Replies

I clearly came to the opposite conclusion in my post when I said that Newtonian theory was refined, not replaced, by relativity theory and I would risk becoming blatantly pedantic to try to elaborate further. But that's never stopped me before, so....

Use this analogy: Someone invents the wheel and axle and a grand concept in transportation is born. Then someone else later attaches a horse to the front and this improves the concept allowing people to move about faster that humans can run. An internal combustion engine is then installed in place of the horse and this also is seen as an improvement (unless your name is AlGore) allowing travel to and from jobs at great distances and permitting goods to be transported thousands of miles in a few days. Currently, the wheel and axle concept of transportation is undergoing many additions and refinements such as hybrid electric motors and GPS navigation, yet at no time past or present was the underlying theory determined to be invalid or flawed. Even when the horse was replaced by an engine this didn't have anything to do with the validity of the underlying theory, just a change in practical application.

This relates to the article because some critics are asserting that expanding universe theory must be wholly invalid if the observed and measured expansion of the universe deviates even a tiny amount from the value predicted by the currently incomplete theories. This is fallacious, as if a small, as yet unexplained deviation in the observed rate of expansion means that the universe isn't really expanding at all.