This post is just... well, it's really just completely wrong. We have a well-established theory of the expansion of the universe, which comes naturally out of both Newtonian gravity and General Relativity (in fact, Einstein tried to modify General Relativity to avoid a non-static universe, as he thought at the time the universe had to be static. He was wrong).
Mainstream cosmology like "Big Bang" is based entirely, 100% on data that is by their own theory at the edge of what any sensor can detect and is therefore worthless based on everything we know about sensors. Sensors suck at the edges of what they can detect; all of them.
No, it's not. This is just straight up false. Mainstream cosmology is based primarily on observing the Cosmic Microwave Background and the current structure of the universe, neither of which is "at the edge of what any sensor can detect." The CMB is in fact very easy to detect (so easy, in fact, it was detected by a radio telescope by accident. It's so easy to see, if you turn on an old analogue TV, some of the static on the screen is the CMB). You can make predictions the number of neutrino species based on CMB observations. Those predictions agree exactly with results from particle accelerator experiments. You can predict the hydrogen to helium mass ratio (and the amounts of heavier elements) based on some simple thermodynamics/nuclear physics calculations. Those predictions (with the exception of the Lithium abundance) agree (again, as exactly as you can get in physics) with observations from astrophysics.
What if there is some sort of very weak force pulling on them, slowly shifting them red as they age, and we'd need a lab with a beam at least a few hundred light years long to start to detect it? We have no way of knowing what we don't know at that scale!
Actually, we do have such a lab. It's called "the universe". A few hundred light years is easy. All you have to do is look at the spectral lines of stars in our own galaxy (or distant ones, if you want to expand to hundreds of thousands of lightyears). "Tired light" has been proposed as a theory long ago, but it has not been supported by any observation.