Why isn't a cyclic, eternal universe the default assumption?
Genuine question. My intuition says:
Spacetime is static and eternal, that it has always existed, it doesn't expand. Matter has always existed.
The Big Bang was just the most recent "bounce", and all matter collapsed under gravity into an extremely dense point, pressure became so extreme that all structure broke down to fundamental particles, and exploded outward again. Full reset every cycle.
In this model, redshift is just Doppler, matter moving through static space, not space itself expanding. There is no speed of light barrier for matter, c is simply the propagation speed of electromagnetic waves through their medium, like sound through air. Time dilation is a mechanical effect of gravity and motion on physical processes, not time itself changing.
You wouldn't need dark energy, the accelerating expansion is just residual pressure from the bounce, still driving matter outward.
It requires hardly any new assumptions. No creation from nothing, no singularity that magically appears, no invisible forces invented to fix the math. Just gravity and matter doing what they do, forever.
Why is "everything came from nothing 13.8 billion years ago" considered more scientifically rigorous than "it has always existed in cycles"? Both fit the observations. One requires a miracle.