This is a jump from the last post, but one of the features we take for granted with science is "time". We assume time is linear, that time has a beginning and an end, like ultimately there was the beginning where there was no time, and in the end there will be no time, from a big bang to a big end. This is not a psuedo science post here. I am highlighting that science is confused with what it considers as a primary principal and a secondary principal.
Time cannot be proved to exist. It only exists relevant to a system of space going through change, through flux. Time, as a concept, is secondary to the primary concept of "change", of "flux", that physics does all it can to primarily explain. The simplest concept of "change", or "flux", is for instance one system tranforming into another system, "A" becomming "B" owing to whatever law of space-time; that flux, that change, whatever it is, is registered as a passage of "time". Time does not CAUSE flux or change. Time does not create the laws of physics. Time is a secondary feature of the laws of space-time. Time is HOW all the laws of space/matter interact together.
I think what I am getting at is that time is a "secondary concept", yet that doesn't stop some who try to create primary concepts regarding time, like the big bang. Creating ideas like the Big Bang are nonsensical, because time is not a primary feature of anything. To say when time began is to make time a primary feature. If we can't prove the beginning of time, we should work with what we "can" prove.
I am not saying we have been mislead by those who promote ideas central to making time a primary concept, I am suggesting that the future holds a great process of revision regarding what is real science and what is pseudo science.