Every general function in the universe needs a certain symmetry. Change the frame of reference, and an opposite thing happens that yields the same result.
For example, consider Relativity. Say you're sailing on a boat. Is the boat moving, carrying you along, or is the coast moving while your boat holds position? If you were below decks, unable to watch the coast float on by, you'd be unable to tell for sure. Say you're on Earth, moving around the Sun. It took us a very long time to figure out that it is Earth going around the Sun, rather than the Sun going around the Earth. Why? Because it we don't detect any motion within our own frame of reference.
Suppose you're in a metal box, and you feel a force pulling you to the floor. Is it gravity, or is the box accelerating upward? The forces are indistinguishable from each other.
So, now consider the expansion of the universe. The idea is that everything is expanding, except for gravitationally bound bodies (of course, everything is gravitationally bound, but we'll let that one go for a moment). This, combined with observation, leads us to believe that, in effect, it is the space between galaxies and clusters of galaxies that is doing the actual expanding, and that growing space is carrying all the matter in the universe along for the ride.
The problem with the idea results when you switch the frames of reference, looking for that symmetry. From the perspective of said expanding space, it is staying the same size, and everything that is "gravitationally bound" is shrinking. Begin to see the problem?
We measure the expansion of the universe by analyzing the cosmological redshift, or how much light is shifted to longer wavelengths from more distant sources. If the expansion of space is somehow stretching out this light, lowering its frequency, then, from the other frame of reference, light is staying the same while in the void, and suddenly changing once it interacts with a "gravitationally bound" object, somehow doing so to a degree proportional to the distance it traveled through the static space.
Clearly, this interpretation doesn't hold up. In fact, one might say that there are no grounds to even consider the view in the first place. However, what grounds do we have to suppose that space itself is expanding, aside from the convenience of using it as an explanation for the Cosmological Redshift? After all, it is solely the fallacy of circular logic that allows us to tout the idea to begin with.
Saying the Redshifts are being caused by spatial expansion, and that the spatial expansion is proved by the Redshifts makes as much sense as saying the Bible is fact because the Bible says that it is so. Other than this circular reasoning we've got nothing.
What force could possibly affect something that isn't there (the void between atoms in the gap between galaxies), and cause this thing, which does not have any measurement, to change its measurements? What happens when you enlarge zero by 50%? 100%? 1,000%? It stays ZERO.
What can make a meter suddenly become 1.1 meters long? The idea is irrationality at its best. If such a thing did happen, it would no longer be a meter. And even if it did, how could we possibly tell the difference? From that reference frame, it is still one meter.
There are those who argue that the idea must still be adhered to because it is necessary for the Big Bang Theory to be correct. Why? If the Big Bang depends on a false premise, then, logically, the Big Bang is false also.
We have no reasonable grounds to suspect a metric expansion in the universe, if such a thing even had meaning, which it does not. This is just another case of the Bible being true because the Bible says so.
If someone declares that it only rains on a Tuesdays, and the day after Tuesday, it rains, does that make it a Tuesday? Obviously not the person who made the declaration is more likely to be in error than the universe.
If, from the reference frame of stable space, everything else were shrinking, then gravity fields would recede away from each other, which creates a paradox. From this reference frame, everything is generally stationary, but smaller. How could it be that gravity fields are moving away from each other without the sources being in motion? Is gravity getting weaker as the matter in the universe condenses? That makes no sense at all but is exactly what a concept of metric expansion proposes.
Furthermore, if distances are enlarging in all three dimensions, as believed to be the case from the observation that Redshifts occur in relation to distance in all directions, then would not any light stretched' by the phenomenon not be expanded in all three dimensions, rather than just the lateral one?
There are a number of other issues with this concept; so many that it would be impossible to address them all here. However, the important point is this: with no real reason to consider that metric expansion might be occurring, and the symmetry breach that such a concept entails, we must consider the notion to be false. Regardless of what theories or hypotheses rest on this idea as a premise, false is false. No amount of wishing otherwise can change that.
Any conclusion that rests on false premises is invalid. Period.