I'm sorry but this article is bush league stuff. All of his ideas would be disproved in an entry level cosmology course.
For example, his entire premise is based on this single completely false assertion.
It's entirely possible that the reason we observe all galaxies moving away from us is if space itself were expanding. In which case EVERY galaxy would (or could) observe all other galaxies moving away from them. Which is precisely what the prevailing theory holds.
And I also want to point out that there actually is a sort of "preferred" reference frame in physics. It's the reference frame which is at rest wrt the CMB. This is the reference frame within which numbers such as the age of the universe are commonly reported (such numbers would be different in different frames so physicists use the CMB frame as a standard to be consistent). And we (the earth) are NOT at rest wrt the CMB, which in itself proves that we are not at the geometrical 'center' of the universe (which probably doesn't even exist either - where is the center of an infinite flat plane?)
His comments on the CMB are completely unfounded. The mystery of the homogeneity of the CMB has nothing to do with whether or not we are at the 'center'. His interpretation of the "spatial distribution" of galaxies is laughable. We see more galaxies near us because their light is brighter, the light from those farther away is fainter.
And I wouldn't say the physics community is dogmatic about the Big Bang theory. In fact, recently competing hypotheses
have been proposed regarding the meaning of the redshift which would completely invalidate the BBT, and they are being considered quite seriously by the physics community. The Big Bang theory is accepted as the best guess we have. If or when a theory comes around that better explains our observations, physicists will cheerfully adopt it.