One cannot measure anything as snowflake has described. It's like either a continuously or disretely variable spring. Stretch it to twice it's length, and the interval derivative or discrete subsecttions have stretched to their respective sizes, as well. To the intra-universal observer, nothing has changed, since the algebraic relationship between the two hasn't changed, either. To the extra-univeral observer, the same holds true, since they would view the entire universe (or appropriate portion) and would themselves be able to make measurements relative to other portions of the unverse.

Personally, I believe there are certain universal "constants" which aren't as constant as we'd like to believe, that are, because of their incorrectly perceived consistancy, distorting the perceptions of universal behaviors, thereby distorting the conclusions with respect to "expanding universe" and "dark matter."

The problem is, we've only be able to verify those constants within they tiny dot of our own space-time backyard. A thousand, million, billion, or a trillion years ago they might have been significantly different due to the very nature of the interrelational aspect of the universe itself. Assuming consistancy when it cannot be proved is faulty science at best, and leads to erroneous conclusions that mislead others, at worst.

From what I heard from a few JPL friends back when I was near the business, there were a few "slight" discrepancies with respect to the expected and actual relative frequencies on which the original Voyager was to be transmitting as it left our solar system, and that if the universal constants were indeed constant, the error wouldn't have been present. The fact that there was an error at the time was, for the most part dismissed, but never fully explained. Some hinted at an unknown mass, but there were no changes in expected trajectory that would have accompanied any action by a mass.

I'm no expert in quantum mechanics, nor astrophysics, by any stretch of the imagination. What I do best is integrate seemingly incongruous disciplines to obtain optimal results.

From what I can see, there are gaps in between disciplines. I believe re-examining the Voyager data is one way to begin to solve it, but regardless, I don't believe the universal constants are as constant as we believe throughout space-time, and I believe that's what's throwing off our predictions with respect to whether the universe is expanding or contraction and at what rate, current rate of change, and long-term function of the rate of change with respect to experienced time.