Ever since I first heard about the Big Bang as a kid, I’ve never really bought it. The concept of the entire universe being literally a dimensionless point - I just don’t think so. If that’s what the math leads to, doubt the math or the observations the math is based on. Same with dark matter and dark energy - I mean come on, if a theoretical model of the universe says it has to be 20x more dense than we can measure, you rethink the model - don’t decide 95% of everything must be “dark”. Dark is for the 3rd movie in a superhero franchise when the 2nd one doesn’t make enough money, it’s not a way to define the universe.
/end rant
You seems to think the entire process is “our model is missing something, so we made up so shit it kind of works and call it a day”.
In fact it’s A) our model is missing something B) it would work, if X was true, so to check if it could be valid… (And this part is crucial) C) …lets consider what else would be true if X was true. What else (from outside the model) can we measure? Would the result be different if X was true or flase? Let’s make predictions and see, see how well we did.
It’s not A) The car stopped. Car that wouldn’t have gas would stop. Ergo we belive that car don’t have gas.
It’s B) car have stopped. Car that wouldn’t have gas would have stop. If car don’t have gas, we would expect it to be lighter than cars with gas and we would expect a driver to go out with cannister and move in the direction of gas-station… and we weight the car, and look for a driver moving on foot. Only, once our predictions are confirmed we update our model.
Is it 100% correct? No but it’s a systemic and reasonable aproch of moving model closer to the truth.