Some seriously ridiculous stuff there

The first paragraph is good. The second paragraph goes on about a red herring. The principle of relativity, which seems to be correct but isn't set in stone, states that physical laws are independent of inertial reference frame. In every region of space, there is an average velocity of galaxies. This doesn't break the principle of relativity in the least.

As for the supposed cosmological models that are consistent with observation, such as the one proposed by Gentry, my own General Relativity professor has this to say:

Quote:

In a recent article in Modern Physics Letters A, Gentry proposed a new static cosmological model that seeks to explain the Hubble relation as a combination of gravitational and Doppler red shifts. We show that Gentry’s model, although supposedly based on general relativity, is inconsistent with the Einstein field equations; that it requires delicate fine tuning of initial conditions; that it is highly unstable, both gravitationally and thermodynamically; and that its predictions disagree clearly with observation.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9808021

You really can't get any more wrong than that, while still remaining somewhat coherent

The Cosmological Principle also need not apply: stuff outside our horizon won't affect us anyway. So we use it to make or equations work out nicely.

The paper regarding the required size of the anisotropies was written in 1991, and is, as such, too old to be of much value as providing doubts for modern cosmology. I think it's likely that the problem is solved by introducing dark energy, but I haven't studied structure formation in great detail. I have heard of no significant issues with modern n-body simulations related to the amplitude of perturbations.

I also love how they, without even citing a source, claim that the blotches can be explained by having a negative curvature! Absolutely absurd. You don't suddenly take a completely and utterly smooth feature (overall spatial curvature) and produce small-scale fluctuations! I haven't read the paper that they quoted before claiming this, but I suspect they just found that it was likely for there to be a slightly negative curvature given the experimental data. This doesn't say that the blotches can be explained by the negative curvature, but rather that the blotches seem to indicate one.

As for dark matter, that has pretty conclusively been detected by the observation of the bullet cluster. The paper in question where they claim that Boomerang suggests a purely baryonic universe (as in no dark matter) is just plain wrong: the experiment in question was not capable of properly measuring the feature on the CMB in question, as it just didn't cover enough area of the sky. That feature has since been detected by the WMAP satellite, which provides a strong signal for dark matter.

As far as the structure of galaxies, this is, computationally, a very difficult problem. We have astrophysicists working on the problems, and have a fair amount of understanding, but there is still much more to do. Anyway, really enjoyed it, was a fun read, no matter how absurdly wrong it was