The Unique Unchanging Cosmos

Adapted Theory of Everything - by David Neil Jarrett

Date: 15/10/2026

Submitted to TOE-Share   TheoryOfEverything.ai

(Start of Main Paper)

Abstract

This paper proposes a steady-state cosmological model in which the universe is infinite, timeless and uncreated, challenging the Big Bang framework. It suggests that matter and energy are continuously recycled through ongoing physical processes, rather than arising from a singular explosion event. The cosmos remains fundamentally unchanging on the largest scales, with local transformations maintaining equilibrium. This model addresses the uniformity of the cosmic microwave background (CMB). It also accounts for the large-scale homogeneity of galaxy distributions and the constancy of physical laws, without invoking a primordial explosion event or cosmic inflation.

Background and Context

The prevailing cosmological paradigm, the Standard Model Lambda-CDM model, is built on the Big Bang theory and describes a universe that emerged from an initial singularity about 13.8 billion years ago. This model explains a wide range of observations, including the cosmic microwave background (CMB), the expansion of galaxies, and the relative abundances of light elements. Despite these successes, the model faces enduring theoretical and observational challenges, including the horizon and flatness problems, the lithium discrepancy, and the unknown nature of dark matter and alternative explanations for dark energy.

Introduction

The Hubble Space Telescope’s Cosmic Event Horizon has long fascinated and challenged scientists. This adapted ‘Theory of Everything’ holds that the universe's extreme natural features determine everything that can be created throughout, and it takes a straightforward approach grounded in the belief that simplicity fosters authenticity and minimises error.

The Core Cosmological Challenge

For many years, I have worked patiently to distil this cosmological theory into its most fundamental and accessible form. This review challenges the Big Bang paradigm and encourages the scientific community to re-examine related theories and pursue open, creative exploration.

The following chapters address related subjects and common issues to build a comprehensive perspective and highlight underlying contradictions. My theory is strictly based on facts, sound science, straightforward logic, and well-understood phenomena.

I reject questionable assumptions, speculative designs, misconceptions, unnatural exaggerations, obvious illusions, and complex ideas that violate known physical laws. Such elements do not provide a sound basis for any theory.

Evidence and Simple Logic: The Basis of This Theory

Main Chapters Titled

I believe they can all potentially disprove the Big Bang Theory. It should really only take a couple of them for the others connected to it to no longer support each other.

Galaxies are Continuously Transforming
Mathematical Formalism and Quantitative Predictions
The Ultimate Fate of the Universe
The Clouds of Creation have always existed
Proof of Preferred Evidence
Witnessing the Observable Universe from every Direction
Suggested Models of the Universe
How does the Hubble Telescope view a Three-Dimensional Universe?
Supermassive Galaxies, Clusters and their Redshift
Galaxies Must Conform to a Speed limit to exist
Why Expansion Exists at a velocity beyond light speed.
Particles reaching light speed
The clouds of creation have always existed
The available forces cannot create a Big Bang
The Afterglow
Conflicts and Contradictions

Proof of Preferred Evidence

Complicated mysteries begin to emerge when people give logical answers to illogical questions. Many can quickly lose all perspective of the timeless dimensions surrounding them; it is easy to subconsciously compare humanity’s finite existence to eternal space, which is not compelled to create.

I consider the universe one with the cosmos: timeless, infinite, and shapeless, without centre, beginning, edge, or end. To clarify, timelessness does not apply to the universe as a whole because formed solar systems have predictable motion; an infinite line has no start or end points; there is no ‘before’ or ‘after’, only existence.

Everything moves in no particular direction at different velocities; nothing has a single point of origin. I think many of the illusions are created when we imagine distance, time, and mathematics are all connected.

Google states that 90-95 per cent of people, including several experts, struggle to grasp timelessness and infinity. (M.,2024) The mere scale may confuse and contribute to the number of complex theories that exist.

The preferred Big Bang theory is a majority vote, not based on scientific reasoning, by people with no relevant qualifications.

Key Features of the Proposed Model

Infinite and Timeless Universe: The universe has no origin in time or space. It has always existed and will always exist, without a creation event or an ultimate end.

Continuously Recycling: Matter and energy are not created or destroyed but are perpetually recycled through physical processes such as star formation, stellar evolution, and galactic interactions.

Large-Scale Uniformity and Local Variability: While the universe is homogeneous and isotropic on the largest scales, local structures (galaxies, clusters, voids) emerge and evolve. Local changes are balanced by transformations elsewhere, maintaining global equilibrium.

No Big Bang or Inflation: The model rejects a primordial explosion or cosmic inflation. Instead, it explains the CMB and element abundances through ongoing processes distributed throughout space and time. Without a centre, there is no edge, beginning or end.

