Are We Being Misled

The advancement in cosmology is now dependent on astrophotography, just simple points of light that over time, build up into astronomical observations before being interpreted through the laws of physics by physicists?. However what if the laws of physics don’t apply throughout the cosmos are these interpretations valid. That is, to the layman’s eyes it appears that the further the observation the more intense is the circulation within the picture .This is as if bringing the outside in focuses circulation into lesser space which is exactly what astrophotography appears to do.
Then are we being misled when the laws of physics are applied, that is by those who believe that circles, spheres and the geometric mean originate from a big bang?
That is, only a sphere has a circular diameter with a geometric mean that adds up to the circle it sits in, while the spheres circles all have straight line diameters with geometric progressions that completely distort central values.
This then appears to be a distortion that is not taken into consideration when bringing the outside in to see the inside out, which I see as a fair reflection of what astrophotography actually achieves. Then we are shown the pictures accompanied with rhetoric that endorses scientific values? That is, big bangs, and black holes, that function according to laws and principles that are in a quite separate dimension of reality to those we are familiar.
Therefore for those who are skeptical of big bangs and black holes, click on
www.cosmosview.com This provides issue 4 of This Natural Cosmos
which in my opinion now fully justifies my skepticism, especially in the light of its illustrations that just shouldn't’t exist in the light of big bangs and black holes.

There is no reason to assume that. There is no indication that anything in the universe is obeying a different set of laws than that which we are familiar with.

Gibberish.

Why don't you familiarize yourself with the evidence for the Big Bang, and then we'll talk?

The rest of your post only further illuminates the fact that you are a complete idiot.
You don't even know what skepticism means.

There may be something to that --- but not for the reasons you present.

"Farther" or "more distant" equate to "younger". While I have no data at hand, it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect a very young cadre of galaxies might be spirals. Further along in life, galaxies encounter other galaxies the result being elliptical and other spread out forms.

After so many years of trying to apply logic to a big bang It has become obvious that there is something wrong with the theory. i am simply offering a different way of looking at things which will take time to absorb.So take a look at the orientations of the 3x3 images in page 16 ref the link supplied which in my opinion shows the eccentricity and centricity that cosmology should be concentrating on?

Or, perhaps, you're just a dimwit who won't read the evidence.

If by "different" you mean "slow-witted, ignorant and completely false" then I would agree with you.

Yeah, that's the pinnacle of scientific discovery: HEY DUDZ LUK AT MI JAYPEGS!!1!

Loyalty to old fashioned thinking is a fine thing, but sooner or later a change has to come to include logic. It appears however that the members above have lost the ability to think in straight lines therefore have lost the ability to achieve logical rebukes.
However there is hope that old fashioned thinking will fade away through the newbies,May i refer you to the post of PISPERAL posted July 5Th 2009

The thing about 'old fashioned thinking' is that it quite accurately explains and predicts how reality works. The 'new ideas' don't.

Cranks never seem to care whether their idiocy is congruent with the physical universe.

Old fashioned thinking is simply what it suggests, inbuilt obsolescence whereas sooner or later it must update itself to modern thinking. It must be fair to say that in the field of cosmology resistance to change is enormous because of in built loyalty to past peerage who didn't have access to modern technology.

You still aren't making any fact-based claims or arguments, and when Pispiral was confronted with that he ran away, like a common variety crackpot.

Your notions about space, time, and energy seem based only on your baseless musings. That's why no one care what you have to say about cosmology.

I'm afraid that reality is not based on centricity like you would like it to be, i have tried to show you why, . However Pispiral as a newbie appeared to understand this but needed help to develop his ideas, did he just choose the wrong forum, or did he come across the bias towards centricity. If Pispiral is reading this i apologies for the nonsense that has been attributed to you.

Define centricity. The dictionary seems to be missing this particular entry. Perhaps you would like to fill us in?

Cranks make up their own vocabulary.

Perhaps he means the opposite of eccentricity.

Get yourselves an oxford dictionary, then look up centric, there you will find centricity defined as a combining form in corrisponding nouns

Even if there were grammatically correct uses for that word, your use of it is completely unjustifiable. How can reality be "centric?" That's like saying that the universe is "quickly."