Scientist claims Big Bang theory is WRONG as revolutionary idea could change our understanding of universe - The bombshell new theory could upend how researchers view the beginning of time

Link: https://www.gbnews.com/science/scientist-claims-big-bang-theory-wrong-revolutionary
Credit: George Bunn, GB News
Archive: https://archive.ph/wip/Ha7oF

Illustration of the Big Bang event 13.8 billion years ago

A controversial new theory claims the Big Bang never happened, challenging one of the most fundamental beliefs in modern cosmology.

Professor Richard Lieu of The University of Alabama in Huntsville has published research suggesting the universe wasn't born from a single massive explosion.

Instead, he proposes that the cosmos grew through numerous rapid-fire bursts throughout history.

His alternative explanation, published in the journal Classical and Quantum Gravity, introduces the concept of "temporal singularities" that blasted new matter and energy into space.

This groundbreaking idea directly challenges scientific consensus that has stood since the 1960s.

According to Lieu, each of these 'temporal singularities' sent bursts of energy and matter into space, which eventually formed planets, stars and galaxies. These bursts weren't confined to a single explosive beginning like the Big Bang theory suggests.

Instead, they have continued throughout cosmic history, collectively pushing the universe to expand.

"The new model can account for both structure formation and stability, and the key observational properties of the expansion of the universe at large," Lieu explains.



The first all-sky microwave image of the universe soon after the Big Bang
These random bursts occur rarely and quickly, dissipating before they can be detected by current technologies like telescopes.

The traditional Big Bang theory proposes that the universe began as an infinitely small, hot point of densely packed matter and energy that exploded and continues to expand. However, this model cannot work without dark matter and dark energy.

Dark matter is theorised to be the invisible scaffolding holding cosmic structures in place. Meanwhile, dark energy is believed to be the undetectable force pushing the universe to expand faster.

Scientists have yet to prove these mysterious substances actually exist. Despite this, Lieu has attempted to rework our understanding of the universe to align with known laws of physics without relying on unproven forces.

The theory could explain why the universe is expanding rapidly without needing dark energy. It also addresses how galaxies and galaxy clusters formed without requiring dark matter.

"These singularities are unobservable because they occur rarely in time and are unresolvedly fast, and that could be the reason why dark matter and dark energy have not been found," Lieu stated.

The physicist describes his approach as "radically different" from conventional models.

However, he acknowledged the theory had drawbacks. The temporal singularities he proposes are, by definition, unobservable, similar to dark matter and dark energy. There is currently far more indirect evidence supporting dark matter and dark energy than these temporal singularities.

His theory also fails to explain what causes these bursts in the first place.

 

[X Prime]

Also, the big bang theory disproves all known physics, as mass can't be created and nor can energy. And without any physics, gravity, time, decay or any of that, how did any of it even exist to begin with?

The claim is that it's all cyclical and there's no beginning or end.

 

[Overly Serious]

Dark matter is theorised to be the invisible scaffolding holding cosmic structures in place. Meanwhile, dark energy is believed to be the undetectable force pushing the universe to expand faster.

Pff, like what? General relativity doesn't work unless we make up "totally invisible and undetectable types of mass" to balance the books? That's not indirect evidence, that's just a problem with general relativity.

I never liked the Dark Matter theories

Last month on these forums I said that Dark Matter wasn't proven and I got shouted at.

Asserting existence as the default doesn't seem like an out, maybe it is the default but it's still an innately mysterious brute fact.

There's a bias in the universe in favour of positive matter over anti-matter. It's small but it means the universe exists. I've always found that a strange and delightful thing. It's easy to assume absence is the default over presence, because we look out at the Universe and see so much Space compared to the amount of mass in it. But perhaps neither is the default, one is simply more common than the other.

I don't really think so. I think you can cognitively understand, for example, that odd numbers and numbers divisible by 5 are two infinite sets, of which one infinity is larger than the other. But I don't think anyone has much of an intuitive sense for what that difference "means." Maybe I'm misunderstanding you?

I don't think this is hard to understand. Neither is numerating actual things, they're both only rules. You can have two definitions of sets without being puzzled that the definitions are different. The confusion is in conflating the outputs because they're both "infinite". Infinite in this sense just means the rule is open-ended. Comparing two open-ended rules and saying one is larger than the other is bizarre to me.

As to this paper, this is in effect some variant of the Steady State theory, I guess? I've always been quite favourable to those.