Galaxies are continuously transforming

I believe this evidence strongly aligns with the logic

Experts propose that the galaxies began to appear about 300 million years after the supposed anomaly called the ‘Big Bang, which was said to have happened 13.5 billion years ago; this would make them only 4.5 billion years older than our young star. (The Interstellar Medium a Billion Years after the Big Bang, 2015).

Some people think the most distant galaxies are the oldest; they are just the most distant images, measured in light-years. (Gupta, 2023) When translated into light-years, the closest we can glimpse into the universe's history is images of recognised events, such as a supernova or the birth of a star.

A galaxy's age is unknowable because it isn’t an event; hence, galaxies are ageless. Instead, dwarf galaxies shape them; they attach to others, and galaxy mergers increase their concentration. This theory recognises that Hubble's focal abilities diminish with distance, so I imagine the local universe continuing uniformly without diminishing.

For now, my main objective is to show that with every incorrect theory we remove, we understand the universe better. As the scale of creation increases, the process of transformation or converting energy into matter is not chaotic; it is controlled by gravity.

All the complex theories have a simple alternative; I understand why this view may not be accepted: it challenges existing theories, and experts have spent their lives working on the belief that a single event is correct, some even earning Nobel prizes.

Mathematical Formalism and Quantitative Predictions

The observable universe contains about 100% positive energy in ordinary matter; when negative energy is included, the total sum becomes zero and remains exactly zero. (Faraoni and Cooperstock, 2003, pp. 483-486) The model employs Albert Einstein’s principle of mass-energy equivalence ($E = mc^2$) and the first law of thermodynamics, which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed. The total energy of the universe can be expressed as:

$E_{total} = E_{positive} + E_{negative} = 0$

where $E_{positive}$ represents all observable forms of energy (matter, radiation) and $E_{negative}$ is the gravitational potential energy, resulting in a net sum of zero. The energy density remains constant over time:

$\rho_{total} = \rho_{matter} + \rho_{dark\ matter} + \rho_{dark\ energy} + \rho_{grav} = 0$

$\frac{dE}{dt} = 0$

This conservation equation reflects that the universe’s total energy content is steady, with local creation and annihilation of matter and radiation balanced globally. The Einstein field equations provide the mathematical framework to describe the steady-state cosmos:

$G_{\mu\nu} + \Lambda g_{\mu\nu} = \frac{8\pi G}{c^4} T_{\mu\nu}$

where the stress-energy tensor includes both positive and negative energy contributions; with appropriate boundary conditions, this equation describes a universe with no beginning or end and no net change in total energy density over time.

The Ultimate Fate of the Universe

The consensus is that all good things eventually end; it was also assumed everything was created in a fraction of a second at a singular point in time.

Under these conditions, my hypothesis suggests the visible universe will end only if it is expanding, and if only a ‘Big Bang’ can create matter. (Charlie F Sharpe et al., 2023) Atoms are only a mystery if you believe the unproven Big Bang created them.

My hypothetical theory of everything is a steady state; equilibrium remains permanently balanced because everything moves at a snail's pace. Timeless space is in no hurry to create; transformation, growth, and creation are easy to miss because time plays no part in the changes that take place. Energy creates everything, and the pace of development equals the amount of energy. This natural property ensures the cosmos is reshaped at the same rate everywhere, at all times.

The equation that Einstein formulated, $E = mc^2$, shows the principle of mass-energy equivalence, a principle that continually changes. (Lewis, 2019) Moreover, I maintain that the ‘Fundamental Laws of Thermodynamics’ rule out the possibility of the anomaly event, since these laws state that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed gradually over small regions of concentration. A quantity of energy does not collapse on its own without gravity; it does the opposite: it combines with its environment. For eternity, an exact fixed amount of energy fills the cosmos at a reduced intensity, which we observe as microwave radiation. This situation has always been present throughout all space. It is radiation that has evaporated or been released in great quantity, not a greater power that created it, as is suggested.

The Clouds of Creation have Always Existed.

Interstellar nurseries and Nebular clouds are like the chicken and the egg; the clouds are previous generations recycling the new.
As noted, different elements can arise without large, complicated forces. Matter is energy, and nothing exists without gravity; the Fundamental secret of atom formation begins with positive energy. Gravity attracts energy, gradually increasing its volume and density; as this happens, stronger gravity ensures perfect stability. When contained, atoms are always changing; they convert easily as temperature rises and pressure increases. Clouds are remnants of dead stars (Star stuff): particles, gases, dark matter, photons, radiation, energy, and plasma all collapse into clumps of mass.

Particles cannot collapse at velocity in a vacuum without resistance, especially if expanding. The structural model will always be the framework for a stable universe; anomalies do not occur in a timeless cosmos, only minor differences. Energy can assume absolutely unimaginable forms, such as different kinds of life, each evolving to survive its environment. By contrast, star formation is simply a very large-scale mutation. Each mutation has limits; the greater the scale, the lesser the changes because gravity takes control.

