Re: expansion of the universe (was Re: JOIN [sl4]: Hello, I'm Mercy.)

From: Leonardo Wild (
Date: Sat Apr 19 2003 - 06:56:19 MDT

Perry E. Metzger wrote:

>> "mike99": >>The currently favored explanation for this is Alan Guth's theory of cosmic
>>inflation, whereby space itself expanded very rapidly (i.e., faster than
>>light speed) in the first fraction of a second after the Big Bang.
>>Guth discusses his theory with cosmologist Lee Smolin at
> PEM: No, I know that part already. What I don't understand is why it isn't
> a violation of special or general relativity for that to happen -- so
> far as I knew your relative speed to another object in space could
> never exceed c. (Or perhaps it is okay because of physics I don't
> know. I was sort of reaching for more detail on this.)

The Laws of Nature are all habits. When the universe was "created" those
habits didn't exist yet, they were being created as well and then, after
time, they became Laws. This, in any case, is how most laws are made
(except in these days of upside down logic where laws are made by
lawyers who are paid to make laws because that's another way to make money).

The Theory of Morphic Resonance or Morphogenetic Fields seems to explain
this, though since it really goes against most of what is being believed
today, Sheldrake's theory is still looked upon as a "scientific heresy"
(read: non-accepted paradigm), especially since Rupert Sheldrake has
since then gone on to write about angels and intuition as scientifically
acceptable ... (?)

Not taking this into account, if you realize that we view the Laws of
Nature as something that always existed, we are automatically implying
that the universe was there as the background for those laws. But if it
was only just being formed, those laws could not have existed yet: they
were also being created. It is not theory that makes the universe, but
the other way round, and if our theories don't fit reality, then there
must be something wrong with reality ... ups, with our "perception" of

Reality is what is being reported to the system, and it is also only as
good as the sensory organs can perceive it (or the mind to understand
what is being perceived).


Leonardo Wild

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:42 MDT