 

[Absurdist Laughter]

It is an interesting theory, especially if it is combined with the idea that the universe started with a cosmic imbalance of Matter and Anti-Matter which oscillates and renews itself cyclically. The cycle repeated until we have the universe that we know today. Mostly matter with some anti-matter to bewilder scientists. If such a cycle exists, I don't see it being implausible that the energy released from creation is enough to expand the this universe.

 

[Daddy's Little Kitten]

The Universe was like, there.

 

[TenMilesWide]

Big bang theory is bullshit because the explanation always goes something like "within 2 seconds after the big bang, all matter in the universe was created from an infinitely small point". Yet, time didn't exist, so how was it only 2 seconds and how do we know that?

Also, the big bang theory disproves all known physics, as mass can't be created and nor can energy. And without any physics, gravity, time, decay or any of that, how did any of it even exist to begin with?

I thought the point wasn't that it was "created" but that all of the matter that exists (and will ever exist) was compressed into that infinitely small point and the "big bang" is just the resultant gmod havok physics explosion from the "fundamental" forces all turning on at once?

 

[Thomas Talus]

The claim is that it's all cyclical and there's no beginning or end.

Which a) violates thermodynamics as we know it, and b) doesn't explain why the system exists at all. If your response to b) is "it just does," or "I don't have an explanation but I know that one has to exist," then you're 95% of your way to positing the existence of God.

 

[Whoopsie Daisy]

The claim is that it's all cyclical and there's no beginning or end.

I thought the point wasn't that it was "created" but that all of the matter that exists (and will ever exist) was compressed into that infinitely small point and the "big bang" is just the resultant gmod havok physics explosion from the "fundamental" forces all turning on at once?

How does all of that shit fit into a small space without breaking the laws of physics which must exist in the cyclical universe, unless the unbreakable laws of the universe can be broken under certain conditions?

 

[74164978231]

How does all of that shit fit into a small space without breaking the laws of physics which must exist in the cyclical universe, unless the unbreakable laws of the universe can be broken under certain conditions?

They cope by saying the laws change at the different energy states. Kind like how electromagnetism and weak force combine into the electroweak at a certain energy level.

The more wtf is the idea of hyperexponential inflation right after the big bang. Why'd it happen then and only for such a short period of time?

 

[TenMilesWide]

How does all of that shit fit into a small space without breaking the laws of physics which must exist in the cyclical universe, unless the unbreakable laws of the universe can be broken under certain conditions?

My surface level understanding is that we already know if you get enough shit in the same place the attraction of gravity starts to overcome the repulsion of nuclear forces, because that's what stars are. The laws of physics can apparently break or at least suspend each other given the right arrangement. And that arrangement can be temporary or unstable, eventually reaching some critical mass and collapsing further while ejecting contents back into the universe.

The big bang is the result of following the "cannot change the laws of physics" line as far back as we can, the earliest point at which we know they must have changed, assuming they haven't changed more recently or aren't locally variable and our observations of galactic movements are correct.

 

[>IMPLYING]

time didn't exist

This is one of the biggest niggles I have with Big Bang in general, so I agree with you. With time you have movement and so from nothing we gained reality according to the widely accepted and scientific explanation for the universe; Stephen Hawking was adamant time did not exist prior to the Big Bang, yet somehow there was the first tick of the first picosecond which allowed the singularity to happen which itself has zero explanation. The theory ought to be criticised more because of this huge hole, but I think the theory itself and its biggest proponent (aforementioned Hawking) are such sacred cows in physics that it'll probably be a while yet before the boat gets rocked. Even the counter-proposal posited in the linked article relies on A. the picosecond of time moving forward without explanation B. the existence of unproven dark matter (which if I'm being fair, is just as valid as the concept of the Singularity posited by Hawking).

Which a) violates thermodynamics as we know it, and b) doesn't explain why the system exists at all.

"Nuh-uh — the laws of physics weren't active yet, idiot! Why? Just because!"

The Big Bang theory is almost entirely pinned on the idea that the actual start of the universe came from that incomprehensibly small window of time — when/why/how the first unit of time passed isn't answered, yet somehow the first picosecond of time ticked forward from a previously non-existent concept — which as also the exact moment the universe was also born with a singularity, which was enabled thanks to the laws of physics as we know them just not being in place yet for some reason and just established themselves later, including thermodynamics.

