A Big Bang Misconception

No, he's saying that the question makes no sense. There is no such notion as "north" at the North Pole in the same way that there is no "before" at the singularity.In the BB model, there was never a moment of "nothing". The universe did not come into being; there was no beginning to the "universe". There is simply a point in the universe where t=0, and all directions from t=0 lead to t>0.The BB is not about origins, it is about what the universe looks like around t=0. If God created the universe, then the BB is no more the point of creation than tomorrow lunch time in Trafalgar Square. He brought the whole universe into being, which includes all time. Which also makes the use of the past tense "created" rather misleading...

The scientific community has never even heard of him. It's only those scientists who are daft enough to hang out at sites like this that know of his existence. I'm a scientist AND a Christian (who attends a church which is 99.8% creationist with a congregation of 500) and I had never heard of him before I came to EvC... though perhaps that says more about me than him...

Very briefly visiting... hopefully back properly soon. Sometimes, not always. To get a black hole you need to have sufficient matter concentrated within a volume, surrounded by space of much lower density, usually vacuum. Even then, there are several requirements. This is not the situation with the early universe. There you have uniform density of matter throughout space. These two situations give rise to wholly different space-time solutions.As Chirop very rightly said in answer to the original question (what force was powerful to overtake all that gravity in order to get the universe to spread out?) it's just General Relativity. GR is non-linear. That means that you cannot extrapolate one situation and hope to get anything resembling some other situation. That's what makes exploring GR so exciting... you never know what you are going to find.Also, be careful of thinking too three-dimensionally. GR is a 4d theory and only really makes sense when viewed in 4d, especially the dynamics of the big bang/early universe. Our everyday idea of gravitation as gravity - the force between massive objects - does not extrapolate well up to the universe as a whole. No, not at all. Inflation is merely there as a suggested way of explaining some residual oddities. The Big Bang is entirely GR where-as inflation is GR+QFT, venturing into semi-classical gravity. Just as an aside, you don't need solid matter to have angular momentum. Space-time itself can posses ang mom. The Kerr solution is an entire universe that spins, but has no mass. Very non-Machian.Will keep an eye out for any replies but rapid responses can't be promised... sorry.

Yes. We usually regard the singularity of the Kerr solution (it's a black hole) as the source of the ang mom. But the singularity itself is very weird: it's in the shape of a ring. However, if you pass through the ring, you end up somwhere different than if you just go round the outside! You have to go round twice to get back to where you started from Ahh, yes, I see now.

OT here. If you or someone wants to start a thread on a black hole q&a then I probably won't be able to resist putting some time in.But for now: yes it is related but not because of the ring nature of the singularity, but becasue of the dual "charges" of the black hole: "mass" and ang. mom. - yes, I know I said the Kerr solution has zero mass, but this is a different "mass"