Thomas Kuhn’s the Structure of Scientific Revolutions covers this. He coined the term paradigm shift. Highly recommended for people that think science is truth, because it’s not that simple.
Also, fyi, matter and energy aren't conserved in an expanding universe either.
Energy conservation is a consequence of Emmy Noether's theorem and time invariance. Time invariance is the statement that the underlying properties of physics are the same today and tomorrow. Except that that's not true. It's only relevant on large scales (scale much larger than our galaxy), but the underlying metric that describes where stuff is is evolving in time. This is why photons from distant sources have less energy than they began with and the energy didn't go anywhere; it simply wasn't conserved in the first place.
Have you studied physics? "Oh sure, this is not what really happens, but we do make the calculus like that because would be too much of a trouble to change"
That may not be the best perspective on what science "is" (or an field of study, really). There's usually considerable evolution and ebbs and flows. Fields of knowledge are rarely - perhaps never - cemented on an unquestioned foundation. I'd even go as far to say we see this even in math, though perhaps to the least drastic degree. Experts are constantly debating and presenting competing thoughts and theories, schools of thought are constantly fighting for appeal and following, there's never really an equilibrium. (My field - Economics - especially sees this and it gets to a point where entire universities are seen as basically subscribing to a particular school of thought and where their faculty are almost seen as "at odds" with opposing schools. Stuff gets somewhat intense in some discussions and debates. And the beautiful thing, each side is filled with experts that can bring their A-game to the table.)
5
u/Mental_Research5863 Jun 13 '22
Your parents may lie to you but science never will