Slashdot Mirror
Universe Is Expanding Faster Than We Thought (gizmodo.com)
An anonymous reader writes from a report via Gizmodo: The Hubble Space Telescope has released some new numbers indicating that the rate of expansion of our universe is approximately 45.5 miles per second per megaparsec. It calculated this by measuring the distance between 19 faraway galaxies. Conceptually, the calculations show that space is expanding fast enough to essentially double the distance between our galaxy and our nearest neighbors in about 10 billion years. The new Hubble constant, which is 5 to 9 percent higher than previous estimates, does not match estimated expansion rates from the energetic leftovers of the Big Bang, thus causing a headache for cosmologists. It could mean that Einstein's theory of relativity is incomplete and/or there are processes pushing space apart that we have yet to account for.
so, it's going 11?
rewriting history since 2109
It could mean that time is a lot different than current physics accounts for.
What a strange universe this is.
I am starting think they don't know what they are talking about.
I thought I was just gassy.
Except 'no reason' = "tons of math that about 3 people in the world understand"
Global Warming? ;-P
Error: NSE - No Signature Error
The new Hubble constant...does not match estimated expansion rates from the energetic leftovers of the Big Bang, thus causing a headache for cosmologists.
I thought the real headache for cosmologists was that the measured value of the cosmological constant, which is what powers the accelerating expansion, was ~120 orders of magnitude different from the best calculations. If I have understood it correctly then this new result seems to suggest that the cosmological constant is not in fact a constant. So given that we clearly have absolutely no idea what is driving the expansion of the universe I don't see this new information as a headache but rather as clue which should help solve the puzzle of dark energy.
we move too fast.
The next time a cosmologist starts to pontificate about the inevitable _________ death of the universe. Best to catch the older ones, so you can play just how many irrefutable endings to the universe there have been.
No, not even they understand it. Which is why it was wrong.
I wish slashdot headlines weren't so definite. This is a single paper adding incrementally to our knowledge; it is not a survey article describing the joint understanding of all cosmologists.
For example, reading the paper, the galaxies hosting the supernovae in the sample had Cepheid--calibrated distances, in other words these are reasonably close objects (hence the reference to the local Hubble constant). While the paper discusses the possible effect of local motions of these 19 (!) galaxies, I don't think this discussion is sufficient. These proper motions are a more likely effect than issues with the CMB.
The Universe is just trying to get away faster from the people who shop at Walmart. Have you seen them?
...the next singularity which is in the direction of maximum outward toward a single point. (think N-dimensional torus with a zero diameter doughnut hole)
Hmm. 45.5miles/s/Mparsec is 2.373e-18Hz; or F-63 for those people with 72-octave pianos.
"A conclusion we came to was wrong because we jumped to it for no reason"
You believe that's what cosmologists do in peer-reviewed papers, just to conclusions for no reason? Somehow I think random /. armchair experts know less than they think.
No one understands what dark energy actually is - that's what the "dark" part means. The continuing, accelerating expansion of the universe is an observation seeking explanation. People propose hypotheses, and when we get new data many of those are falsified. That's called "science".
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
As long as there is a dichotomy in science as there is between relativity, quantum mechanics, and dark matter/energy you have an incomplete theory. As much as it will pain most who read this you cannot say with certainty that anything is impossible until you can back-calculate all related constants from a theory, and even then new observations can overturn that. This state has not been reached.
The history of science is nothing but a chain of increasingly less-wrong conclusions supplanting ones that were previously jumped to for insufficient reason, because there is no such thing as "sufficient reason"; there is no certainty, and all conclusions are necessarily "jumped to".
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
It could mean that Einstein's theory of relativity is incomplete
How arrogant do you have to be to think you have it all figured out?
I agree with this. Truth is unobtainable. Worth a try though.
"A conclusion we came to was wrong because we jumped to it for no reason"
No reason whatsoever, except the entirety of observed data.
"Oh no... he found the
What would be a great idea is if we could have all of the conclusions on a mat, if you will. In some sort of grid. Then we could JUMP to them
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
Truth is unobtainable. Worth a try though.
