For instance, why is it assumed to sensible to judge that the Universe has a fixed and estimated quantity of matter based on our sole observations from Earth? Is not what we are capable of witnessing limited by even the physical laws and conditions we certainly know? And if all matter can manifest itself instantaneously at a singularity, why is it not more reasonable to assume that matter could continuously form everywhere from nothing at all times?
The idea that matter is continuously forming from nothing is a key point of the Steady State Universe (SSU) which I mentioned in a reply on the Earth Expansion thread.
Look
here at Wiki for a discussion of the Steady State Universe.
As mentioned in the Wiki article the idea has been pretty much discredited, because the Big Bang Theory explains the observations so much better than the SSU. In fact the SSU proponents basically gave up the fight when the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) was discovered in the 1960s. The CMB had been postulated based on theoretical studies of the Big Bang and its discovery was a major impetus towards acceptance of the Big Bang.
As to assuming that physical laws are different in other parts of the universe, why should we? There have been no observations that are incompatible with the assumption that the physical laws we observe are not the same elsewhere, so there is no reason to assume that they are different.
Bill Gill
