1. No energy has ever been created. It all has eternally existed through and by one entity.
2. No energy is ever destroyed, being existent in by and through one ID entity and eternally managed by same. 1LoT is the observable and testable science law that all the energy from this hypothetical source has never been created or destroyed.
Actually these two properties have not been proven. All we know is that right now, right here, we do not observe energy being created or destroyed.
The BB hypothesis/theory has no explanation for where all the existing energy came from, implying that it suddenly began to exist.
Naturally. The BB theory, like the theory of evolution, does not discuss the origins of energy - just its evolution over time. Throughout the entire scope of the Big Bang, energy has existed - it is eternal to the theory. What you should be focussing on is the theories that discuss the hows of the big bang. How and why did it happen, where did the fields come from? To that end - we have such ideas as M-theory.
You people are bankrupt as to any explanation of where all the energy originated from.
M-theory has some interesting ideas in this direction.
You people are bankrupt as to any explanation of where all the energy originated from. You are the ones who sweep it all under the rug with the answer, "we don't know." Imo, according to the observable and testable science of 1LoT all energy had to have somehow existed eternally. My hypothesis at least offers a hypothetical answer to that question.
It does, but it is not your hypothesis. That idea has been around a long while. There are several ideas about where energy came from, should you choose to delve into cosmology. 1LoT is not an eternal law, it may only be applicable to the 4 dimensional universe we have come to know. When we explore the implications of string theory we might find that energy is quite different than we had previously percieved it to have been.
Your BB hypothesis fails the 1LoT test, IMO, whereas mine passes it.
The BB theory does not state that energy is created or destroyed.
ABE: Please understand that I'm not claiming my hypothesis to be empirical. It is hypothetical. What I am claiming to be empirical is that my ID/energy hypothesis passes the 1LoT test.
Seems a little circular to me. The reasoning being, if energy can not be created that means it has always existed. We can test this by seeing if the idea that it has always existed contradicts the law that energy cannot be created.
You cannot empirically test a statement of logic. All you have said is:
P1: Energy cannot be created or destroyed. P2: Energy exists. C: It must always have existed.
Which is sound logic. It might be true, or the first premise might be false. Who can say?
Which would make (and has made) for an interesting topic in its own right.