Problems with Standard Cosmology and a New Explanation of Redshift

Question

An interesting paper: "The Vacuum as Condensed Matter: Toward a Physically Consistent Cosmology".
https://www.researchgate.net/public...tter_Toward_a_Physically_Consistent_Cosmology

It is large and it considers a lot of problematic points of ΛCDM, but I want to note only 2 of them here so far:

1. If we consider standard cosmology scenarios, then the space of our Universe is formed and grows as a bubble of a new phase (a phase transition of a false vacuum to a true vacuum). However, as the size of this bubble increases, the boundary conditions change and the red shift automatically occurs. This is analogous to the well-known change in the tone of a guitar string depending on where it is clamped. At the same time, as shown in the article, the formulas for this redshift, which are related to the growth rate of the bubble, are completely consistent with standard cosmology.

This means that we must take this specific type of redshift into account. The paper proposes adopting this specific explanation as the primary one, and also highlights numerous fundamental problems with the standard explanation of redshift.

This raises a pertinent question: Why is this effect not included in standard cosmology?

2. Yet, as shown in the paper, cosmologists are in zugzwang. If they accept the existence of these condensates and their enormous energy, which also contributes to gravity, it automatically invalidates the standard cosmology that requires a near-zero vacuum. If, by means of all sorts of mathematical tricks and fine-tuning, they somehow "explain" that these condensates do not gravitate, then this eliminates this cosmology from the other side. The near-zero cosmological vacuum cannot expand not only atoms, but even our solar system, through its extremely weak expansion pressure. Naturally, it is even more incapable of expanding these vacuum condensates, which have an enormous density and binding energy of $\rho_{GUT} \sim 10^{60} \, \text{GeV}^4$ and $\rho_{EW} \sim 10^8 \, \text{GeV}^4$.

It is unclear how to get out of this dead end.