> Even for moving mass the density was enough to make a black hole. You are making an assumption here that is debatable. We understand very little of the physi

> Even for moving mass the density was enough to make a black hole. You are making an assumption here that is debatable. We understand very little of the physics close to the Big Bang. Those scales in energy, time and space are so extreme that quantum effects are expected to be dominant. However, all theory about black holes uses general relativity, which does not account for such scales. It is still an open problem to unite quantum physics and general relativity (i.e. this is basically what string theory hopes to achieve). > And I'm sorry, but this explains NOTHING. I think the point is that the assumption made to derive the theory about black holes from general relativity are just not met. The Schwarzschild radius is not defined for non-static spacetime, so it does not apply here. It is true that it explains nothing, but it also means that you cannot use the Schwarzschild radius in your argumentation.