this post was submitted on 28 Jan 2026
143 points (96.7% liked)
science
24115 readers
453 users here now
A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
dart board;; science bs
rule #1: be kind
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Headline is waaaay too overstated. A computer simulation model showed that an arrangement of dark matter as described would create an output that matches some of the things we observe in reality. But that's SUPER far from scientists declaring that this is how the galaxy actually is.
It's so overstated, the existence of dark matter hasn't even been proven yet.
i know. they all do it more/less. that article has a few links. also have another board with lower standards. mostly just me for picture articles; https://midwest.social/c/science . my eyes are getting bad for reading/typing. 62
The more i learn the more i realise most of science is this way.
I was already adult when i realised “the big bang theory” is exactly what it implies. A possible theory and not at all a fact.
That's not the case, it's not a division between "facts and speculation" and that's a very simplified and franky poor way to view scientific models.
We can demonstrate with many different tools and areas of evidence that our universe is expanding as time progresses. Reverse that and at some point everything was close together. That's IT. That's the ENTIRE big-bang model, it just means the whole universe was once hot and dense, and then it wasn't anymore because everything moved apart, and we've seen nothing that contradicts this.
There are many particulars that we haven't figured out, but if the fact that everything was once close together isn't accurate, then we don't have science at all, it would mean we don't actually have tools and methods for creating models. And since we're here using tools and models in application to type words on a screen to each other, I don't think that's the case.
Please take care with the sensational headlines like "MOST DISTANT OBJECT EVER SEEN BREAKS ALL SCIENCE" and that bullshit, it's very hyped up and not at all what it sounds like. We don't know what forces of nature did in that early, hot, dense universe and we don't know all the forces at work today in the expanding universe, that doesn't mean it's "just a theory" and that's not even what the term "theory" means.
As i have said elsewhere, i regret mixing up the terminology, which frankly i am quite embarrassed about.
I am not refuting the knowledge that the universe expands. I was speaking on the common anecdote that “in the beginning there was nothing and then it exploded and thats how the universe began” which is how it was initially explained to me and what the majority of people seem to understand and take for absolute truth.
It's ok, I attack these misconceptions as much for readers and browsers as to clear up anything for the commenters. I don't mean to sound heavy, but too many people leverage common misconceptions into full-on anti-science conspirism.
The people who explain it like this need a good slappin', it's not at all accurate. In fact, it's the opposite of what happened (as far as we know.)
what do you get when you compress an infinite universe? An infinite universe of compressed energy and matter.
The universe was in it's early state, as far as we can surmise, infinite in density and mass, but it wasn't "small" and we have no way to know what came before this state. But the short of it is, everything came into being from a state where everything was super dense and hot, then the space itself got bigger so the hot stuff started moving apart from each other. There was never "nothing" as far as we can tell.
You're confusing scientific theory with scientific hypothesis.
A hypothesis is an educated guess that doesn't have facts backing it yet.
A theory is a hypothesis that has undergone rigorous testing and has strong, repeatable evidence backing it.
So Dark Matter is a hypothesis?
I believe a lot of the confusion results from forming conclusions based on what is presented in headlines, both in media and journals, instead of reading the usually much more modest full text.
Shitty attention economy at work. Brain rot started a loooong time ago.
I thought that was a Law?
I think it’s that Laws are proven to be true whereas Theories just have not yet been proven false.
Not quite. Laws are a single proven statement and theories are a collection of laws used to explain why something is the way it is.
The Big Bang Theory uses the laws of physics to justify it.
A law or principal is a single proven statement while a theory is a collection of proven statements.
Basically, a law is how things work while a theory is why things work.
... that’s not how it works, though. In science, a theory is a proven hypothesis that can be used to make predictions and successfully does so. Just because we don’t know what happened in the very first fraction of an instant doesn’t mean the theory (that the universe was in a very hot, compact and dense state that rapidly expanded out and formed the universe as we know it today) isn’t correct, just that it’s incomplete.
I did mix up the terminology and i have no excuse except real life exhaustion.
But does an incomplete theory and unproven facts not kinda be the same thing? People believe “first, there was nothing, then it exploded” but the truth is we don’t know that.
Then there is also all the stuff JW telescope discovered about the early universe that we didn’t expect, showing how imperfect our knowledge is.
That’s not the case- an incomplete theory breaks down at some point, but it still has explanatory power. BBT has a lot of evidence, and we’ve made a lot of predictions using it that have been proven. Of course, you’re still correct in saying that JWST has shown numerous discrepancies, but that shows that it can be superseded by a better theory- an analogy would be Maxwell’s equations are good for most situations, but QED is the more complete theory that works even when Maxwell’s equations don’t.