That makes the theory as viable and logically consistent to me as the 'Unmoved Mover' — one could even reason that within that incomprehensibly small window where our current understanding of reality just didn't apply, God (The or just A) could've just popped into being, since it's just as possible a break from our understanding of physics as anything else. Hell, the theory itself feels like a non-religious take on Pandeism, which is also just as viable. Sure, one utilises equations and theories, but when something is only posited to maybe exist, the only reason to be an atheist (someone dead set on there being no creator at all) is because you're too proud to admit to uncertainty.

So long as the Big Bang relies entirely on a (conceptual) singularity, which also coincided with the birth of time, which also relies on the laws of physics just not applying for some reason to explain why this all occurred — it really doesn't matter how much lingo, jargon, and theories you you utilise in your argument for it — the initial premise is still very reliant on what is essentially faith, like you said.

This is easily the most easy angle of attack on the theory as a whole. The main problem however is that the biggest natural opponents to the idea (the religious) would have to self-own by attacking and trying to discredit it in such a way.

Spoiler: Small aside: Christianity and its relationship with logic

Christians back in the day tried to create logical arguments for God existing which didn't just rely on faith, but at some point they fell to the wayside (the Catholic Church at one point even wanted their priests educated on basic logical arguments for the existence of God outside of faith alone). Maybe it was because such arguments could be indicative of doubt (which is one of the reasons they criticised during the Enlightenment), or possibly because such arguments (especially in the medieval era) could be used to justify the existence of any God, not just the Christian one.

Separating faith from reason was (and still is) a widely supported stance, but considering what it indirectly lead to (Lemaitre's primeval atom), maybe they had a point?

Then again, maybe similar to how modern science just won't explore certain issues/topics because they're viewed as being 'settled', the same thing might've happened in theology and religion — questioning the narrative without sufficient credentials would certainly earn you similar levels of social stigma as questioning the science does nowadays.

It wasn't until the Enlightenment era when they had to defend their continued belief in God that they tried bringing logic back into it to counter the opposition, but then such people would get attacked from multiple angles (their fellow believers and opponent sceptics) that most eventually just conceded to one side or the other. Deism for example was a relatively short-lived concept which was contentious for a few reasons (It really helped form a basis for nihilism, which further degraded religion), but the universe being created by a God who then fucked off is just as plausible as the universe being birthed from the first second of time because the SSD of reality buffered so they hadn't kicked in yet.

It's a shame because I think natural theology is decent conceptually.

The claim is that it's all cyclical and there's no beginning or end.

There's only one 'fate' to the universe that has it be cyclical and it's called The Big Bounce, and it's been widely discounted in favour of Heat Death and other hopeless endings — not wanting things to ultimately end is one of the reasons I hope the Big Bang gets depreciated one day.

My initial exploration of this particular rabbit hole a while back was just the result of a more extreme version of this meme:

Though if humanity ever became a type 3 civilisation or some shit, or some other species that may arise elsewhere if we die out, there could potentially be a technological or hitherto undiscovered solution to entropy and thus the universe can be saved.

Spoiler: Small aside: "The Big Bang and Nihilism."

I think an unintended consequence of the Big Bang concept becoming so entrenched is that it led to a proliferation of nihilism. Under the theory, there is no happy ending for the universe, even if we aren't here personally to see it. The ultimate fate of all within is death and the erasure of everything ever, and eventually perpetual darkness as the last star dies out. It's so macabre that it helps someone understand why clergy-scientists essentially disappeared after the midpoint of the 20th century, even though they had been in decline by the end of the 19th century. Alongside the knock-on impacts of making nihilism widespread, I also think this lead to a dulling of the imagination in the sciences. What's the ultimate point of trying to uncover the mysteries of life and the building blocks of reality if it won't ultimately matter in the end? A lot of clergy were motivated by this ambition which they were then subsequently forced out of unfortunately. It was downright hostile to their beliefs but those who believed it could oftentimes be outright hostile to those who don't adhere to the theory.

The oftentimes smug and pretentious attitude that's displayed by a lot of pop-scientists and notable atheist figures like Bill Nye, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Richard Dawkins, Hitchens, Gervais, Rick Sanchez, every Redditor and Youtube sceptic prior to 2016, is the sort of hostility I'm talking about. Compare and contrast how Bill Nye (atheist) and Ken Ham (young earth creationist) come off:

Prior to the event, Ham commented, "I don't see it as a debate to win or lose. I don't believe people should go away saying 'Bill Nye won' or 'Ken Ham won.' I want to passionately deal with what I believe, and I want Bill Nye to passionately speak on what he believes."

