I'm trying to read through the article now, and disappointed in every paragraph. Even the illustration that are trying to be cute are blatantly inaccurate. For

I'm trying to read through the article now, and disappointed in every paragraph. Even the illustration that are trying to be cute are blatantly inaccurate. For example the one labeled "Space Expansion" shows a grid on the floor. In the case of expansion, the number of grid lines would be the same not more, and the point is that we definitely wouldn't feel the expansion. And then the explanation of rigid rulers and soft taffy rulers seems wrong. Both would expand because the underlying nature of matter expands along with the universe. In other words, all atoms and their distances are affected equally because the forces that determine those distances also change. It has nothing to do with soft or rigid property of an object, which is at the macro level of our perception of matter. I really expected better of Nautilus, I thought they had a more rigorous standard.