Is it possible that the universe could be eternal??...

[Deesse23]

Physical cosmologists who have commented on the book have generally dismissed it. In particular, American astrophysicist and cosmologist Edward L. Wright criticized Lerner for making errors of fact and interpretation, arguing that:

• Lerner's alternative model for Hubble's Law is dynamically unstable
  
• the number density of distant radio sources falsifies Lerner's explanation for the cosmic microwave background
  
• Lerner's explanation that the helium abundance is due to stellar nucleosynthesis fails because of the small observed abundance of heavier elements
  

Made a response to this that wasn't posted. Strange

Generally we can't fact check things about the Big Bang Theory or other scientific theories because that's just not our specialty, we just take it at Faith that they're telling us the truth. And here's a truth for you out of 200 billion galaxies do you want to know how many galaxies are blue shifted compared to redshifted? 100, those in our local cluster and those in the virgo cluster which we're heading towards.

You don't think its strange at all that the all the other 199,999,999,900 galaxies are heading away from us?

You see The Big Bang Theory is asserting that 

(copy and pasted)red shift

1. the displacement of spectral lines toward longer wavelengths (the red end of the spectrum) in radiation from distant galaxies and celestial objects. This is interpreted as a Doppler shift that is proportional to the velocity of recession and thus to distance.(end paste)
   

that means that every other galaxy not in our local cluster or the virgo cluster is heading away from us, stating quite plainly that we are at the center of the universe. Good old Catholic Dogma.

But you don't see a problem with that model because clearly to think that there should be other galaxies heading towards us out of that astronomical number is just asking to much.

Do you have anything to say about the number density of distant radio sources, or are you trying to rehabilitate your/Lehrners hogwash?
What is your reply to the falsification based on this? Thats the only relevant issue on the conversation between the two of us.

Also:
Wtf are you doing on an atheist forum? Did they laugh you out of all the astrophysicist forums?

Generally we can't fact check things about the Big Bang Theory or other scientific theories because that's just not our specialty, we just take it at Faith that they're telling us the truth.

Nope, we have at least three completely independent methods of measurement that all match the BBT.
Did you lie, or was that your ignorance speaking?

But to shortly address your deflection:

You see The Big Bang Theory is asserting that 

(copy and pasted)red shift

1. the displacement of spectral lines toward longer wavelengths (the red end of the spectrum) in radiation from distant galaxies and celestial objects. This is interpreted as a Doppler shift that is proportional to the velocity of recession and thus to distance.(end paste)
   

that means that every other galaxy not in our local cluster or the virgo cluster is heading away from us, stating quite plainly that we are at the center of the universe. Good old Catholic Dogma.

But you don't see a problem with that model because clearly to think that there should be other galaxies heading towards us out of that astronomical number is just asking to much.

Are you really so ignorant to not see the faulty thinking of yours?
I am just asking to offer you a way out of this corner you have painted yourself into, before you humiliate yourself further.

Back to number density of distant radio sources? Got something, anything?