A second issue is in Time 0.0001 seconds the observable universe is only a 0.0001 light seconds radius which limits how much mass could form a black hole.
> If an object would react to mass outside it’s light cone.
That mass was not outside its light cone in the past. (This is one of the main points given in favor of inflation models: that they solve the "horizon problem" because the inflationary expansion means that mass over a region much wider than our observable universe was within our past light cone at the end of inflation.)
Ahh, ok, based on context I assumed you would understand that as an actual light second in spacetime as in actual distance traveled. 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.
It’s a meaningful difference, but still avoids the black hole problem.
PS: The math really does not say anything about t=0, after ~t=10^-30 to t=1 seconds you don’t get black holes.
> I assumed you would understand that as an actual light second in spacetime as in actual distance traveled
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.
