Big Bang theory assumes an evolution of its physical laws through time. That is what I was referring to. For example, they believe that the forces were all one force and evolved into four distinct ones through time;
Scientists believe that the forces are still all the same, it is just that they respond differently at different energies. Immediately after the Big Bang the energies were such that all the forces acted the same. Then as the energies dropped, because the universe was expanding, they started dropping out, until now they all appear to be different. Orac could give a better explanation about that than I can.
If they induce something that seems incredulous, they should step back and question how they are interpreting their observations instead of assuming that their interpretations of their observations are infallible.
One of the things about scientists is that they don't just jump to conclusions and then assume that their conclusions are infallible. When somebody comes up with a new idea, such as the Big Bang, it goes through a long process of debate. The Big Bang Theory came out of Hubble's measurements of the speed of distant galaxies in the 1920s. The Steady State Universe was proposed by physicists in 1948 to counter the Big Bang Theory. And the Big Bang Theory was mostly accepted in the 1960s, but there were still people looking for other explanations of the observations. It wouldn't surprise me too much if there are still a few people (by which I mean real scientists, not crackpots) who are still looking for an alternate explanation. It is just that so far all the observations match the theory to a high degree of fidelity, so it is the generally accepted theory.
Bill Gll