In a letter published in Skeptical Inquirer after the debate, Nye wrote that by "a strong majority of accounts, I bested him."

Atheism serves as an answer to the meaning of life (there is none) and the 'definitive' origin of the universe — /r/atheism is indicative is worse-case scenario where this mindset could lead you to. Ego, attitude, and the desire to mock and belittle the beliefs of those who don't subscribe to theirs. They need to beat down Christianity and religion I think to feel better about their position, because as I described above, it has absolutely miserable implications if they're correct.

Classical (pre-1700s) atheists were still smug. For example, we have Al-Ma'arri, who once said: "The inhabitants of the earth are of two sorts: those with brains, but no religion, and those with religion, but no brains." — Maybe he's a bad example because he was a pessimistic anti-natalist faggot like a lot of contemporary atheists but still, I think that element of uncertainty kept them humble and quiet for the most part (Ma'arri was a recluse). Their atheism only had them devalue controlling religious authorities and grumble for the most part, but since the Big Bang offers modern atheists a 'definitive' answer, there's nothing holding them back.

 

[X Prime]

There's only one 'fate' to the universe that has it be cyclical and it's called The Big Bounce, and it's been widely discounted in favour of Heat Death and other hopeless endings — not wanting things to ultimately end is one of the reasons I hope the Big Bang gets depreciated one day.

I was being quasi-facetious; your post is generally all correct.

It reminds me of a passage in a book whose name now escapes me. In it, indicated as a retelling of an event at some conference, a guy debates some atheist who believes that we're all soulless machines. The guy then quips, basically, "I know you are a machine, but what am I?"

This pisses the atheist off immensely and said atheist immediately begins to whine until the other person has to apologize.

The way I see it a lot of this kind of talk just self-justification for smug atheists who want to make the rest of us as miserable as they are. They also want to escape judgment for their many misdeeds, hence the popularity of Buddhism among this set which is just as magical but also has no god that will judge them.

 

[BelUwUga]

Dark matter can at least theoretically be tested for, given large enough particle accelerators.

Just one more bro...

 

[Sneed's Feed n Seed]

Aite I warmed up writing scientific bullshit in another voice than the one that would PL me so let me take a stab at this paper.

It's bullshit.

He's working from the toy math starter training assumption "of a spatially flat, homogeneous, and isotropic Universe" and basically constructing Penrose's Conformal Cyclic Cosmology but with more fudge, less of a , not solving any problems about entropy (and time's directionality by logical implication) and how to even reset a universe without breaking causality. He's doing something very similar to just hide missing matter and make our models work.

The crux of it is that he seems to be arguing for 1) a cosmic frame (or just not thinking about if it's relativistic, or what kind of relativity) 2) a rapid "everywhere all at once" expansion and 3) "nope you can't see it." The shells exist in a 4D block universe sense. Hypersurfaces of scale factor \alpha. With no attempt to explain mechanism. Just "What if inflation just keeps happening in tiny, random, undetectable kicks?"

It's kinda like Penrose's thing where he deals with deeper problems, but Penrose did more work and wasn't dealing with a training wheels baby version of a universe as a few knobs to twist on a spacetime that's flat and featureless instead of wrinkly, like the difference between CWC's head and, say, his scrotum. Penrose is saying when space becomes actually smooth after a heat death, when matter is spread out so much it basically doesn't exist globally, and it's just full of dull hissing radiation, that creates the conditions for another fluctuation. BUT HE SAID THE CMB COULD BE CHECKED FOR DATA. You could see rings in the sky that didn't match Baryon Acoustic Oscillations.

Another existentially spicy idea is Phantom Rip chaotic inflation, but that seems less likely now. That's basically "expansion of the universe speeds up so much the scale at which it affects things shrinks until it rips apart atoms, then particles, and finally when quarks are shredded, you make more energy, because splitting a quark pair leads to two new pairs and a pile of gluons and photons." Aka Quark Gluon Plasma. Aka a big bang.

If we are a product of Penrose's CC or a Phantom Rip, we could see some stuff! Could. But do'nt.

Penrose expects quadrupole/octupole/ "10-20 spot" multipole foci (spots in the sky that match the opposite side). Phantom Rip expects chaotic, irregular shit just all over.
Penrose expects low variance rings at big angles; phantom rip would be random.
Organized stuff, symmetry; disorganized unclear shit.

