You appear to think Physics is a popularity contest? Its not, its a metaphysic that eschews the kind of metaphysics you do, i.e. it has an epistemology to prove and agree as to what constitutes a theory. It does not cast its thoughts in stone nor iron, its quite happy to revise its theories in the light of any hypothesis that can be framed and tested and which fit the experimental data better than whatever the current theory is. So if you wish your ideas to have currency follow their path. Learn maths and frame your hypotheses. If not you are doing something which both philosophy and metaphysics do not consider useful any more. Its more like the religious approach you claim you are free of.
Everything you say is based upon their approach and words but the difference is that you think the words are their theories but its the maths and experiments that make their case.
Plasma cosmology , theory already exists , they have proof ,
in this model , an infinite universe , not expanding ,
are you saying plasma cosmology is wrong ,,???
That the Nobel prize was awarded to a mistake ,,???
I don't need to re-invent the universe to create my model,
my model fits with plasma cosmology ,
thats what good science does , it agrees with it's self,
I had worked out most of the picture and sites like bigbangneverhappened
just confirm for me that I'm on the right track,
So starting with the assumption that the ,
Universe is infinite , and not expanding, I can then find existing theories,
that fit this assumption , so like a jig saw piece, if there is only a few pieces missing in the puzzle , you are a lot more likely to recognize the piece when you see your picture is almost complete,
but if you don't have a big picture ,
and are juggling a collection of images and bits that don't fit together or support each other , don't ad up to make any sense collectively,
then you are a chook with it's head chopped off ,
running around madly with no idea of where or why