Fortunately I’m not risking my reputation, as I have none to risk.

Here is an interesting interview of one Carver Mead, which argues for a more wave-like view of the quantum;

Carver Mead's Spectator Interview

As it’s from a couple of decades ago, so not on the original site, but it’s posted around the internet and this is my current go to link for it.

Here is another link, somewhat following on the previous implications of a more analog underpinning for quanta;

A Challenge to Quantized Absorption by Experiment and Theory by Eric Stanley Reiter

It’s the PDF file attached, but the contest in which it was entered gives some context for the paper.

Here is the last link, observing that multi spectrum light “packets” do redshift over distance. Which feeds from the idea of photons as the quanta of light that can be materially observed, not necessarily irreducible, so that what we observe is more a wave front, than individual photons, traveling billions of lightyears;

h ttps://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/2008CChristov_WaveMotion_45_154_EvolutionWavePackets.pdf

I included a space between h and ttps, otherwise the whole paper will load onto the posting.

Here is a ps link, which Zeeya Merali kindly posted on the FQXI blog, where I’ve added over the years, all the various papers coming up in public, about observations that are difficult to explain within the Big Bang context;

The Quasar Cluster that Kills the Cosmological Principle?

I’m certainly not trying to go too far out on a limb. As you noted, there are quite a few within the physics community who disagree with various of the more popular and promoted directions and interpretations the field has taken and I’m just putting up some connections I’ve come across over the years.

I do think the point I’ve made about time does stand on its own. That our mobile organism’s need to experience reality as a sequence of perceptions does create a biased perspective of the physical basis for the “passage” of time.

As for the cosmology, from our actual point of view outwards, not supposing from the edges of vision in, redshift does start off slowly and gradually builds, apparently compounding on itself, until it goes parabolic and then reaches the horizon line, of this effect reaching the speed of light. So it should stand to reason this is also an optical, “lensing” effect, not all the pile of patches required to support a theory first proposed and patched, a hundred years ago.

In my early years on the internet, late 90’s, the NY Times had a forum and one of the headings was Mysteries of the Universe, which was a lively discussion. Since the issue of cosmology had first occurred to me, in reading Hawking’s Brief History of Time, where he made the observation that the expansion and gravity were finely tuned to balance out, “Omega=1,” where the thought first popped into my head that it didn’t make sense to propose the entire universe is expanding, if the effect is being cancelled by gravity. So I’d developed geometric suppostions about the space falling into black holes being redistributed out across the space between galaxies. Where one of the other commenters pointed out that this could far more easily be explained as the light redistributing the mass out from galaxies. He also mentioned that he’d studied cosmology at the University of Chicago and had done a paper on it. To which his thesis advisor suggested he find another field or career, than cosmology, if he wanted to pursue that line of thinking.

It has been a long and twisty road since then, but I haven’t found any reasons or arguments strong enough to negate the general point and quite a few to support it.