Aspiring scientists, give your thoughts.?

- In logic, an argument is a set of one or more meaningful


declarative sentences (or "propositions") known as the


premises along with another meaningful declarative


sentence (or "proposition") known as the conclusion.


A deductive argument asserts that the truth of the conclusion


is a logical consequence of the premises; an inductive


argument asserts that the truth of the conclusion is


supported by the premises. Deductive arguments are valid


or invalid, and sound or not sound. An argument is valid


if and only if the truth of the conclusion is a logical


consequence of the premises and (consequently) its


corresponding conditional is a necessary truth. A sound


argument is a valid argument with true premises.








- Several general properties of physical laws have been identified


(see Davies (1992) and Feynman (1965) as noted, although each


of the characterizations are not necessarily original to them).


Physical laws are:





* True, at least within their regime of validity. By


definition, there have never been repeatable contradicting


observations.


* Universal. They appear to apply everywhere in the universe.


(Davies, 1992:82)


* Simple. They are typically expressed in terms of a single


mathematical equation. (Davies)


* Absolute. Nothing in the universe appears to affect them.


(Davies, 1992:82)


* Stable. Unchanged since first discovered (although they may


have been shown to be approximations of more accurate


laws鈥攕ee "Laws as approximations" below),


* Omnipotent. Everything in the universe apparently must comply


with them (according to observations). (Davies, 1992:83)


* Generally conservative of quantity. (Feynman, 1965:59)


* Often expressions of existing homogeneities (symmetries) of


space and time. (Feynman)


* Typically theoretically reversible in time (if non-quantum),


although time itself is irreversible. (Feynman)








- Causality is the relationship between an event (the cause)


and a second event (the effect), where the second event


is understood as a consequence of the first.People believe


causality to be a physical/scientific law








- Science is based on causality; Using the scientific method,


scientists set up experiments to determine causality in the


physical world. Imbeded within the scientific method and


experiments is a hypothesis or several hypotheses about causal


relationships. The scientific method is used to test the


hypotheses.








- The big bang theory was derived based on the implications of


causality.








- The big bang theory states at the beginning there was one thing,


an infinite (not finite) singularity.








- Scientist base there explanation of the big bang theory on the


singularity having infinite (or endless / non-finite) density/energy.


It is as reasonable to say this singularity was infinite in


every way, however because scientists are only able to study


that which can be measured (not in this case though, strange a


postulation on the non measurable), and matter / energy are


all scientists can measure the singularity in its most basic


form had to be measurable (ergo infinite density = mass/volume


and infinite energy) they threw a definition at the makeup


of this singularity. However, very simply, there is no rational


scientific or reasonable way to explain the existence of this


singularity based on how reason / logic / science are defined.








--------------------------------------鈥?br>







- Something exists outside the influence of cause and effect.








- Cause and effect is not a law.








--------------------------------------鈥?br>




Now that I have concluded this argument. If the above


conclusions are true, what are the implications?


Thanks for your time!





The definitions above are from wikipedia / merriam-webster|||"People believe causality to be a physical/scientific law"

Those people are wrong...



"The big bang theory was derived based on the implications of causality.:

Wrong... The big bang theory was derived based on the implications of evidence...



Extrapolation of the expansion of the Universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past. This implication does not mean that such a state actually happened...



Extrapolation of the change in the volume of a gas as it is cooled implies that the gas will have ZERO volume at absolute zero temperature...



Approaching this singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity...



We cannot extrapolate towards the singularity earlier than the Planck epoch....



The real answer to your question is - We do not know what happened at the beginning...