Proposed new rules in the Alternative Theories Sub-Forum: 1) A layman member's model of the cosmology of the universe should be internally consistent, and not inconsistent with generally understood scientific observations and data. 2) The member must be willing to defend his model on that bases. 3) Such models may be modified and improved upon based on discussion or on the originator's continuing research, as long as the entire model remains in compliance. 4) A member-model that complies with those criteria, and has no unresolved and/or unmitigated issues previously brought up by the membership, can be described by its originator as "Temporarily Unopposed". Note that it is understood that a layman model has no scientific merit, is not required to be accompanied by any extensive mathematics, is not intended to compete with or replace any mainstream or established alternative mainstream models, does not purport to contain "clues" about the universe that any professional should be interested in, and is understood to be presented solely for layman level discussion purposes within the Alternative Theories Sub-Forum.
Simply put, any alternative hypothesis put must be able to withstand scientific scrutiny. If it fails scientific scrutiny, it is a useless hypothesis, if it stands up to the rigours of scientific scrutiny without any inconsistencies, then its proposer may well be in line for a Nobel.
