Models for the origin, evolution, and movement of the universe and stars are consistently proven wrong time and time again with observation.
-Hubble tension, unequal expansion (possibly not even universal expansions at all, alt is heterogenous internal movement)
-Ultra bright and complex extreme deep space objects
-Red shifts of greater than 30 billion light years
-Star evolution models are literally complete hogwash, every single mainstream metric we try to pin down is proven wrong eg below
-Upsilon Bootis - estimated 10 gya, 1.11 Sun mass, high rotational velocity
-HD 179079 - estimated 7-8 gya, 1.25 Sun mass (absolute unit), should be an F type in some mainstream models and should've blown up 2-3 gya ago
-94 Ceti - estimated 4-5 gya, 1.30 Sun mass (monstrous unit), literal F type at 6050 k, low radius, should've blown up by now or be an expanded giant star, is not.
-HD 149143 - estimated 6-8 gya, 1.10 Sun mass, literally 6200 k temp (F type), low radius (not expanded), should have blown up 2-3 gya ago
-HD 73526 - estimated 8-10 gya, 1.01 Sun mass, only 1.53 radius, still on the main sequence, should have gone off 2-3 gya ago, Sun analog (means our Sun could be much older or live much longer than we assume)
-16 Cygni A and B - estimated 7 gya, both low radius Sun like stars, 1.08 and 1.04 Sun mass, they should both look like Arcturus or R Doradus but do not (again meaning Sun like stars live way longer than thought)
-Sneden's Star - estimated 13 gya, 1.13 Sun mass (absolute unit), low radius for its est age, should've literally blown up 3 gya ago.
-HD 140283 - estimated 12-14 gya (yes), 0.81 Sun mass, as hot as our Sun, low radius, beats models by at least 4 gya in evolutionary traits, contrary to reports it is still on the main sequence given surface temps
-Tau Ceti vs Alpha Centauri B - Tau Ceti is lower mass and twice the est age of A Cent B yet it is the same temp and brightness, in models T Ceti is supposed to be G-type and A Cent B K-type