He does not go into detail to the referenced articles. Those are peer reviewed observations that do NOT fit. For example the huge Quasar cluster found in the 90s where many astronomers clearly state: this thing is old, very old, 50 to 100 billion years old. How does this fit 13 billion years timeframe ?
The Brightness Surface does not match the distance: pleas explain that.
The Li concentration does not fit the age of the stars,...
The list goes on.
He does not explain any of the phenomena, just attacking unsubstantial.
If the Redshift is a comsological phenomena, and the Background temperature a signature of the Zero Point Energy (exists an QM as well), absolutely nothing speaks for the Big Bang Theory anymore.<p>I found BSM-SG the most logical model I have seen so far, so, I stumbled about nothing that does not fit into this model.
We have a 2 major errors in our physical model that made the whole standard theory so utterly complex, non logical understandable (mathematical logic != classical logic) (common view under Theoretical physicists) and hardly explaining edge cases.
From my experience nearly nobody sees it, because they work in a very narrow field...