One is that I just generally dont buy into grand equations with large numbers, except as, very strictly, theories. Theories generally are not the same as proof. Proof is what excludes competing theories. The Big Bang has huge issues with its underlying assumptions.
The dark energy problem is a valid recognition of ciphers in the overall math, but if one is to assume that this energy must only manifest in a certain way, at that point we are doing the imagination thing and condemning other competing theories because they dont fit the dream.
Whether one looks at an electric universe or some other outlandish model, there is indeed alot energy manifest in terms of its results.
In sum, cosmology involves impossibly grandiose assumptions. They are so grandiose that there should be freedom to re-arrange what is assumed to be constant and what is assumed to be an enormous and wildly fluctuating variable -- which dark energy represents.
The irony, of course, is that
Setterfield's entire work up to now consists of about two dozen grand equations with large numbers (and some fits of statistics with dubious data).
The further irony is that your support of Setterfield often feels like an imaginative flight of fancy that discards any theory that doesn't fit your dream of Biblical literalism.
The second issue is the conservation of energy issue. Many theoreticians who dont even like Setterfield do lots of interesting math that doesnt even find mass to be constant in fundamental particles. This is used to account for some of the observed phenomena, such as red-shift. You are also aware that conventional science has started to document and explore the frontier of variation in dimensionless constants. It is hard to image a less reliable and stable science than one in which such things are so changeable. It certainly allows for interesting theories, but it is pretty laughable as a method of deriving dogma to exclude the competition. All other things are not equal in such a universe -- necessarily -- and as such, there is no reason why one cannot conserve energy when the rate of atomic decay, for example, is increased.
Firstly - who, precisely, are the "theoreticians" connecting change of mass to redshift? If you're talking about redshift quantization, that's been knocked out of contention by the data several times, most recently in 2007.
Secondly, variation in dimensionless constants is miles away from what Setterfield is suggesting. The speed of light is "dimensionful", and in fact changes in dimensionful constants are pretty meaningless anyway in the grand physical scheme of things.
After all, the speed of light was about 5% higher in Rome than today: guess why? Because the Roman mile was about 5% shorter than today's mile, so the speed of light that is 168,000 miles per hour today would have been about 176,000 miles per hour in the day of Jesus. I hope you can see that this kind of change has no real physical significance.
What really matters are changes in dimensionless physical constants. For example, the ratio of mass between a proton and a neutron is very roughly 1:1. A ratio is a dimensionless quantity: whether or not we measure in pounds or kilograms or electronvolts, the ratio of a proton to a neutron should be 1:1. Or else something has gone quite wacky physically.
Thirdly, and for reasons I'm too lazy to explain in layman terms, Setterfield's model actually
shouldn't conserve energy. (Noether's conservation theorems: if physical laws aren't isotropic in time then energy shouldn't be conserved, just as how momentum is not conserved when physical constraints aren't isotropic in space) If Setterfield's theorems are self-consistent when energy is conserved, then it isn't actually consistent with the real world; and as far as I've seen, if energy isn't conserved, the world melts down at around the time of Abraham. It's a no-win situation.
