It is a mathematical description of a theory of science. Theories of science are transcribed into a closed functional system (like mathematics) to give them power of prediction. The resulting equation is called a 'law' of science. In this case, it is also the clearest method of describing the theory.
There is no such thing as a 'standard model'. Models are not explanations.
Trying to laugh insanely at your own ignorance and illiteracy won't make you any smarter, Sock.
Let's just take ONE element that you are trying to laugh your way out of: The Theory of the Big Bang (not a theory of science).
Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That means each one is has available to it tests that are definable, practical to conduct, are specific, and produce a specific result. That test is of the theory itself to try to falsify it. The test is always upon the null hypothesis of that theory.
Supporting evidence is not used in science at all. Only conflicting evidence. A single piece of conflicting evidence falsifies the theory, irregardless of the mountains of supporting evidence said theory might have. The theory itself is all the supporting evidence the theory needs. It is never possible to prove any theory of anything True.
The Theory of the Big Bang cannot be tested. It is not possible to build a time machine to go back and see what happened (if anything). Therefore, the Theory of the Big Bang is not a theory of science. It is not falsifiable. There is no test of the null hypothesis of that theory that is available or practical to conduct.
A religion can best be described as some initial circular argument (by itself NOT a fallacy) with argument extending from that. In Christianity, for example, the initial circular argument is that Jesus Christ exists, and is who He says He is, namely the Son of God. ALL other arguments in that religion stem from that initial circular argument. The other name for the circular argument is the Argument of Faith.
It is not possible to prove any circular argument True or False. Any attempt to do so creates the Circular Argument fallacy. This is what a fundamentalist does.
The Church of the Big Bang is a religion like any other. It's initial circular argument is that the Universe didn't exist until some violent event created it. ALL other arguments stem from this initial circular argument (or Argument of Faith).
There are a few problems with this religion:
* If the Universe has a beginning, it must therefore have an end.
* If the Universe has a beginning, no aspect of it could have existed before that beginning. This would mean both matter and energy are created out of nothing, which is inconsistent with theories of science.
* If the Universe has a beginning, no aspect of it could have existed before that beginning. This would mean there is no god or gods to create it, for there is nowhere they could exist. It also means that there will be no god or gods that exist after the Universe ends. Many Christians fall into this paradox. Others try to treat this as a 'proof' that Christianity is False, even though neither Christ nor God ever described a Big Bang or anything like it. Such a 'proof' is itself fundamentalism.
* If the Universe has a beginning and an end, then the Bible is False, since the Bible clearly describes God as a being with no beginning and no end. Therefore the two theories are mutually exclusive of each other. In other words, if the Big Bang occurred, then there is no being possible with no beginning and no end. If the Bible and Christianity is True, then there is no Big Bang possible. The Universe has always existed, and always will (the Theory of the Continuum, also a nonscientific theory).
Is there supporting evidence of the Big Bang? Certainly. Is there supporting evidence of Christianity? Certainly. Is there supporting evidence of the Church of No God? Certainly. Religions are based on supporting evidence. NONE of it is a proof of any kind.
This is also true of the Church of Hate, the Church of Covid, the Church of Global Warming, the Church of the EV, the Church of the Ozone Hole, the Church of Green, and the Church of Karl Marx. These particular religions are fundamentalist by nature. This is because to believe in them, one must discard theories of science and several branches of mathematics, engineering principles, existing documents such as the Constitution of the United States, or even history (including recent history). The only approach ANY of these particular religions have is to try to prove themselves True (a circular argument fallacy).
"
, a plagiarizer, a scientific illiterate!