Let me introduce you to the scientific method. At the very basic level, it has only four steps: Observation —> Hypothesis —> Prediction —> Experiment.

This is an ever ongoing process. You observe nature, form a hypothesis based on that hypothesis you make a prediction on what would happen if the conditions were X, and then you test then you observe the result of the test and either validate or adjust your hypothesis then make a prediction and test it again, so on and so forth.

If you look at modern cosmology, you will see this thread of observation, hypothesis, prediction, experimenting leading it throughout history. It is ever evolving.

Now, for the sake of argument and start with your hypothesis — “the universe is ever lasting, perpetual and non-changing.” Now lets make a prediction based on it — what would the universe look like, how it would behave if that would be true?

Let’s start close by — our sun. If your hypothesis is correct the sun shouldn’t exist. Let me explain why — the sun is fueled by a fusion reaction. Two hydrogen atoms are being squeezed together so hard that they combine to make helium and as they do a lot of energy is being released. Some of that energy escapes as light and heat and reaches us.

But that presents your hypothesis with a hurdle. The fusion reaction itself is finite. Because the mass of the sun itself is the limit. Eventually all that hydrogen will be converted to helium and the reaction as we see today would stop. We can actually calculate it. I won’t get into much detail but its basically taking the mass if the sun, then dividing it by the mass of hydrogen being converted to helium via fusion at a given amount of time. This in itself violates the principal of your observation — the universe is never changing, therefore the reaction cannot be finite. So for your observation to be true the sun must therefore be powered through a different process. It needs to shine somehow, right?

But that means that our understanding of nuclear fusion must be wrong — because if we put the mass of the sun in hydrogen in a place the size of the sun it must start fusion. Because it will create the temperatures and pressures needed for fusion. That also means that all of our lab experiments where we recreate this process are also wrong.

But more than that — that means that our understanding of matter is wrong —> our understanding of chemistry is wrong —> our understanding of basic biological processes is wrong and so on and so forth.

So to fit your hypothesis most of our understanding of nature must be wrong. Most of the observation and hypothesis and predictions that were successfully validated with experiments done since the 17th century must be wrong.

Believe me, scientists constantly try to pole holes in our understanding of reality, they look at every constant, every factor and try to see if it can be explained otherwise. You think that your hypothesis is so unique? No, it isn’t up until maybe late 19th century it was the working hypothesis. There was no reason to believe anything else.

But with science done ever since, we’ve grown to understand how many elements in so many scientific disciplines interact. And the most exciting thing is — we still got a ways to go.