A universe infinite in time, space and matter must have an infinite physiology, and its entropy must be stable overall. There is a pathway for this in the life cycle of black holes, which makes them part the life cycle of the hydrogen/helium clouds which if substantiated would defeat the Big Bang Theory and confirm an infinite cosmology.

It would also give the answer to hydrogen and helium abundance and the abundance of heavier elements, without the need to call on the definitions of the mythical Big Bang. Hydrogen (and helium) clouds collapse under gravity, burn by fusion to form neutron masses and black holes, which eventually explode to fragment reforming hydrogen/helium clouds. Helium has the greatest binding energy per nucleon and its abundance of 23% is likely.

Deep field photographs, at the limit of the observable universe appear to show galaxies 'going on forever' which corresponds perfectly with the concept of an infinite universe.

Galaxies going on forever? The Hubble Ultra Deep Field (Image credit: NASA)
Galaxies going on forever? The Hubble Ultra Deep Field (Image credit: NASA)

There is no place for a sudden creation, the Big Bang, in order to make a beginning. Creation of all living things (and any possibility of a Creator) is outside the scope of this paper. The Big Bang theorists, attempting to take ancient philosophies literally, have not succeeded in finding a scientific origin for time space and matter and have rested their case with the creationist version.

If the universe is infinite, it cannot expand, and the red shifting of light from distant galaxies is therefore of 'tired light' nature due to loss of momentum of the photon. The energy depleting factor is not certain as Hubble himself believed, it is still unknown but not unknowable.

The Doppler interpretation (the sound parallel of which is a drop in pitch from a retreating siren) of the red shifting of light from distant galaxies produces a theory of distance-dependent acceleration away from a centre and requires backward extrapolation to a moment of creation out of a pre-existing state of nothing. The challenge was taken up by Georges Lemaitre a priest and astronomer who postulated a primordial atom exploding to produce a creation of the universe. Development and defence of this theory has taken a troubled course but is still far from having a scientific conclusion, with evidence out of the hands of the home philosopher.

Lemaitre was the first person to propose the theory of the expansion of the Universe (Image credit Wikipedia)
Lemaitre was the first person to propose
the theory of the expansion of the Universe
(Image credit Wikipedia)

Perhaps the photon does get tired and loses some of its energy it would not be surprising after two billion years travelling on its own. It could be said the energy of the photon has a half-life of three billion years! It might be something it does as a photon and we may never find out why. Until we do, do we have to put up with the Big Bang?

Many well read people with wide interests have some trouble accepting an expanding universe starting with a beginning arising out of nothing. They know it is wrong. Searching for an explanation they meet with very unsatisfactory answers, fanciful, contrived and abstruse. Asking those involved in cosmology they get the same reply, 'there is no other theory'. Many have thought that there must be a simpler way which even an ordinary person could understand, not involving blind faith.

Consider the trilogy of time, space and matter. In an infinite universe time is continuous with an infinite history and an infinite future, space is infinite in all directions and matter based on the lifetime of the proton, which does not decay, is stable with an overall changeless entropy.

An infinite universe cannot expand. Thus interpretation of the red shifting of light from distant galaxies in a distance-dependent fashion predicts that the red shift is due to loss of momentum after Compton but without scattering due to factors at present unknown perhaps unknowable and probably multiple. If it were assumed to be non-Doppler there would be no more severe cosmological problems such as the cosmological constant, dark matter and dark energy.

In a finite universe all matter was created in an instant out of nothing, and time and space were created at the same time and expanded with the matter accelerating in a distance-dependent fashion. The accelerating force, a sort of repelling factor, acting against gravity and having no parallel, led to the cosmological constant; the theory allows the red shifting of light from distant galaxies to be due to the Doppler effect, easy but probably wrong. It opens up a considerable number of cosmological problems.

Galaxies appear to be receding at speeds many times the speed of light. This was explained by the fact that they were emitting light in the space and time they were in, both of them acting in a distance related fashion. But galaxies were not able to exceed the speed of light yet appearing to do so, covering the required distance in the required time.

Antennae Galaxies Colliding. How do galaxies collide if they are all moving away from each other according to the Big Bang Theory? (Image credit NASA)
Antennae Galaxies Colliding. How do galaxies collide
if they are all moving away from each other
according to the Big Bang Theory?
(Image credit NASA)

Extrapolation led back to a moment of creation out of nothing and the necessity to assume that before this there was nothing. The moment of creation remains an unknown. It does have a similarity in ancient writings most philosophies having a creation and a creator, guarded by a priesthood who had the knowledge and the authority to maintain it.

The mechanism of the astronomical creation remains an un-knowable. The singularity an infinitely small spot of practically infinite density and temperature not yet containing space or gravity is recognized as being outside of physics.

13.7 billion light years the distance to the theoretical edge of the finite universe in every direction makes it a radius with the earth at its centre, back to pre-Copernican days.

The Big Bang is defended by interpretations of observations to suit it sometimes altering the facts as in using the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation as a relic of the hot creation postulated.

A faith is a belief without evidence. Cosmologists realise that they have an unknowable and join sides with the faiths and accept this. Unfortunately the faith has become a dogma in their hands and they are now intolerant of any counter argument.

Expansion of the universe has been heralded as the most significant scientific discovery of the 20th century. This arises from the interpretation of the red shifting of light from distant galaxies found by Hubble in 1925. This has become the Biggest trap in science. The 21st century has to put this right - it can be done with simple natural science not involving the realm of the supernatural. Cosmology rightly belongs to science.

The infinite universe theory does have a problem in defining the cause of distance-dependent loss of momentum of the photon; this is possibly due to interaction of photons and gravity. Thus two poorly defined features, light and its duality and gravity in its unknown density in the apparent balanced state existing in intergalactic space.

This website aims to show that non-specialist scientists trained in the same disciplines of theory can put a proposition anyone can understand, a universe infinite in time and space and constant of matter, but still using the observations scientifically and in standard physics. It is not assumed that infinity of time and space is comprehensible any more than it is in the mathematics of number.