My personal motto is "fortasse desperato sed conor nihilominus", which is Latin for "it may be hopeless but I'm trying anyway", and that is the foundational principle of my philosophy, both in the "attitude toward life" sense and, back on topic, in the academic sense: from that principle, stated a bit more formally, I build up to a formulation of the scientific method, where you can never quite reach the truth but you can get a lot closer by trying than you would by giving up, whether that be giving up in the sense of abandoning any hope of success (nihilism, which all forms of relativism boil down to) or falsely claiming you've already succeeded (fideism, encompassing in it any appeal to authority or the supernatural, i.e. religion); and I also, separately, build from that foundational principle to an ethical analogue of the scientific method, but that's off-topic here.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Your use of the word 'observation' would tend to logically indicate that the correct statement is 'the universe appears to be expanding faster than our original hypothesis'. As it is impossible to confirm via alternate view points or experiment with alternate universes, only hypothesis based upon appearance can be postulated.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
"Miles per second per megaparsec" is quite a surprising unit choice. Either use international unit system, or something else, but the mix is odd.
What about "miles per second per peta-yards?"
Incomplete theory? Just fill in any gaps with God. Problem solved.
Like a more athletic but physics-based twister? Sorry, there's no sizable market of athletic physics geeks who get laid (only reason anyone plays).
> No reason whatsoever, except the entirety of observed data.
If you change the model every time you observe more data, you don't have a model, you just have data.
Incomplete theory? Just fill in any gaps with CONSTANT. Problem solved.
our universe is a big tent that supports all kinds of diversity!
Copyright (c) 1990 - 2014 Dice. All rights reserved. Use of this comment is subject to certain Terms and Conditions.
I would suggest that there's something in the middle.
1) Theories typically have to start off as wild assed hypotheses plucked from somewhere. I know of a group of highly published physicists who sit around passing a joint giggling and coming up with theories which they investigate further once they sober up a bit. Thinking outside of the box to find answers often requires creativity... especially when the theory is completely unable to be observed.
2) Due to obvious lack of observed information, new theories are often published citing other theories as their foundation. This is amazing because it can help prove the original theory by providing a possible application. It's very little different than smoking the joint and giggling over "what if...?". It's a necessary step to allow peers to collaborate. Publishing for peer review does not actually mean "I believe I'm indisputably correct, bow to me or prove me wrong". It's a method of sharing information so other people can try and run with it too. There are too frigging many people (especially journalists... even "educated" journalists) who seem to believe papers publish for peer review are proofs. Or worse, because of this stupid religion vs. science debate, there are people "representing science" who are trying to explain "The theory of evolution" to idiots running museums displaying humans riding dinosaurs and misrepresenting the word "Theory" to make it sound like "As good as fact".
3) There are good scientists who work for a living and try to establish a foundation for their theories before simply grabbing 5 papers written by others, gluing them together like a collage and spamming them into the first journal to take them. These guys will actually put some effort into it, visit the local university and peer review with students, professors, etc... and eventually after believing they've reached a point of reasonable certainty that their theory isn't simply shit, they'll release the paper to be torn apart by a group of people who will like the idea and try to run with it, like the idea and try to disprove it as a favor to the author, or others who will try to disprove the idea using nothing but a crayon and a napkin because they're dicks.
4) There are bad scientists who somehow manage to establish published bibliographies that span multiple pages. Some of these guys are people who got their Ph.D., "mentored" shit loads of grad students and put his name first on the paper. What's worse is that he also made the student pay to get it published. Even worse is that he didn't put his name on other papers that he should have. Even worse, he didn't even really read the paper he put his name on, he simply said "He looks pretty smart... If I take credit for his work, I won't likely get burned". That scientist, when he eventually publishes his own work likely doesn't have 2 grams of originality. What's worse is that since he's such an amazingly highly published scientist with so many good papers under his belt, the journalists will flock to his paper.
Science and the scientific process is not flawless and has to be constantly improved on. I obviously represented it terribly here and that was because I'm playing devil's advocate. I hold science in incredibly high regard and respect. I spent two years of my life helping scientists and mathematicians translate from Ph.D. to human for the purpose of publishing papers or patents. I learned more by doing that then I could in a hundred years of reading. I believe part of the scientific process that works well is the hecklers and the critics. They're like the fellow who would stand behind the roman general upon his chariot while entering Rome whose job it was was to whisper "You're not a god" as a reminder.
