Black holes ruled out as universe’s missing dark matter

If you are talking about actual light, it is not correct to say that it travels, say, one light-second in spacetime. The arc length along a light ray's path in spacetime is zero, because it's a null worldline. The same goes for the boundaries of light cones, which are what I think you are actually trying to get at: light cone boundaries are null surfaces, so arc length in spacetime along them is zero.

However, I don't think what you actually meant by "one light-second" was "distance in spacetime along the boundary of the past light cone". See below.

> Not light second as a unit of distance in 3d space at t=0.001 seconds which is a rather meaningless number at that point.

No, it isn't. It's a perfectly meaningful number: a distance in the surface of constant comoving time labeled by the coordinate t=0.001 seconds (or whatever time you want to pick). And if you are trying to describe "the size of the observable universe", this kind of distance is indeed what you need to specify.

Your error, however, is to assume that at t=0.001 seconds, the observable universe was 0.001 light-seconds in size. It wasn't. Such a conclusion would only be valid in flat spacetime, but the spacetime that describes the universe is not flat. It is actually non-trivial to come up with a correct expression for the size of the observable universe as a function of comoving time (and the actual expression is model-dependent--for example, it depends on how long your model says the inflation epoch lasted).

> The math really does not say anything about t=0

I agree. I wasn't saying that it did. The inflationary epoch is not modeled as starting at t=0.

> after ~t=10^-30 to t=1 seconds you don’t get black holes.

Where are you getting these numbers from?

I have no doubt that something was observed, but what that was will take far more research and repeated events that can be backed up by other observational means before we have any real evidence before us.

The science is only settled for those who want certainty in their models and theories. For practical uses, one can believe that electrons exist and act in particular ways and we build "technology" based on those "beliefs". Yet, we still do not have any real handle on what these particular entities are.

I used to believe in "black holes" and other assorted entities. I had no problems with these things, until I started noticing the discrepancies. It made me take a longer look and I realised that we know far less than we think and we understand far less than we think we do.

I live country that experiences climate change, yet, what I find interesting is that if you have questions about whether or not it is anthropogenic, you are immediately classified as a denier. The same goes for many different areas in science. If you don't accept the dogma you have to be a "crank".

What science needs is a higher level of scepticism than what it currently has.

Too many of the "settled" things are not "settled" at all. We have barely scratched the surface of the universe around us and the major failing we have is this desire to be certain. There are huge amounts of experimental observations that are showing that we really have no clue and an enormous number of new models are being developed as the years go by.

In your eyes, that evidence may be "beyond a reasonable doubt", but from my perspective, that evidence barely scratches the surface of what we need.

Science is not about dogma, it is about investigating the universe about in a systematic way and looking at all sorts of models and theories that can provide a handle on understanding.

But none of those models or theories will ever be the "truth". They can be adequate for the purposes needed, but outside of those limited areas, other models will be required. These other models will give a better description and handle within their limits. For all the desire for a "theory of everything", it will not be achieved. There will always be anomalous observations.

Whether you agree or disagree, that is simply your choice and anything I say will be seen through your filters and biases. That is what happens to all of us.

You can believe that GR is the "bee's knees", I can believe differently. You can believe in little blue fairies living at the bottom of your garden, if you like. I put little blue fairies in the same basket as "black holes".

We have lots of very interesting observations of lots of very interesting things out there. I just have problems with the inconsistencies of the models used to describe these things.

It seems like you're just placing restrictions on the term "black hole" that no one else is.