Then I suppose all the "evidence" you need will surely come when your time comes.
If I am presented evidence after death, I will happily review it then.
What if the best way has a limit as to what it can answer? Some answers to questions in science in effect unknown?
Then there is a limit to what can be discovered.
just adding unobserved matters and energies isn´t a strict scientific method.
When it was discovered that some newer observations were not accounted for by the Standard Model of cosmology, the model had to be revised to account for those observations. That is the scientific method, or part of it.
We do this in daily life as well. For example, you wake up in the morning with a hangover, and remember that you were out clubbing last night. You have an initial concept of what happened that fits the available evidence. Then, you notice a broken vase in the hallway. New evidence about what happened last night. You begin considering a list of possible explanations (hypotheses) such as that you staggered and broke the vase, looking for evidence that that is correct. Then you go outside an see that your car is damaged. You modify your hypothesis of what happened last night again. Then you get a call from the police that your vehicle was identified in a hit-and-run accident. All the while, you modify your narrative of the night before to fit new evidence. When new evidence stops coming, the narrative ceases evolving.
When scientists discovered that the galaxies should not be gravitationally stable based on known science, and that the universe appeared to be accelerating in its expansion, it modified the narrative to account for this new evidence. Same process.
That´s the bad point in modern cosmological science.
There is no bad point in modern cosmological science, just unanswered questions. What you call the bad point is one of the best points about the scientific method. It's pronouncements are tentative and represent the best ideas available to account for all relevant observations to date.
The "truth" is in this case is that the scientific method demands repeatable experiments and as such, the very Big Bang fantasy isn´t even a scientific theory.
Feel free to repeat the astronomical observations upon which the theory is based yourself. Go ahead and repeat Hubble's work and measure the red-shifts of celestial objects. Measure the cosmic microwave background. Determine the composition of pristine nebulae. The evidence is still out there for your reproduced experiments should you care to do so.
The Big Bang theory is one of the most well-established scientific theories. It will no doubt be tweaked further over the decades and centuries for as long as there are still scientists, but, like evolutionary theory, the cell theory of life, the germ theory of infectious disease, and the heliocentric theory of the solar system, its main tenets cannot be upended at this time. The evidence is simply too robust.
I most certainly would call it a "time travel" when standard cosmologists refers to the 13.8 bill. years age of the Universe from a zero point when even "time began". An idea which of course can´t be repeated anywhere as science claims as a method.
The initial expansion of the universe does not need to be repeated or directly observed. As I alluded, observation in science does not mean going into the past and observing history. It means observation of what is present here and now and making deductions about the past.
And reproducibilty refers to experiments and observation that have already been performed, not reproduction of the Big Bang.
Don´t you tell me what I dont understand as long as the TOE isn´t found!
You told us what you don't understand by misspeaking. You don't seem to understand how science works, mistaking its self-correction as a weakness rather than the great strength it is.
And you didn't understand what observation and reproducibility refer to.
That's fine. I don't need for you to understand it. But wrong is wrong, and is especially important to comment on when the source implies an advanced understanding of the subject and is spreading misinformation.
And you can take off explaining to me how a Universe can be created from a "super-cell" in a singularity. That should keep you busy for a while
How is that relevant? Cosmology, like biology, has an origins problem that is much knottier than solving the evolution problems beginning with the primordial seed of physical reality to present and from the primordial population to the modern tree of life we see today. The lack of answers to the twin origins problems does not invalidate the evolutionary theories that describe what followed once those primordial seeds were present.
Incidentally, implying that the Big Bang theory is somehow weaker because it is not known what set it off is a logical fallacy called argument from ignorance, which in a nutshell is the erroneous conclusion that if something has not been or cannot be explained, it is wrong, or that some competing hypothesis is therefore correct.
So GRAVITY IS A RESULT of the other three fundamental EM forces? Or at least it was once unified with the other three fundamental EM forces at at time?
Here's another error. Only one of the four forces was EM (electromagnetic).
Where did you get that excellent information from? Links please.
I read two helpful books in the mid-eighties,
In Search of The Big Bang by John Gribbin, and
The First Three Minutes by Steven Weinberg :
If you want to find something on the Internet, these books may be available in PDF format, or you can just search symmetry breaking in the Big Bang.