The SS model predicted CBR more accurately than BBT. If you don't know about it that is because it is not taught in your Standard Model classes. would you expect them to want to upset their status quo? It is part of history. nonetheless.
"In fact, some physicists (including Sir Arthur Eddington in 1926 and Andrew McKeller in 1942)(28) had estimated temperatures in the range of 2 to 3 K; closer to that of the MBR than has been estimated by BB cosmologists."
I am not arguing for SS so your other points do not apply to my argument.
BBT is entirely dependent on the doppler interpretation of the Hubble red-shift. This interpretation has been falsified by Halton Arp and the redshift is much better inter[reted by Plasma Cosmology.
Electromagnetism is evident in every region of space. It is orders of magnitude stronger than gravity. The Plasma Cosmology model only makes sense and it does not require the existence of hypothetical dark matter/energy entities such as WIMPS MACHO's and the like.
Neutron stars are an interpretation. They have not been observed.
The entire HR diagram is much more consistently explained in the Plasma Model.
another interpretation from the Standard model.
It has obvious limits that Plasma Cosmo goes beyond.
EM is orders of magnitude stronger than gravity. You do the math.
It is also visible in the heart of our galaxy and strongly at the surface of the sun.