Yes, that's absolutely what they do. Peer review is useless. 90% of the time no one reads the paper. 9% of the time they read the paper but don't understand it and just give it a thumbs up because they don't want to reveal how useless they are. 1% of the time they hate the person who wrote it so they read it and tear it apart thoroughly.
A large chunk of science relies on observations not tied to controlled experiments. That doesn't make it any less "science". Regardless of your experiment, after all, what you end up with is only "observations". Heck, for particle physics you get statistical analysis of observations 3 steps removed from the event of interest.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Is that using the kings foot?
I thought humanity invented a method of measuring the speed of light, and its based off the 'meter'.
So, just coz I remember space shuttles and rockets exploding because America (one of only 3 countries in the world who still use the kings standard of measurement) couldnt convert inches to centimeters and boom!
If Hubble had seen the redshift of Quasars which appear to have far more redshift than the galaxies they're apparently associated with according to apparent location and similar brightness, then he would not have declared the universe to be expanding.
In other words: The Hubble constant may not be constant, but treating it as a constant produces physics breaking calculations of Quasars as being brighter that entire galaxies when in reality they could simply have non cosmological redshift (redshift that's not associated with expanding space-time).
[Would you like to know more?]
The accelerating expansion of the universe, aka "dark energy" is just about the last case in which you want to say this sort of thing, you know. Two independent groups of scientists both set out to measure how much the expansion was decelerating, since they, and basically everyone else who even believed the universe was expanding, expected gravity to slow it down over time. Through lots of observations (not pulled out of their collective asses) and calculations (ditto), they wound up disproving their own hypotheses.
I would say that's an example of science at its best - research leading to results that fly in the face of what had previously been believed, and belief being updated as a result. Apparently the Nobel committee felt the same way. Oh, and yes, there are people - not just Hubble folks - actively running experiments to get more data and see whether the numbers arrived at back in the late '90s by the guys who won the Nobel 5 years ago were actually right. In fact, those same guys are involved in follow-on projects to further refine or narrow down the ranges they came up with.
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
Sure, science without observation to kill off the bad hypotheses is barely science. Witness string theory. But that's not cosmology, for the most part (though there is actually a lot of theories-based-on-theories around inflation, simply because so much time has passed without any new data to cull the herd).
However, most of the stuff that laymen insist can't be true, and scientists are just making crazy stuff up, is very much based on observations, and it's the universe itself that seems to be making crazy stuff up. Relativity, quantum mechanics, dark matter, dark energy: all of these started with crazy-seeming but undeniable observations, not stoned creative writing by bored scientists as so many /. armchair scientists seem to think. We end up with the crazy-seeming theories because all the less-crazy hypotheses failed.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
A quick calculation says that's about 0.45 nanometres/sec over a distance of about 191,000 miles.
So....how accurately can the distance to the moon be measured these days?
I think you misunderstood my point; I was arguing against the "pulled out of their asses" notion of the person I responded to by pointing out that all of science is just increasingly more-educated guesses, and that's fine and normal and couldn't possibly be any other way. Finding that the universe was accelerating was the less-wrong conclusion that supplanted the assumption that it was decelerating, previously jumped to for insufficient reason; not that the reason being insufficient is a criticism, because no reason can ever be sufficient, so we've got to settle for "good enough for now" and expect to find out we were wrong in some ways later.
This newest result is just finding out one of the ways were were still wrong after that. And no doubt the new conclusion is also still wrong. But they're getting less wrong, and that's the best we could possibly hope for.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
And God Said "Let there be ligh... Dammit, the dratted kids turned the record player up to 78 speed again!"
Both the universe and the Walmart shoppers are trying to escape the hipsters wanting to redevelop the downtown area into brewpubs and organic craft bakeries.
What humanity views as dark mater may be in fact the result of dimensional space interaction causing one part of the standard dimensional space time bubble time to be slightly out of sync with another.
Occam's razor suggests that we start with the simplest ideas first. In this case that's solutions which require minimal addition of new physics to what we already know. This is always a good idea because the more new things you add the harder it is to make your idea completely consistent with all existing data. So unless we find a distant group of galaxies which spell out "Syntax error at line 45" let's leave the crazier theories until we have ruled out the simpler ones.
