If you look critically at the standard model it does not make much sense at all. I studied physics and philosophy some years ago. Some time ago I stumbled acros

If you look critically at the standard model it does not make much sense at all. I studied physics and philosophy some years ago. Some time ago I stumbled across the Basic Structures of Matter - Supergravitation Unified theory (BSM-SG) from Stoyan Sarg and it rocked my world view like nothing else. For me this is Gallilo/Darwin/Einstein all over again, ignored or reticulated by the general community but far more advanced and precise. Even the Newtonian worldview was 100 years earlier already discovered but ignored. It even makes classically sense, not just mathematical. From my perspective and this is also the general perspective of philosophy of science, not much changed in the last hundreds of years how we approach science. People hat to change the model they think in, because it takes a lot of time. In fact, it even got worse. Hardly anyone in science understands the fundamental problems of determining truth value and how hard it actually is. Some of the test methods have fundamental flaws, for example: A negative replication is no prove that it does not work in general, it only proves that the exact atom configuration you are running does not work. If there is any unknown unknown, which you can't know, you can't know if the replicated experiment contains all necessary requirements. Most don't understand the difference between mathematical and classical logic, that are the building blocks of science. It takes a critical position that takes time to get, but I got a very critical view on science in general. Not the scientific method, but the implementation: the humans doing science. Having experienced how the broader scientific community actually ticks, understood how many psychological phenomena influence the scientific process. Some weeks ago I was at a hacker camp and attented https://media.ccc.de/browse/conferences/camp2015/camp2015-6870-detecting_echoes_from_the_dawn_of_time.html#video https://media.ccc.de/browse/conferences/camp2015/camp2015-68... So, after the talk I approached her, see seems very confident that the big bang happend, which I these days absolutly not, in fact, for me its as absurd as the flat world theory ;) So, I asked her about the alternative cosmology group and some of the phenomena they reference to, good read: http://www.cosmology.info/newsletter/2014.05.pdf http://www.cosmology.info/newsletter/2014.05.pdf Having read nearly all of the papers they reference to, I go with their conclusion. The Big Bang did not happen. She know none of the phenomena they reference to, none. Last year they found another quasar cluster btw, not as big as the one referenced, but they are more common it seems (is logical for me). The problem is how we teach science, we highlight the stuff that makes sense in the model we are teaching, and ignoring the findings that do not make sense, until you reach a point where you can't. The point where the standard model made sense is long gone but as the saying brings it to a point: Theories die out, when the last advocate dies.