Instead we see a quadrupole and octupole that's aligned with the octupole, weak concentric circles, ONE random cold spot ala phantom energy, but also a lot of gaussian structure at the smaller scale. So it mostly fits with Lambda CDM except for where it doesn't. So, yanno, bruised but not battered enough to show CCC or -rip.

BUT THIS IS BULLSHIT BECAUSE WE JUST GOT EVIDENCE EXPANSION IS FUCKING SLOWING

Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) took a poo in the designated shitting soyience by giving us new information. So, all these predictions based on old data are just bunk or need rework.

tl;dr

Science matches data, as new data comes in, it changes. A better map doesn't change the land it just shows you what was already there, better
Soyience is when people dogmatize shit that is mutable becuase they're faggots.
This Richard Lieu guy is a faggot who got clapped by DESI in the same month he published.

 

[>IMPLYING]

I was being quasi-facetious; your post is generally all correct.

It reminds me of a passage in a book whose name now escapes me. In it, indicated as a retelling of an event at some conference, a guy debates some atheist who believes that we're all soulless machines. The guy then quips, basically, "I know you are a machine, but what am I?"

This pisses the atheist off immensely and said atheist immediately begins to whine until the other person has to apologize.

The way I see it a lot of this kind of talk just self-justification for smug atheists who want to make the rest of us as miserable as they are. They also want to escape judgment for their many misdeeds, hence the popularity of Buddhism among this set which is just as magical but also has no god that will judge them.

I think the best angle to attack them on is the ultimate uncertainty that their entire worldview is still based on, but I can already imagine them deferring. They like appeals to (human) authority because they've already dismissed the authority of something higher, so the word of X-person on TV or author is a substitute.

Regarding the Buddhist thing: I think it's a 'trendy' faith for some atheists to adopt, as opposed to something edgy and cringe like Satanism, because it has better optics (even than atheism) and at bare minimum it might engender some positive changes to you as a person if you adhere to it. It might be optimistic, but I don't think an atheist would necessarily convert to Buddhism to knowingly 'escape' their misdeeds (in some forms of Buddhism you'll suffer after dying before being reborn) if some part of them didn't desire meaning or guidance in their life that they were at least self-aware enough to know they were lacking. Atheism offers a certainty to the origin and beginning of existence and its ultimate meaning, which Buddhism overrides with it being cyclical and with no beginning or end. A hard pivot to an Abrahamic faith might be too large a transition for some but the relatively simple on its (admittedly diluted form in the West) face Buddhism could be enough.

I think this because I believe that people want something in their life that gives them a justification for their actions, alongside some moral and personal direction; atheism doesn't incentivise positive change by itself and once your thoughts have been seeded with nihilism and ultimate pointlessness of everything, it can rot the 'soul' (character) of a person depending on how large a part of your belief system is shaped by it without anything replacing it. Even agnosticism's ultimate uncertainty leaves your fate and the fate of everything up in the air; not outright bleak like atheism does, so nihilism and associated ideas don't necessarily enter the forefront of thought.

The sorts of atheists you talking about would cite Richard Dawkins (or they would, were this pre-201. Nowadays, Richard Dawkins has adopted a form of quasi-Christianity to without outright converting. He always possessed a more optimistic outlook on human beings than most people who claimed to have read his book or were turned away from religion by him; he believed that religion came about thanks to the inherent goodness of people, which was reflected in the moral lessons of Christianity. But since a ton of atheists outright refuse to acknowledge any virtues of religion, they shun most ethics one could gleam from it.

Atheism as a cornerstone of thought could naturally lead to certain lifestyle choices that, because they don't 'hurt anybody', are in turn okayed by a person morally— the sole moral found in moral relativism you could call unquestionably wrong is doing physical harm to others. As such, it might become the only moral rule these people abide by. Such things like excess hedonism and materialism/'consoomerism' don't harm or interfere with other people necessarily, but it can harm you in ways that might not be outwardly visible yet. That aforementioned rot is self-destructive, affecting impulse control, potentially making you more selfish, lazy, affect how you treat others.

We have a thread timelining such a person undergoing this process.

See also: The Amazing atheist, reddit community watch, breadtube, any thread in the stinkditch, etcetera.

