Like the math people have branches of geometry where the parallel axiom is not used. So is there a different model that works? Because all scientists will say "this is our model" and you can have different equivalent models, so what is your model, does it work and what it predicts? What experiment you need done to prove it?
The modern scientific and academic system is hundreds of thousands of people who are not there to challenge knowledge, but play with models for tax dollars. I'd rather destroy their models and send them home than prove my own, for they would only appropriate mine into their models, and continue their deception with more power for knowing the truth.
I could tell you the truth, and we could work to validate it, but you won't believe me without what, science based on measuring the sky? Yet you buy their science which I can invalidate, and you can't validate beyond pointing to "what scientists believe". So that tells me, there's no point in making a better model right now. One good shot will kill their cosmology, and then the bottom will be out and we can put the cosmos back, together.
You can wait and see tho, stay believing we will go to Mars, you will die with that dream unrealized. Were you born yesterday you will die before humans go to mars. Unless you think Mars is WAR, like people did before rulers changed the meaning of things. In that case, we are definitely going to Mars.
Galileo was the point when the narrative changes from "we matter to god as the center of the universe", to this heat death nihilism. Why, because telescopes? I don't buy it. They could have smote Galileo and kept the old doctrine intact. I suspect something bigger...
Models are evaluated by how well they predict the reality but models are not the reality. So you can complain that Newton model for mechanics is imperfect but as long as it does the job for me and you bring nothing better I will still use it productively.
I am trained in math not cosmology so I wanted to get a link to read about your better model.
I'm not pushing my models or cosmology, I'm destroying the lie of academic cosmology based on weak rational sciences. I cannot convince you of another cosmology if you can't disbelieve what you've been told. You believe science has actually been done on the cosmos, because measurements.
You believe big bang, black holes, entropy and heat death, and infinite space, rather than reckoning those are things that disprove. You believe thermodynamics is universal and eternal, despite the fact that life itself breaks with them, and is older than most of your "stars" in "space". You deny your own existence to believe in scifi universality.
No internet link is going to convince you otherwise.
If you believe in black holes and big bangs you will believe anything. But you won't believe in another cosmology until you disbelieve anything approaching real science has been done on the universe.
You have no proof of black holes, you have never seen one. You were told that some calculations based on a model prove it, and have seen artists renderings, so you believe.
I copied from another comment of mine the following, which explains things that these astrophysicist still can't with their models. Simpler too. You should know that all the standard model does is explain. You could use the same maths and readings that they do to surmise another conclusion, maybe you will try yourself one day.
My cosmology explains "dark matter" and the appearance of an expanding universe, in very simple terms. The missing energy source is gain from feedback. Infinite Expansion is a mirage of light convolution until it's noise, and noise points in every direction; that also explains background radiation, it's the noise floor (ie. it's not the actual background farthest reaches, the noise is everywhere near and far).
Occam's Razors says your cosmology is wrong. It's too convoluted, it has to explain the craziest singularities which are not observable, yet can't explain real observations like missing energy and background radiation. No math changes these facts.