Modern cosmology requires simulations, simulations require mathematical models.
It’s well researched and points out legitimate shortcomings in current theories.
But without the math you don’t know if everything is really adding up and we’re kind of left with cool story bro.
For example, it made these predictions in advance of the James Web’s first data:
https://theeggandtherock.substack.com/p/predictions-what-the...
And these were later validated by the James Webb:
https://theeggandtherock.com/p/killer-new-evidence-that-supe...
This isn't how any of this works. Actual models predict things by being models, you know, equations and numbers that output more equations and numbers.
What you have is vague speculation and hand waving ideas.
The math would allow for the predictions to be precise, quantifiable, and directly falsifiable.
As is the predictions qualify as interesting, but there are also weaknesses. Some of it was already predicted by others, some needs more verification, some of the claims were more broad “lots of jets, lots of quasars” so they say less than more precise predictions would.
There's also this research (cited by the author of Blowtorch Theory, if I'm not mistaken) supporting direct-collapse SMBH in the early cosmos here: https://arxiv.org/abs/1504.04042