I found this essay, Cosmology for Beginners that might help lend some weight to what I'm saying.
You might think it's because I don't understand something, right? Nope. When science invokes a anything can happen condition so that a "claimed" idea or theory can work. It is just like calling upon God to do it.
Example: I believe a certain thing happened. You come back and say: That cannot be because it breaks this and that law. I say: Because it was the beginning,this and that law did not apply therefore it did happen exactly the way I said.
Now what scientific rules did I apply to make my idea work? Nothing. I dismissed laws to "make" it work. Can I prove my claim that the laws did no exist? No. So what makes my claim scientifically true? Nothing. It is only a possibility that has zero evidence to back it up. One that had to invoke a situation where it could happen barring all known laws.
So basically, I cheated to make it work by calling up a different reality where laws do not exist, even though I can never prove such a time where laws did not exist ever existed.
So to apply this to your post, I'm going to point out the places where you did this:
Ok, I think we're understanding each other there.
No.Ã‚Â Right at the very beginning (if the supersymmetry theory is correct) the energy density of the universe was so high that the four fundamental forces (gravity, electromagnetism, strong and weak) were essentially the same force.
As far as I understand it, even after gravity decoupled from the electro-nuclear force, physical characteristics such as mass and charge were essentially meaningless.Ã‚Â The energy density of space-time was just too high.
1) if the supersymmetry theory is correct....First you are using a questionable theory.
2) (gravity, electromagnetism, strong and weak) were essentially the same force...Then You draw from it's conclusions to make your point. Which requires the theory to invoke a situation where anything can happen.
3) physical characteristics such as mass and charge were essentially meaningless. The energy density of space-time was just too high..... Then your conclusion is based upon a questionable theory.So the flow chart goes like this:
First comes a problem that cannot be solved while known natural laws exist-------So come up with a theory that eliminates these conditions so that the problem will be solved (which is invoking a god did it type situation)-----Problem solved theory is now correct. And all known laws had to be broken to do it.
So what is scientific about making situations where what you "want" to be true, can be true? Because if breaking laws to make the natural to work is permitted, then so should be the supernatural.
So basically this is a irony situation where you would have a problem if I claimed the power of God, which breaks natural laws, did something. But yet science will invoke the same situation by claiming certain laws did not exist so that certain things can happen.