Certain parts of science, like Newtonian mechanics, is mature enough so we know where it works and know where it does not work. We know the bad assumption that we made, and how to back fix it so it is now ok.
Cosmology, on the other hand, has lots of problems. General relativity explains a lot, but we have black holes which we observe as a phenomena and identify as black holes but that could be part of the problems we have elsewhere. We have quantum mechanics which is might have significant impact on the way the universe evolves, but we may not be factoring in the full impact. And of course there is part in the middle that is still to be discovered.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Surely that depends on whether the new observations agree with the model.
Aren't they watching the galaxies moving in an expanding universe?
Maybe the galaxies, they watch, just decided to move somewhere sunnier really fast?
The rest of the Universe has realized what a disaster we are, given that we have actually sent stuff into space beyond our immediate neighborhood, and has hit the gas trying to get away from us.
There is no conclusion or hypothesis involved here, someone estimated the rate of the expansion of the universe, somebody else refined that estimate, that sort of experiment never ends since you can always look for ways to improve your measurement methods.. The FACT that the universe is expanding is not a hypothesis, it's an observation.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Instead of the universe expanding, couldn't it simply be us getting smaller and smaller? For example, because we are falling into a black hole or something? Our whole three-dimensional space might simply be an illusion, a projection of some higher-dimensional space being squashed onto the surface of a massive gravity well. At least it would explain time: we are moving at light speed in the direction of the gravity source. Moving in any other direction causes time to slow down because we are already moving at maximum speed.
Today's understanding of the universe will probably be ridiculed in the future and get compared to when everyone accepted that the world was flat or that the Sun orbited the Earth.
The relativity of wrong - Issac Asimov's reply to that old canard.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
It is pretty much routine now for any model involving "dark" energy or matter to change every time we have even one more data point. To defend these theories with authority seems really dishonest, because they consistently fail at predictions and need endless tweaking.
The Great Simulator didn't bother to implement garbage collection.
Table-ized A.I.
And we've just leveled up. What else could it be?
"double the distance between our galaxy and our nearest neighbors in about 10 billion years." - except we won't, because the two galaxies are gravitationally bound and the bond overcomes space expansion.
It only works between superclusters of galaxies.
The analogy of "dots on expanding balloon" is inaccurate. It's more like blotches of dried, hard glue - each blotch being a supercluster. The space expands in between them, they drift apart, but each blotch remains roughly the same size.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
How much is that in cubits? And is that nautical miles, geographical miles, Welsh miles or international miles? Come on, this is cosmology, shouldn't it be expressed in units the majority of people know?
Publish of Perish!!
It could also mean one or more of the conflicting theories is sheep shit.
... those galaxies are just running away from Justin Bieber.
A large portion of science started as philosophy and was decided at the time that it was impossible to test. Only centuries later did someone figure out a way to test it with modern technology. Some of that science is now the cornerstone of modern science.
Don't be quick to judge something just because it's stuck in the realm of philosophy.
Please do not question this! It was only ONE thing that banged not many or even two things held together by string. Of corse just before the big bang sentience had coalesced into one single entity that was very lonely and decided to blow its mind. This is of course know known as big bong theory.
Fight!
What if the redshift is because of the distance instead of actual, physical recession speed?
... Or perhaps there's something else causing the redshift of spectral lines we use to estimate the speed of remote galaxies. Seems like a much simpler explanation than dark energy and all the other epicyclic add-ons we're accruing.
the interpretations of QM-influenced infinite universe models. (modified QRE-based. One example: http://www.sciencedirect.com/s... )
My own personal interpretation of the model is that gravitational thinning between galactic clusters can encourage energetic decay (as-in particle decay) in thin regions between galaxies in order to create new galaxies. Once enough hydrogen has formed to create new stellar mega-nurseries stars form rapidly in proximity, drawing in more void-hydrogen and thus creating more stars. Of course this is purely mathematical since we would be unable to see these extra-galactic nurseries with any current technology.
