For starters, I don't always "like the sound of it" regarding such things. But yes, I find this theory "equally valid" because I find it stated not by just this one guy, but in many places on the web, and have not found ANY site able to discredit the data. For example,
this online article says:
"In 2005, data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey showed us that galaxies are arranged in concentric spheres with Earth and the Milky Way galaxy at the center.
In 1975, it was discovered that quasars are arranged in 57 concentric spheres with Earth at the center. Looking at gamma ray bursts, we are at the center of a spherically symmetric distribution of gamma ray bursts sources and this distribution does have an outer edge, and we are at the center of the sphere. In short, we must stop clinging to outdated Galilean heliocentricity and pay more attention to what 21st century technology is teaching us about the universe."
There are two comments below the above article. One says ". . . .really dumb **** heads. . ." and the other says ". . . . What a bunch of fucking horse shit. . . ." Such comments are meaningless when they make no attempt to explain HOW the data is wrong. The preponderance of opposing data doesn't make it wrong when the data itself cannot be debunked.
I understand he chose and organized his data out of a desire to support the Bible, but that doesn't matter to me. I'm looking for what makes each of his data pieces valid or disprovable. Great amounts of opposing data don't make this data wrong if it can not be debunked.
I'm very happy to be using the things that their theories make work, the heater keeping me warm, the computer I'm typing on, and endlessly more. So I have no interest in saying (or even thinking) such physicists are wrong. I'm wanting to know why the "center of the universe" theory continues to show evidence of being true that seemingly no one can disprove. I'm at the point of thinking (for rather mystical reasons) that BOTH viewpoints are somehow correct.