Isn’t it possible that some of the inconsistencies/things that don’t add up and that form the so-called “crisis of cosmology,” are not to be attributed to new forces/new particles/profound laws of physics and unified models that elude us, but simply to the fact that on a large scale (at least, one the large scales that we can observe) the universe is less uniform and homogeneous than assumed?
Stupid example.
Let’s say that we are leaving in a “flat grass plain” part of the universe, like Kansas. From our not-so-detalied observations, the whole surface of the universe appears smooth and flat like a bowling ball. And it is, if you look at it from very long distance. Let’s even assume that for the most part the Universe is indeed a Kansas-like enviroment.
We are trying to elaborate a model/theory to descirbe how the clouds behave, form, move etc. Sometimes our observations are super-accurate whitin the model, sometimes are puzzling. Galaxy too young, too old, galaxys with lot too much dark matter, too few etc. Nothing that strange or wierd, but there seems to be some inconsistencies. We say: our model must be incomplete, we are missing something. Maybe our constants for evaporation or altitude of clouds or high/low pressure are wrong? Maybe we are missing some misterious molecule in the atmosphere that influence the clouds?
But… what if we get it perfectly right, but some other portions of the universe are not flat grass plains but maybe oceans or hills or high mountains? Not saying that the laws of physics are different, simply that given different enviromental conditions, the appears to be different.