And that it was able to turn hydrogen into helium during that time to create about the ratio of about say 75% hydrogen 25% helium. And that's the ratio that we see of hydrogen helium in the universe. So not only do we have that time when we're seeing this radiation, this first light from the universe, and then you do the math and you get back to this time when the universe was like the core of a star, you get those ratios, which is the second big pillar of evidence was that okay, yeah, it once spent time like the core of a star, then it spent time like the surface of a star, I guess. And you could just keep running the clock backwards, then we know, okay, then there was a time when you actually didn't have atoms, you had the subatomic particles.

And then you just keep going. And you can find this time when the various forces merge together, and you had the electro weak force, and you had the merging with the strong force. People haven't been able to figure out how gravity fits into this. And you just keep doing the math. And that takes you right to the moments after the Big Bang. And that's as far as we can go as far as the math can take us. The CMB is just beautiful. When you just think about what it's telling us.

And it's just math. It's it's it's taking, it's extrapolating what we see today, making predictions, seeing what you were hoping to see, and then continuing that process right to the Big Bang. The Canadian space advocate, do you think there's more room for science reporters or debunkers? I don't understand. Are you saying that? Is there more room for science reporters?

Or is there more room for pseudoscience debunkers? Or is there more room for science debunkers?