not knowing something, not knowing how to exactly explain it (i'm not refering to you, i'm refering to every scientist) and say that it WAS and it IS - SIMPLY LIKE THAT, doesn't sounds like science.
And yet that is what science is based upon.
You have to define something arbitrarily before you can start to build a framework for your science.
What is a second? Nowadays it is defined as "the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom at rest in a temperature of 0K." That's pretty arbitrary.
Even before atomic clocks, it was still arbitrary: A second was defined as the duration of a single one-way swing of a one meter pendulum. Great. So what's a meter? Nowadays: "the distance traveled by light in absolute vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second."
Who picks these numbers? 9,192,631,770? 1/299,792,458? It's almost as though somebody had super-incredibly accurate measuring tools and used them to measure how long a second was and how long a meter was. Nope. They are both abstracts. Scientists took the estimates that existed before and replaced them with highly accurate numbers for the purpose of moving forward with more accurate language. A second could have just as easily been defined as 9,192,631,000 oscillations of that Cesium atom, in which case all calculations depending on that degree of accuracy would have just come up slightly different but with the same answers relative to everything else.
So why is a second that long, or a meter that length? "It is simply like that." And to say so isn't unscientific - it's a requirement for hanging the framework of science.
So what's outside the universe and what happened before the big bang? It's undefined. Why? It is simply like that. That's not unscientific - it's just realistic.
w