Somebody so deeply entrenched (the smug atheists like you describe) in the certainty of something that hasn't been proven certain are so assured in the idea that they're correct, that they wouldn't even consider an alternative like Buddhism...

That said, I'm assuming said atheist to Buddhist convert isn't just equating occasionally meditating and being generally stoic as being all that Buddhism ultimately entails. In that case it becomes just a moral philosophy at its barest (5 precepts) with some occasional self-improvement stuff, but I doubt they'd also try to follow the basic gist of 'detachment' properly. Buddhist monks exist in the notable numbers they do because completely detaching yourself from everything is the best way to achieve Nirvana, and everything that tethers you to the world (friends, family, possessions, etcetera) makes that harder.

Western variants are usually already very diluted on the spiritual angle, trying not to foster any attachments and sever old ones might be too big an ask. I've also seen said 'detachment' used as an argument to not 'worry' about whether your adhering to Buddhism properly or not. Here's one I found from a quick google search:


(lmao)

At bare minimum, the 5 precepts would at least prevent a few of the site's lolcows from ever being lolcows if they had adhered to them:
1. Don't kill
2. Don't steal
3. Don't misuse sex
4. Don't lie
5. Don't indulge in intoxicants

How many threads would be dead or otherwise non-existent right now?

 

[X Prime]

I don't think an atheist would necessarily convert to Buddhism to knowingly 'escape' their misdeeds (in some forms of Buddhism you'll suffer after dying before being reborn)

Not "knowingly", I see it as something akin to how I have seen atheists replace the idea of God with "Nature" or "the Universe" while assigning said replacement essentially all the same functions.

Oliver Sacks for example did this, and even more or less implicitly denigrated nuns he was working with while doing so in at least one book, I want to say Musicophilia. Set up a whole thing where one patient found God and was getting better, but that didn't work for another patient who instead got better walking in a garden. Somehow this implicitly proves the superiority of the idea of "Nature" over God.

It's better to some of these types solely because it's not anthropomorphized or intentional and is the result of so-called impersonal natural forces, is the impression I get. That's what I mean by escaping judgment; I mean judgment by a superior being.

 

[Stoneheart]

I never liked the Dark Matter theories

Something you cannot see, interact with or test for is not a scientific theory. It's a grope to try to save a failing hypothesis. from getting discredited.

The whole theory is retarded..
Dark matter are just tiny black holes from photons.

 

[Ishtar]

What I find interesting here is that cosmology seems incapable of resolving the expansion problem-you have new proposed solutions every day. Yet nothing to the best of my knowledge has stuck.

Maybe its a matter of money and resources-but it seems the entire field has hit a plateau for the past fifty years.

The big bang theory is fake.

We knew about 1400bc how the world was made (literally the first few sentences of the book of genesis)

Some literal faggot in the 1800s just made up some retarded big bang shit

If one reads the Old Testament with any honesty-it is obvious the ancient Hebrews adhered to an ANE model-a tripartite universe-heaven, earth and the sea/underworld. Enveloped by a dome. The Bible does not accord in this instance with actual empirical reality-unless you do a lot of concordist gymnastics to make it fit.

Which a) violates thermodynamics as we know it, and b) doesn't explain why the system exists at all. If your response to b) is "it just does," or "I don't have an explanation but I know that one has to exist," then you're 95% of your way to positing the existence of God.

There are atheists who say this-Sean Carroll. Ultimately you run into some sort of infinite regression(the universe has been eternally created and destroyed) or you must posit some sort of power behind the laws of physics themselves-whether a simulation hypothesis or some variant of theism.

Things like the multiverse simply kick the can down the road.

 

[N Space]

Pff, like what? General relativity doesn't work unless we make up "totally invisible and undetectable types of mass" to balance the books? That's not indirect evidence, that's just a problem with general relativity.

1. There's some evidence of lumping dark matter in a similar manner to black holes attracting stars.
2. Physicists have tried to come up with a lot of alternative gravitational theories to fit observations, these are called MONDs, none work.
3. Vanilla GR works way too well, it explained the anomalous precesion of Mercury, it allows to calculate the proper time offset to make GPS work, it predicted gravitational lensing, black holes, gravitational waves, the expansion of the universe, etc.

 

[The Lawgiver]

photons.

Photons, huh...
LET THE DARKNESS GROWWWWW...

 

[gamerweeb1]

Big bang confirms the genesis story.
Soyence keeps trying to have daddy issues

The story that says light was created before the sun? Hahaha