Blob wrote;
[If we were to assume that a `matter-creating post-BH object` did exist, why would it not spew just out 10 dimensional space-time like our big bang?]

[`matter-creating post-BH object`]..........I hope this means before the BH object...the Friedmann naked singularity, but not 'spewing' what will eventually become the whole universe, but 'spewing' what eventually will become a galaxy!

From RussT's paper;
[ The after glows from 10, 20, and 30, second duration GRB’s will eventually cool off enough to start nucleosynthesis (just like how the BB says it happened in the Early universe, only one galaxy at a time), ]

Blob wrote;
[why would it not spew just out 10 dimensional space-time like our big bang?]

Very simply, because the Friedmann Naked Singularity did not make our universe.

akirabakabaka
Senior Member wrote;
[When a BH forms it recreates the conditions of the BB on a smaller scale (not quite infinite heat, but off the charts asymptotically, beyond the boundaries of GR), the fallout being identical to the accepted post-BB evolution, only creating a single galaxy rather than an entire universe.]

This is exactly correct!!! The GRB singularity forms the black hole and in the process...see below for more

akirabakabaka wrote;
[The role of the singularity here is really just a placeholder for our lack of understanding of how we get from BH back to a matter-creating mini-BB. (to fill this dreaded theoretical void, I would suggest that sub-Planck length physics are at work and wave my hands at superstrings)]

[how we get from BH back to a matter-creating mini-BB.] This, I believe, is one of the misconceptions.

When the GRB Singularity explodes 'into' our universe, the Gamma Rays, Gamma Radiation, Energy, is what is 'spewed'. The duration of this explosion determines, how much Gamma Radiation is 'spewed', (the size of the galaxy) and once it cools enough to start forming Hydrogen, Helium, and Lithium, and is gathered back together enough by the "Black Hole" created by the GRB explosion (size, also determined by duration), then it can begin the star making process for that galaxy.

akirabakabaka wrote;
[I think that is what he claims, in the same way that BB models propose all baryonic matter was created from the BB singularity.]

This also correct.

[Quote:
Originally Posted by Tensor
It has to do with the paths and directions of world lines. In the BB singularity, all the world lines appear to start at the singularity. In a BH singularity, all the world lines appear to end. I put appear there simply becuase we don't know what happens at the singularity.

Good explanation. ]
[In the BB singularity, all the world lines appear to start at the singularity.]

This is simply talking about the Friedmann/GRB naked singularity. Did it make the Universe or does it make a Galaxy???

[In a BH singularity, all the world lines appear to end.]........ And that is because it is "in" the Black Hole. And I believe that Steven Hawking is right, that once in the Black Hole, cosmic censorship does apply and the singularity can never be 'naked'...can never be seen!

Quote:
Originally Posted by RussT
In all the posts, no one really got to the point of my challenge of the Big Bang. For years it was assumed that the math proved certain things. The math never proved anything about the "INFINITY" that is reached to create the singularity. The "assumption" that the "total density of the universe" was locked up in the singularity, is NOT MATH!

akirabakabaka wrote;
[Also not really fair. The (GR and particle) math describe a general BB evolution to some degree of accuracy compared to observation, which is what makes the BB so popular (along with certain 'common sense' aspects of the 'beginning of time').]

akirabakabaka...In the first part of my paper I stated that all the math to get to the singularity was exactly correct. The math shows that an 'infinity' is reached to get there. What is the infinity that is reached to cause the singularity? Since the math breaks down at the singularity...there is no way to prove, by math, what the infinity is. So, what I am simply saying is...that it has always been "assumed"...that the infinity was "infinite density"...why, because it has always been thought that the 'whole universe' was locked up in the singularity.

It might help, if the begining part of the paper was re-read with this in mind.

There is a lot more I could cover here from the above posts, but I don't want to make this post too long

Thanks akirabakabaka

RussT

S=G