So you're not able to cite even a single scientist who has proposed that the laws of nature are eternal?
Obviously you are not able to deduce that proposition from any fact.
And obviously the eternalness of the our universe cannot be deduced from any fact.
You missed the biggest point there is no way possible to falsify a hypothesis conclusively one way or another.
. . . but nonetheless:
From: Endless Universe - Ask the Authors
Endless Universe
The Cyclic Theory agrees that there was some violent event 14 billion years ago – we still call it a "big bang" – but this was not the beginning of space and time. The key events causing the creation of matter, radiation, galaxies and stars occurred billions of years before the bang. Furthermore, there was not just one bang. The evolution of the universe is cyclic with big bangs occurring once every trillion or so, each one accompanied by the creation of new matter and radiation that forms new galaxies, stars, planets, and presumably life. Ours is only the most recent cycle.
There are several reasons why everyone should care. First, we are all curious about where the universe came from and where it is headed. Our book shows that there is an exciting and radical alternative worth considering that changes our conception of where we stand in the history of the cosmos.
Second, the answer will determine whether our universe is comprehensible or not. In both theories, the part of the universe we observe is tiny patch of a much larger, perhaps infinite space. In the conventional Big Bang theory, different parts of the universe have widely different physical properties and, some theorists believe, different laws. According to this idea, the properties of the region of the universe we observe are highly atypical of the universe on average and are set by random chance. Hence, our ability to understand the universe as a whole is limited by the fact that we can only see a small part of it.
In the Cyclic Theory, the universe is the same almost everywhere, so the laws and properties we see are typical of the whole. Hence, the Cyclic Theory restores the hope that the universe is simple and comprehensible to us even though we are only able to observe it from a limited vantage point.
How can you test the “Cyclic Theory”?
Answer:
There are several ways. For example, the Cyclic Theory leaves a distinctive pattern of gravitational waves that is very different from the one expected in the Big Bang Theory, as described in Chapter 9 of our book. A number of experimental groups throughout the world are now starting to search for these waves using detectors on satellites, high altitude balloons and on mountaintop observatories, and may prove or disprove our theory within the next few years.
Why write this book now before the theory has been tested?
Answer:
Most science books are written after ideas have been around for many years and already well established. We thought it would be interesting to write about a radically new scientific idea with far-reaching implications at a time when it is first emerging and before it is proven. This provides to capture science as it is happening through the eyes of scientists directly involved. We not only describe the ideas, but also the real struggles and risk-taking involved in developing new scientific ideas. In this way, we hope the book not only conveys the new ideas themselves, but also gives the reader an insider’s view on how science really works.
I would advise you to stop looking for rabbits in Cambrian rocks to justify your agenda.
Again, again and again . . .
Concerning the question of whether the greater cosmos is eternal or temporal or other wise cannot be falsified nor deduced as fact, but a cyclic universe can be possibly eternal.
Last edited: