@mastodonmigration@bruces I'm pretty sure nobody's casting aspersions. It seems more an idle speculation.
150 years ago, the biggest argument against Darwin's theory of evolution was that there was no way that the Earth could possibly be old enough for such slow processes to work. Lord Kelvin proved convincingly that the Sun could not possibly be older than... I forget, a few hundred thousand years? Maybe a million? I forget the result but I had to replicate those results as an undergrad astronomy assignment, calculating how much gravitational energy there was in a collapsing cloud of gas, and how long it would take for that energy to dissipate.
But those arguments all took place long before we'd discovered the structure of the atom, or radioactivity, of course. The discovery of nuclear physics, the quantum nature of the universe, and all the other things you learn in a Modern Physics course, those things changed everything.
So I read Bruce's question more as "What further discoveries lie in our future? How dramatically will they change our current understanding?"
And for what it's worth, I think that none of the specific facts he mentions are likely to change. Those are observational data, not theoretical predictions. When Eratosthenes measured the diameter of the earth in 2600 BC, his results weren't affected by the discoveries of later phyisicists because they were simple measurements, reduced with high school trigonometry.