Of course, I don't buy into Dark Energy or Dark Matter as invented by big-bang cosmologists. Let's face that simple reality right off, BBCs just invented the idea when required by their model breaking under observation by the Hubble telescope. A small modification of the QRE to account for ultra-low mass in neutrinos and photons allows for a higher probability of decay into a stable isotope of hydrogen when gravity and mass are worked in as order-of-magnitude vectors causative to quantum field interactions.
DISCLAIMER: Most of this stuff isn't anywhere near solid enough for publication. I'm no math genus, just barely smart enough to putz about with my own models.
My $0.02 will always be worth more than your â0.02, so
What about the space at atomic scales? Is that expanding? Given the (shitty) units of 45 miles/s per mega-parsec; that is 2.4E-18 m/s/m. That rate is about 1/1000 diameter of a hydrogen nucleus per second. Or it would take 2000 years to double the diameter of a hydrogen atom. Is that actually happening; seems not?
"A conclusion we came to was wrong because we jumped to it for no reason"
You believe that's what cosmologists do in peer-reviewed papers, just to conclusions for no reason? Somehow I think random /. armchair experts know less than they think.
All part of the anti-intellectual crusade. If you can discredit any part of science, then some of the more uncomfortable parts are easy to enact political answers for.
Even in the summary, it is written that this is causing headaches for cosmologists. Good gawd no! More like excitement. Science isn't like religion or politics, where you make your decision, then stick to it at all costs, think trickle down economics or the war on drugs. Things that don't work, but some folks still worship them. Scientists get excited at anomalies, and trying to come up with new models.
The difference between "Oh Shit!" like the summary suggests, and my reaction of "Cool!"
No one understands what dark energy actually is - that's what the "dark" part means.
Actually we do - Dark energy, dark matter - is just a placeholder for what we don't know. While it might seem like a word game for scientists, it kind of seems like we know what the energy is and are searching for it to the public.
The continuing, accelerating expansion of the universe is an observation seeking explanation. People propose hypotheses, and when we get new data many of those are falsified. That's called "science".
And the falsified (incorrect) data is often very valuable in it's own right. It closes off a line of thought/research that we now know is wrong. Some times I think this is the most confusing thing for most people. If my pet theory is proven wrong, I accept it and move on to something else. Most people seem to think you pick an idea and stick with it forever.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Yes, that's absolutely what they do. Peer review is useless. 90% of the time no one reads the paper. 9% of the time they read the paper but don't understand it and just give it a thumbs up because they don't want to reveal how useless they are. 1% of the time they hate the person who wrote it so they read it and tear it apart thoroughly.
You have the cites for that?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
I kept falling over because I was trying to balance for the rate of expansion science SAID was happening...I KNEW it had to be expanding faster & it wasn't just me!
You mean we don't know everything there is to know about everything? I am amazed.
NO! The correct statement is 'the universe appears to be expanding faster than our previous MEASUREMENT' not 'hypothesis'. The math used to convert an observation of one 'observable' in to a value of another 'observable' is not a 'theory' or 'hypothesis'...e.g. if I measure the distance a car travels in a given amount of time I can calculate the velocity it travelled at (v = d/t)...that is not a 'hypothesis' it is a 'measurement'.
Now, trying to explain why the universe is expanding and even why it is expanding at the rate it is measured at THAT would be 'theory' or a 'hypothesis'.
Please learn the difference.
I wonder....wouldn't both exhibit a similar effect?
"It could mean that Einstein's theory of relativity is incomplete ..."
Einstein's theory neatly disguises the fact that the reason light travels at the speed it does is not understood (or explained).
Interpretation is the art of the masters.
Well, 45.5 miles/s/Mpc means that at a distance of ~4.1 Gpc the expansion speed exceeds c (~186000 miles/s). But the observable Universe has a diameter of ~28 Gpc. What am I missing here?
The Universe is trying to move as far away from Donald Trump as possible.
Second - does this change/remove the roles of dark matter/dark energy in our understanding of cosmology? (the modern "Cosmological Constant" if ever I've heard one, BTW - dark matter and dark energy are right up there with Russel's Teapot AFAIC)
Third - oh, wait. I'm running on empty here. Two examples will have to do - but I love it when experimental results don't jive with theoretical predictions. That's when real science happens!
