[battybat]

I've looked at the Sci Am article now Antoniolao, and am amazed to see how far cosmologists will go to protect the 'Big Bang' idea, when it's threatened. It's taken on the mantle of a religion or creed and they'll dream up allsorts of fantasies to explain any anomalies that it throws up. We've heard of Dark Matter and Dark Energy (neither of which have been detected), now they're talking about 'cosmic red-shift' and the expansion of space (independantly of matter). Where will the list end?
Big Bang Theory was invented to explain the red-shift of light from distant stars and this, as far as I know, is the only evidence for its existence. Explain this a different way and Big Bang implodes! Surely a much simpler explanation for the red-shift is that it is just a symptom of optical jet-lag. After all, wouldn't it be even more amazing if light could travel through space for billions of years without changing its form in some way. Zwicky was on the right track with his Tired Light Theory but it was based on gravitational red-shift and that was deemed not enough to account for the shift. However in Steadybang Theory the flux-envelopes of all the celestial bodies extend till they meet each other, so the whole of space is filled with flux of various density - a sort of turbulent, expanding aether! It may be that this has an accumulating effect on the pulses of emr travelling through it and this causes the shift. Or it just might be that, in travelling so far, the timing of the pulses gets slightly out of synch and, as mentioned above, they succumb to a form of optical jet-lag.
Black Holes are another invention of modern cosmology with tenuous evidence to support them. They were invented to explain flaws in modern gravitational theory. Specifically, why some stars appear to be circling apparently empty space as if it were a heavy body, usually near the centres of galaxies and how the motion of stars in some galaxies can only be explained by the addition of some invisible mass. Of course in Steadybang the mechanism of gravity is a completely different concept. Matter is made up of spinning, expanding vortices (or vorticles) in an open spiral form (open spiral torus form at atomic level). These combine to form larger bodies, if the combination is stable, and this process continues ad infinitum. So spiral galaxies are mega super-vorticles made up of many stars spinning around an evolving centre.
I guess cosmologists have a lot of time and energy (and their livelihoods in some cases) tied up in Big Bang Theory and it's going to be difficult to change their minds. But if only a few did, there would be a snowball effect and within a few years most would realise that the universe makes more sense without BB.

Battybat.