An object containing the mass of the entire universe would have

>>9084714
K. Not that you give a shit, but that isn't a claim that the Big Bang theory leads to. The point of the concept is to describe how space used to be tiny at one point and then got bigger. There was no explosion that had a point of origin.

>>9084714
According to Wikipedia (fuck, got it in twice today) It was moving faster than light for its first few itty-bitty seconds. Hey, don't shoot the messenger.

Yep, uh huh. Anyways how does this effect my landscaping business?

>>9084714
You did it. You discovered a fatal flaw in the BBT that no physicist ever thought of.

>>9085642
Maybe space was, but not the matter inside it.

>>9085935
But with the energy density it had why was it doing that instead of collapsing on itself?

>>9086672
>sun in sky
>sun used 2 b gas
>gas not on fire
>gas gather @ point
>gas form sun
>sun on fire
>y sun on fire if gas not on fire???????????????
>checkm8 atheists!!!!!!

>>9086675
From stars we know gravity gives things the energy they need for fusion but from black holes we know gravity doesn't give things the energy they need to escape black holes.
Black holes do not spit out superluminal blobs of spacetime.

>>9086681
I hate the term black holes.
Because it covers the entire spectrum of hyper-dense matters as if they're all the same, and the commonality of the term suggests that there's nothing more to it.
The truth of the matter is that there isn't much evidence one way or the other on whether black holes can (or cannot) reach their own critical values for their own versions of fusion - none evaluated or observed experimentally in any case.