Rank: Newbie
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/26/2008
Posts: 1
Points: 3
Location: arizona
|
I think you might want to revisit some of the concepts expressed here. A basic tenet of your programmed reality concept is the expansion of the Universe as a result from the Big Bang.
The Big Bang assumes that all mass was condensed into an infinitessimally small singularity. If this were so, it would fit the definition of a black hole. A Universal sized black hole. What this means is that for matter or energy to escape from the event horizon of the Big Bang singularity, it would need to have exceeded C to have done so.
Which property of accepted physics do you wish to relinquish? General relativity or Big Bang inflationary model? Both are basic tenets of your ideas expressed here. The rules say that C cannot be exceeded, if it can be then General Relativity completely fails. If General Relativity is accurate, then the Big Bang could not possibly have happened.
I do not disagree with the concept of us being in a sort of virtual reality, however. A very strong concept in itself.
Back to the books for you though. I'm sorry.
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/19/2008
Posts: 981
Points: 2,955
|
Greetings, Kevin, and welcome to the forum. Glad to have your perspective.
Actually, programmed reality doesn't assume the Big Bang at all. The Big Bang could simply be an event written into our cosmic history via the known laws of physics and observational experiments. I do think that the finely tuned nature of the universe, one parameter of which has to do with the expansion rate in the early (inflationary) period, coupled with Occam's Razor, is good evidence for a universe with a designer, although not necessarily programmed.
You are right that the supraluminal speed of light is part of the current standard model of the big bang and seems to violate relativity. Without getting into it too much here, not all physicists agree that there is a violation.
More to the point, however, I have no problem relinquishing any given property of currently accepted physics. We threw out the part of Newtonian physics that had to do with near light speeds a hundred years ago. A short time later, we threw out the part of Newtonian physics that had to do with the very small scales. We have thrown out the "accepted" view of the fundamental building blocks of matter several times over the past few hundred years. And we have thrown out the "accepted" view of the origins of the universe several times as well. I have no doubt that we will relinquish other properties of physics at various points in our future. :)
|
