I'm not remotely an expert, but the static model doesn't seem to account for things like entropy or even the mechanics behind what strongly suggests the universe was not remotely in the state it is now billions of years ago. How do you even remotely start to determine the universe's age?
The Nuclear Cycle that Powers the Stars: Fusion, Gravitational...
Massive Quasars From The Dawn Of Time Defy Theoretical Models Of Black Hole Formation
Galaxies in the early universe mature beyond their years
The entropy issue can be resolved by a "recycling" process that assumes that neutrons of the "primordial" substance of the universe which is the basis of the first link above. Actually, observations of the early (distant) universe tend to *defy* the expansion models, and contain 'mature' galaxies and 'massive' quasars which are not predicted to exist in the BB model. For all I know, the universe is infinite and eternal.
Science doesn't claim perfection, that's your unrealistic standard
I'm not suggesting it has to be "perfect", but it's also unrealistic to think that are current models are correct, particularly since 95 percent of the current model is based on what amounts to placeholder terms for human ignorance.
Except the scale is massively different, so, like with gravity, I can't imagine it's going to function the same way or that the model would make sense when we're talking stuff on the level that dwarfs our sun and solar system entirely, the Milky Way alone such that we're a speck
Sure, but plasma physics scales quite nicely. There's no real need to simply abandon known laboratory physics to explain what we see in our universe today. Admittedly, massively heavy objects can't be studied in a lab, but all the core tenets of plasma physics can be studied in a lab, and most of 'known' universe is in the plasma state.
Not sure how you propose to falsify a model that would require observing the universe as a whole: also you can't really put such events in a lab: are we going to just observe an accretion disc forming or a star coming into being in a lab?
Dark energy is based on a dubious assumption.
Two recent papers on SN1A data would suggest that the whole "dark energy" claim is based on rather limited and now questionable data. If it's possible to falsify dark energy claims, that would falsify 70 percent of the current model. It is possible that we may find examples of solar system formation which give us clues to the electrical aspects of solar system formation, thus supporting many of the computer models Peratt has played with. Birkeland and now SAFIRE have produced solar models that produce a working corona, solar flares, polar jets, etc, all of which seem to jive with what observe in satellite images of the sun. The amount of new information we collect is expanding exponentially.
Once we understand more about black holes, we could figure out whether the hypothesis that they're wormholes might accurate and could be applied in terms of understanding what happens temporally and spatially within the event horizon, etc.
That wouldn't necessarily tell us the actual "cause" of photon redshift over distance however. While quite fascinating, I suspect that black holes will remain an enigma for some time to come.
The single cause may be insufficient in explaining other observations we have from measurements that I cannot say I'm aware of. The scale is one of the biggest aspects you seem to oversimplify, as if the universe is just a giant sphere and there's no sense of change, entropy, etc, involved that would bring a static universe into question
FYI, I assume that the universe is infinite and eternal. Gravity tends to cause things to "clump" in space, and fusion tends to drive things apart. If you read that first paper I cited in this post, it assumes that energy is simply recycled over time, changing forms repeatedly.
You keep saying that, but I don't claim expertise in that respect at all and your use of valid is also questionable as to whether it actually applies in any sense beyond that it fits particular experiments you can quote rather than something that actually would be more substantiated and thus fit a theory rather than a mere hypothesis.
From my perspective, the bar isn't really that high in cosmology with respect to theories and hypotheses since the currently popular model is based on multiple "hypothetical" forms of matter, energy and processes.
Anthony Peratt was a student of Hannes Alfven who first developed the plasma cosmology model. Peratt has done a fair amount of computer modeling and he works at Los Alamos and uses much of the same code and the same mathematical models that we use to test current nuclear theory today. I'd say that's a good start, but there's still a lot of work to be done.