Academic scientists suffer from the publish or perish syndrome.

Relativity has withstood 100 years of testing. The last being the detection of Gravity Waves.

What evidence do you have that tao exist?

@xenoview Tao is a concept which, I think, basically means the unifying point. Universal expansion has been noted and is accepted scientific belief so the idea that the unifying point is that Universe is not revolutionary. The question becomes how did ours form within a dead Universe? I postulate that it didn't. Our Universe exists only in the electromagnetic exchanges of those electrons. Niels Bohr's observations might be worth reviewing as some kind of evidence, though.

We don't know what existed before the Bib Bang.

More importantly... What did'nt exist?

If time began at the Big Bang, there was no 'before the Big Bang'.

@Toonman If time began with the Big Bang there was no before because motion did not exist. "Something" is always contrasted or compared with "Nothing or No-thing" Which makes me wonder about Neils Bohr's design for his Coat of Arms, which, depicts complementary states.

@ASTRALMAX

You're making my point.

If we believe that time originated with the Big Bang, the idea of "before" doesn't even apply.

@Toonman Just simply accepting that nothing was before the BBT would be like having belief in an imaginary deity.

@azzow2 There was no "before". Time didn't exist.

@Toonman You might have to think about infinity before making the conclusions that time did not exist.

@azzow2

If we accept the proposition that the Big Bang started everything, then the concept of infinity is irrelevant until after the Big Bang.

@Toonman Maybe I am thinking too logical about this however the last time I checked is there is no way to make something with nothing, thinking that the BBT is the beginning is flawed logic.

@azzow2 I said "If" we accept the proposition.

This conundrum has stymied the smartest people in the world.

Neither of us is in that company. Neither of us is thinking too logically.

We already covered that in comments below.

@Word you didn't cover my question though

. . . I think it prudent to NOT use the word(s) prove/proof in 'discussions' about science. Apart from math science doesn't prove anything, there is always doubt/error-bars/new-info (science CAN convincingly discredit some things).

. . . also, use of the phrase "just a theory" in these discussions is a passive acquiescence to the use of that exact phrase wrt evolution being "just a theory"

[aaas.org]

@Word

You're still an idiot using words you don't know to attempt expressing ideas you can't grasp.

You are correct and as tactful as a stone.

@yvilletom Word is a fuckhead whether I say so or not.

I may as well say so.

@Toonman Okay, less tactful than a stone.

@yvilletom

I'm a blunt object. I'm fine with it.