Hello. This is my first post here. I have a question about the age of the universe that has been on my mind for the last few weeks. I have just read the posting guidelines and wish to state before I begin that I do not intend this as a challenge to mainstream theory but as an attempt to reconcile my thoughts with mainstream theory. I think I may be missing something here. The Big Bang theory has been widely described as "running the clock backwards" and coming to the conclusion the whole thing must have started from a singularity. If you run the clock backwards the universe is being drawn into a black hole, i.e., the singularity. Now a widely published description of falling into a black hole feet first describes a person as being torn apart by tidal forces as the gradient of the gravitational forces from his/her feet to his/her head becomes so great that eventually even the atoms are torn apart. This is the event as seen by an observer sufficiently removed from the black hole to not be drawn in themselves. However, for the person being drawn into the black hole the process would take forever. As the person approaches the event horizon time slows down due to relativistic effects and they approach the event asymptotically. They never reach the event horizon, although they do get torn apart. We as human beings living in the universe are not observing the event from outside. We are being drawn into the singularity if we run the clock backwards. So it seems to me that running the clock backwards and coming up with 13.7 billion years as the age of the universe fails to take this relativistic effect into account. The Big Bang must have occurred an eternity ago which is the same as saying that it never really happened. I have never seen this line of reasoning published anywhere. Is there a flaw in it? If so, what am I missing?