I sat through a great presentation at CERN the day the Higgs was discovered. The physicist who held the dissertation did an absolutely awful job. He honestly could not string together 10 words together into a single coherent sentence to save his life. He was "The guy in the barrel" that day. It was his job to speak to the visitors and explain what the purpose of the LHC was. He went through a stack of slides presenting the principles of particle physics and strangely enough even covered a little quantum physics which I found strange. He clearly hated speaking in front of "normal people" and beyond simply hating it seemed to lack the ability to do so. I've worked with similar scientists (as a translator to human) in other fields for years. It was basically my "turn in the barrel" because I would be responsible for saying "I think your brain is going far faster than your mouth and you skipped... I don't know... about 16 years worth of information in our terms because you didn't even remember where your mouth currently was. You need to take a step back... talk to me like I'm roughly as intelligent as a single cell organism and dumb it down a bit". I would then take what they said and run it though about 150 Google searches per minute of speech and then present "He said he wants pepperoni".
These guys are amazing and I'm not kidding when I say that the ones who smoke the bowl are far easier to communicate with. It slows them down to only 5 times human speed. On the other hand, given them nicotine and caffeine and their speed triples. They are well know for walking around with 5 or more nicotine patches and a 350ml cup of espresso and sugar when they're onto something. If you've see the movie "Hoodwinked"... think of Twitchy with a 190+ IQ.
That being said... scientists absolutely do postulate theories by plucking crazy ideas from their asses. Ideas like quantum pairs and dark matter almost certainly start off as wild assed guesses. And those are the absolute best theories out there. They take a certain level of creativity that is upon epic levels. BUT!!!! those are leaps that are founded on what is believed to be some sound principles.
Though there might be a ton of "If this is true and we believe this theory based on that is also true and therefore this would seem reasonable... it is possible that our lack of ability to observe this is likely because it's some form of matter which can't be observed since we only know how to observe matter as we already understand it. This other wild ass theory talks about anti-matter which we now seem to believe is actually quite possible, but now that we believe we can in fact observe anti-matter.. maybe there's some other state of matter we still haven't discovered that could be... counter-matter! Wait... counter-matter, while technically accurate sounds too much like anti-matter... we need a name for matter we can't really define yet and we also can't really observe... hmm... while simply being too black to see would be entirely wrong as simply not seeing past it would be good enough to detect it, this is more like invisible matter or truly transparent matter that neither absorbs, stores, etc... light or other EM we use to identify matter. Maybe we can call it vacuum matter... sounds stupid. So, for pop science we'll call it 'Dark Matter'... it worked for Superman. Though Bizarro was far cooler, but 'Bizarro matter' just is a little to DC comics."... then before publishing something, the progenitor (proper word?) stood up at a symposium an presented his theory (though it's more likely there was some correspondence before hand) and threw the idea out there with the some fairly vague theory that would apply some level of math or at least references to corresponding science to describe the properties of some sort of "dark matter" that would describe something that appears to have mass without actually being observable other than by consuming space where there should have simply been vacuum.
There was a hell of a leap of faith and to be fair, last I heard, the sta
You can read any published paper from any "respected" journal and see from yourself.
Slashdot has posted a number of articles over the last 18 months or so about how journals and peer review are broken and gamed. You can look there.
First global warming, now this.
You can read any published paper from any "respected" journal and see from yourself. Slashdot has posted a number of articles over the last 18 months or so about how journals and peer review are broken and gamed. You can look there.
IOW, no cites. At least let me know a general idea of how many peer reviiewed articles you have written. Then describe the peer review process. Its a little funny that people like you read about a retraction and someone getting caught, and think You see? You SEE? Your Stupid Stupid minds!
When in fact, it is merely a case of people getting caught. Despite the right wing's insistence, scientists are humans too, and just like family values politician getting caught in an airport bathroom cruising for Big Richard Smoker. Stuff happens.
Getting caught is merely science self correcting.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
That is the worst idea I've ever heard in my life.
are we all just shrinking?
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
They've obviously upgraded to a faster processor https://games.slashdot.org/story/16/06/03/0049258/elon-musk-one-in-billions-chance-were-not-living-in-a-computer-simulation/
The continuing, accelerating expansion of the universe is an observation based on assumptions that have been shown to not always be true.