All of this is based on the big bang "Theory". At no point do you express any uncertainty, and yet there has to be still uncertainty in the theory. I guess you know it takes more than just repeated incantations of it over and over, to make it true.
There are still some very big fundamental questions about it remaining unanswered. The simplest one is where did it start? Where is the point of origin of the expansion?
If we can't find any origin, then the correct scientific conclusion should be that there is no origin, therefore no big bang, so there has to be another explanation for the expansion.
I can't help seeing parallels between this, and how we erroneously think about energy on Earth.
The economic system of capitalism exerts a lot of pressure on us to limit all things, so as to be able to express certainty where there might be none.
We see this has historically affected the life of solar farms, where a solar farm is created as an investment, a lifetime is put on it, equivalent to the expected lifetime of a singe panel, and then an EROI is computed using this false limit. It's false because the life of the farm can be extended indefinitely by converting some of the energy received to valuable commodity such as hydrogen, and selling this to get the funds needed to renew panels as they fail, one by one. This makes the installation not only maintainable for free, but it can pay back the whole installation, and it can even scale the installation up, and since it is producing something exchangeable for money, it is effectively a free money-fuel tree. The only thing stopping us treating all solar farms like this, is profit - the need for investors to get maximum return in shortest time.
That gets even more self defeating, and ironic, when we trace profit, all profit, as actually requiring energy to be extracted from the planet to provide the energy gained in profit, thus completely locking out all benefits we might get from solar, the only energy that can be used to decrease entropy.
Add to this that the atmosphere is adiabatic, therefore CO2 not making much difference to temperature despite any blanket effect, the actual temperature rise has to directly reflect the state of entropy. So officially, we destroy, not create, its impossible to create using energy extracted from the planet. But conversely its automatic entropy reduction when we do anything with the energy of the sun, other than just let it go to heat.
Look, knowing this, we could have been solar powered many years ago. But instead we are at risk now of never achieving it, and the tendency is for everyone to deny any part in this, yet we are all part of the grand energy deception, which is now starting to be an existential problem, and none of that was needed, if we'd just got the science right from the outset, which we would have done, if we were not all profit driven, practicing an effective system of energy slavery.
This creazy capability to convince ourselves of things that are not true at all, known, should we not now question everything we thought we knew?
Does the universe really need to be limited, giving us the impression its nearly exhausted, like Earth?
If we made this mistake with Earth, why would we not also be making it with the big bang theory?
How do we know that there is not a relatively huge energy source somewhere, powering the universe like the sun powers Earth?
Why do we need to think that entropy has to always win over life?
Notice life is the only thing that reverses entropy?
