super nova / sun to compact them enough for gravity to hold them?
You don't need a supernova to seed these things. As I said above, the gas wasn't uniform from the beginning. Those mass fluctuations
are enough to start the process.
BTW, look at a picture of the cosmic microwave background. The variations in color are the fluctuations I'm referring to.
Anyway, People have to use the BigBang theory because they have no other way to explain the universe and how they exist. And the other explanation they refuse to accept. So funding goes mainly/only? to such "research" hindering science other possibilities.
Research is based on theorizing, observation and proof. Roughly put, an idea is accepted if the experimental evidence confirms the idea
being proposed. The (inflationary) BB is the best explanation we have that matches our observable universe - now and in the past. It
rests on firm foundations: Isaac Newton's mechanics, electromagnetism, Einstein's relativity and quantum mechanics.
(WRT refusing to accept other theories: I believe in the process of science: Bring the idea forward. Propose experiments that can be
done to verify your idea. Experiments is key. That's what makes or breaks a theory.
Note that saying, "I believe strongly that..." is not an experiment.
BUT, do your homework first: Review the literature in the field(s) in question. See why other ideas failed and why. Learn from them.
If the idea has merit, scientists will consider it.)
Therefor when I stick my fork into the power socket and see sparks flying, that must be something to do with how the early big bang worked. (I am now moderated up). I hope this brief posting enlightens some people but I gotta work now. I do recommended for anyone to read a book "Dismantling the Big Bang". It does a much better job at ripping to pieces then what I can remember. Cheers
You didn't do a good job at all. You demonstrated that you have no real knowledge of how science is done on a day to day basis. You've also demonstrated you don't know any physics or astronomy. It seems your "education" comes from an anti-science book. You're parroting ideas from it with no real understanding of what you're saying.
Myrikhan
