So there wasn't Big Bang at all? Is the new theory/model of universe has been approved worldwide by physicists?

It's an interesting theoretical model but still has problems with observations such as dark flow or the “Pioneer anomaly” ....along with how the universe could be self creating at some point. How, why and when did the constants come into being? What causes them to alter? There is also the question of the so-called anthropic principle or fine-tuning of the universe for life to exist.

CMB really isn't an issue since Sir Arthur Eddington closely predicted it back in 1926 as the normal limiting background temperature of space and recent experiments on "galactic shadows" call into question whether it is evidence of a remnant of a Big Bang.

Dark Flow is a recent phenomena / observation which might indicate that there is no need for dark energy...it's just an illusion and misinterpretation of redshifts/expansion based on our local area traveling through space.Or it could be evidence that some unknown force is drawing parts of the universe to a point outside of the universe....evidence of a multiverse? How does this model account for that? Quantized redshifts in concentric shells around Earth observed by Tifft, Arp, et al..also indicate that we are at or near the center of the universe in a special place...contrary to the Copernican principle/BB assertions that no place is special. Does this model account for that?

All in all, there are some alternatives to the BB model and many problems with the BB model which do require that we keep open other possible choices that better fit with all the evidences.

"Dark Flow-The Illusion of the Accelerating Expansion

There is another theory that suggests that the accelerating expansion of the universe is an illusion called "Dark Flow". We perceive it as accelerating because of the way our region in the cosmos drifts through the rest of space. This according to Christos Tsagas, a cosmologist at Aristotle University of Thessaloniki in Greece. According to his theory, our relative motion makes it seem as if the universe as a whole is expanding faster and faster, when in reality its slowing down, which is what we would expect of gravity.

This theory would get rid of the issue of dark energy and avoid the other theory of the Big Rip. Instead of the universe being ripped apart, this theory would have it come to a stop and then begin shrinking. According to Tsagas, the acceleration of the universe in our area is caused by its motion alone. The universe beyond our domain isn't accelerating outward, but rolling to a stop.

Tsagas' explanation of things builds on a recent discovery by Alexander Kashlinsky, a cosmologist at NASA. Over several years, Kashlinsky and his colleagues have shown that our region of space-time, an area of around 2.5 billion light years across, is moving relative to the rest of the universe, fast."

................

" If concepts like Tsagas' "dark flow" are true, it may force us to change how we perceive our place in the universe and ultimately lead to new theories. We can't have both dark energy and dark flow, its either one or the other and each one paints a different picture of things and leads to different theories. Hopefully new data from instruments can help us get a better grasp on things leading us to a grand picture on the fate of the universe."

http://tech-stew.com/post/2012/04/23/Predicting-th...

Other cosmologies/models also better explain some phenomena/observations such as Plasma Cosmology....Shock Wave Cosmology, ...White Hole Cosmology, etc.. or others have proposed a shrinking universe to avoid some issues although not testable.

"The Universe is Shrinking" --Bold New Theory Challenges Standard View of an Expanding Cosmos"

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2013/08/the-u...

"The apparent absence of shadows where shadows were expected to be is raising new questions about the faint glow of microwave radiation once hailed as proof that the universe was created by a "Big Bang."

http://io9.com/5603595/there-was-no-big-bang-at-th...

" The microwave “background” makes more sense as the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a fireball.

The expression “the temperature of space” is the title of chapter 13 of Sir Arthur Eddington’s famous 1926 work, [[4]] Eddington calculated the minimum temperature any body in space would cool to, given that it is immersed in the radiation of distant starlight. With no adjustable parameters, he obtained 3°K (later refined to 2.8°K [[5]]), essentially the same as the observed, so-called “background”, temperature. A similar calculation, although with less certain accuracy, applies to the limiting temperature of intergalactic space because of the radiation of galaxy light. [[6]] So the intergalactic matter is like a “fog”, and would therefore provide a simpler explanation for the microwave radiation, including its blackbody-shaped spectrum."

http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp

Shock Wave/White hole cosmology...a white hole is basically a black hole running in reverse. Matter and light are ejected and space expands outward as the white hole collapses. Some Biblical Creationist theories are based on plasma or white hole origins given the abundance of water in the universe and plasma still makes up some 99 percent of the universe today.Water and light (plasma ) are mentioned in the Bible as the first elements of the universe and theoretical chemistry allows that all of the chemical elements in the universe could have originated from/starting with water ..H and O...and plasma fusion effects.

Secular White Hole cosmology....

http://www.pnas.org/content/100/20/11216.full

Creationist White Hole cosmology models..

http://www.icr.org/article/prestigious-journal-end...

https://bible.org/seriespage/12-white-hole-cosmolo...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mooHSXTR2RE

It's not something that has been accepted worldwide. It's a new theory that has been presented to explain the origins of our universe. If it makes better predictions, fewer assumptions, and fits the available evidence better than the current theory, then it'll most likely be accepted in time, but that hasn't happened yet. Scientists aren't fair-weather fans who just chase the most recent ideas around, like a bunch of teenyboppers. This theory has to prove itself over time to be reliable (like all scientific theories). I guarantee that the news outlets who are reporting on this new "discovery" haven't done their due diligence. They've most likely used sensationalist tags and titles to promote what would otherwise be a very minor story in the science world, and as such, they have done (again) a disservice to science worldwide. Even today, in first-world countries, scientists aren't trusted by people, and it's due to news outlets constantly pumping out yellow journalism. That's how we are. We believe the people who have continually shown themselves to be biased and untrustworthy and we doubt the people who have shown themselves to be genuinely seeking the truth, and we do so because scientists aren't very good at dumbing things down, whereas the news excels at that.

EDIT:

As an aside, it shows that you didn't read the articles, either. The very first article you posted answered your question. This is the idea of one man and it has yet to gain much traction or attention in scientific circles. Sensationalism sells, as it always has.