How does PP3 stack up against the other two?
- PP3 allows for the universe to be in a current state of change, making it much better than PP1.
- It allows for repeatable events by its very nature. PP2 had to add rather large assumptions to allow for repeatable events.
- Scientific laws don't have to change with time. Both PP1 and PP2 needed laws to change.
- We do not have to set specific dates for existence to begin as they were in PP2.
- Existence can begin anywhere. PP2 requires the birth of the universe to occur in one spot (still to be found).
- Acceleration of space-expansion can be a natural part of PP3, not a surprise, as it was for PP2 (although Kapp did not actually predict an accelerating process either).
The continuous origin of pieces of the universe seems the best idea so far.
FP1 - ALL MATTER AND ENERGY WILL LAST FOREVER
Most people believe this future possibility is true, including scientists, who are at least some people. Nobody even thinks to question this statement because we've been assuming, for a long time now, that matter and energy can't go away. Let's see how this future possibility matches with the past possibilities.
- If one accepts PP1 (all matter and energy has always been here), then FP1 is reasonable; all matter and energy will exist forever too. But PP1 had too many assumptions for us to consider the option of an eternal past.
- If one accepts PP2 (all matter and energy came into existence at some time), there now has to be some law making them last forever; matter and energy started out to be temporary and are now permanent. If universal laws can change willy-nilly, we have a huge assumption on our hands, and we can never predict what might happen next. A dropped ball can go up or down.
