Only the rubric morons of flyover country would dare to wonder when we read such as this, about Hubble Constant discrepancies:
This summer, as leaders in the field assembled in Santa Barbara, Calif., to discuss the “tension,” physicist Wendy Freedman of the University of Chicago presented a new estimate of the constant that was based on examination of red giant stars. Her number: 70. But the advocates for 67 and 73 held their ground. The tension remained. Freedman told The Washington Post, “There can’t be three different numbers.”
There are more than that, actually. On Oct. 23, researchers at the University of California at Davis published a paper that looked at three gravitational lenses — in which massive galaxies function like magnifying glasses for things behind them in deeper space. Their number: 77
… One obvious, boring explanation is that one of the speed guns needs to be recalibrated.
Joel Achenbach, “The universe doesn’t look right. It suddenly looks . . . out of whack” at Washington Post
Johns Hopkins astronomer Adam Riess cautions us against trying to understand what is going on: “We are wired to use our intuition to understand things around us,” Riess said. “Most of the universe is made out of stuff that’s completely different than us. This adherence to intuition is often wildly unsuccessful in the universe.” (Achenbach, “Whack,”Washington Post )
If we dared to assume such a thing, we might suspect that the universe is actually okay but our methods of studying it are not giving us the answers we need just now.
See also: Sabine Hossenfelder: There is a crisis in physics and it may spread to other sciences