Hi CD...everyone...:-x

Hiya Pete. Yes, OK, at the instant of the Big Bang things would have been pretty warm, but you can't have heat without "something" being heated!   All along, I'm not claiming to "know better" than people who do (know better) but what I am claiming is that "they" speak about things as a fact when they're only theories.   You never hear "them" say that they don't know for sure when that bit (they don't know for sure) is a fact!   Taking logic about it all along a bit.... what is supposed to have been heated to millions (billions?) of ºC?????? Atoms hadn't formed but something must have formed for there to have been anything to heat!   OK, as "it" cooled, particles formed, atoms formed, clumping started but what was it that must have been there to have any heat?   "They" glibly trot out these things but they never say that they just don't know.   Anyway, who says the speed of light was fixed? They don't know. If what they say is true, that there was nothing there, no particles/atoms/mass because "it" hadn't formed "yet", there would have been no light but whatever was "heated" might have been travelling much faster than what we now consider to be the speed of light and as it cooled/slowed then particles/atoms/mass all formed and so "light appeared" but how fast was it going at the time of appearance?   Now they're theorising that Dark Flow isn't randomly distributed, it appears to be in a common direction?

I know you say "Oh dear" to my (the bibles explination) but it really intrigues me how you can have such a good logical well thought through opinion like that and then dismiss a simple and logical one like I put forward.

Tis a very interesting discussion though.:-x