I absolutlely love the way people make such statements like as if what is on offer is actually proven to be factual as opposed to theoretical. Just because a theory is popular does not mean it has merit.
Let's not forget that the physics of the Big bang do not make any sense and break down at the moment of the universes creation. As more biased data came in they have has to now place the material universe on the outer edge of a bubble. That is the latest.
Of course BB in its entirety requires that 96% of the matter in the universe to be dark energy, a mysterious substance they know nothing about except it gives them an insertion value that helps some of the muddle but does not save the physics breaking down.
Many researchers are looking for new theories because they can see BB is problematic.
I have posted the above many times previously.
This is another theory, still based on a big bang style model, that by placing the earth at the centre of the universe does not require the mystery of dark energy and still aligns with theories of general relativity.
Further to that the best challenge to it, the predicted afterglow, is now being challenged as some galaxies do not cast the intergalactic shadow that should be seen. This info is not very pubicized.
The other challenge is that scientists can't stand the thought that the earth is placed in a special position, because that may actually get people believing they have support for Gods and such things and they can't have that going on at all.
Hence to offer a premise as fact based on a model that is problematic is really not a fact at all.
What is observed is that all galaxies, except Andromeda, are moving away from the earth. It is atheists prticularly that support the Copernican principle that the earth and man is not special. Then theists follow them because they actually believe these speculators know what they are talking about and have evidence.
So researchers build algorithms and models that explain why indeed what we observe is not real at all and why their algorithmic magic and speculative modelling is actually more factual than observation. Atheists, in particular, are very skilled at this task.
One wrong thing after another.
First, theories EXPLAIN facts and make predictions. Good theories (like evolution and atomic theory) do this well.
Second, your "new theory" is just the Temple & Smoller hypothesis which fell apart with the observation of dark energy around the Magellanic Clouds. Now that dark energy has been observed there is no need for Temple & Smoller. They both have been remarkably silent since this research has been published.
Third, there are about 100 galaxies moving TOWARD us (blue shifted). Not just one.
Can't you get anything right?