A unique unchanging cosmos should remain perfectly balanced; for a multiverse to exist, the unimaginable distances separating them would have to be unnaturally void of positive energy. Truly perceiving a timeless universe requires accepting a galaxy has passed through every inch of space at least once. If multiverses were possible, no matter how far apart or how slowly galaxies expand, they would fill space and pass through other universes from every direction; Hubble would see a universe of 13.8 billion light-years because that is its limited field of view.

Implications and Observational Consequences

Cosmic Microwave Background: The CMB's observed uniformity and blackbody spectrum arise from the continuous emission, absorption, and re-emission of radiation by interstellar and intergalactic matter. Local fluctuations reflect minor density and temperature variations along different lines of sight.
Galaxy Distribution: The large-scale structure of the universe reflects a balance between ongoing galaxy formation, merger events, and the dispersal of matter into intergalactic space. The cosmic web remains statistically steady over time.
Elemental Abundances: Primordial elements are not relics of a singular event but are continually synthesised in stars and recycled through galactic processes.

Comparison with Observational Data

A comprehensive assessment of any cosmological model requires critical comparison with observational data. The proposed steady-state model is examined here in light of key astronomical observations:

1. Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) Uniformity

The model explains the CMB's observed uniformity and blackbody spectrum as the result of continuous emission, absorption, and re-emission of microwave radiation by interstellar and intergalactic matter. It attributes local fluctuations to minor variations in density and temperature along different lines of sight. Unlike the standard Big Bang model, which attributes the CMB to relic radiation from a hot, dense origin, this model maintains that such radiation is an ongoing process, not a one-time event.

2. Large-Scale Structure and Galaxy Distribution:

Observations reveal a web-like structure of galaxies and voids, with statistical uniformity at the largest scales. The proposed model accounts for this by balancing ongoing galaxy formation, mergers, and matter dispersal, resulting in a steady-state cosmic web. This is consistent with the relatively constant galaxy number density observed in deep-field surveys, though observed galaxy evolution over time challenges strict steady-state assumptions.

3. Elemental Abundances:

The standard Big Bang nucleosynthesis framework explains measurements of light element abundances (hydrogen, helium, deuterium, lithium) well. In contrast, the steady-state model proposes that stars and galactic environments continually synthesise and recycle these elements. While stellar processes can account for some production and recycling, matching primordial abundances is a significant test for any steady-state theory.

4. Redshift and Cosmic Expansion:

The observed redshift of distant galaxies is conventionally interpreted as evidence of cosmic expansion from a hot, dense state. The proposed model must explain redshift through alternative mechanisms, such as matter creation, tired-light theories, or large-scale gravitational effects, though current data favour these alternatives less.

5. Observational Challenges and Tests:

• The model predicts a statistically steady CMB with local variations correlated to density and temperature fluctuations in intervening matter.

• Galaxy surveys (e.g., SDSS, Hubble Deep Field) can test for true large-scale uniformity and the rate of galaxy evolution.

• Precise measurements of element abundances and the isotropy of the CMB provide stringent tests.

Summary:

While the proposed model can qualitatively account for several key observations, quantitative agreement with all available data—especially the CMB's detailed spectrum and isotropy, and the observed evolution of galaxies and element abundances—remains a challenge. Continued observations and improved theoretical modelling are necessary to fully assess the viability of the steady-state framework in light of the latest astronomical evidence.

-CMB Uniformity: The model explains the observed uniformity and blackbody spectrum of the CMB as the result of continuous emission and reabsorption of microwave radiation by Interstellar and intergalactic matter. It attributes local fluctuations to minor variations.

Witnessing the early observable universe from every direction.

Without violating the laws of physics, the Milky Way has a typical velocity relative to other galaxies of about 2,100,000 Km/h; at that speed, it would take approximately 14 billion years to travel less than 7.5 million light-years and quadrillions of years to cover the radius of the observable universe (Mark Reid, 2009). I offer a more direct comparison.
A distance of 2.5 million light-years separates the Andromeda and Milky Way galaxies. At their combined velocity, they will merge in 4.5 billion years.

Calculations extended to the edge of the visible universe.

3 x 4.5 billion = 13.5 billion years and 3 x 2.5 million = 7.5 million light-years. The period and distance differ: the period is longer, and the distance is slightly shorter because they share a combined velocity.

To explore the mathematical implications of reversing the observable universe, we conceptually trace the evolution of cosmic structures backwards in time. This process involves inverting the time direction in key cosmological equations, allowing us to analyse conditions in the earlier universe and test the consistency of steady-state and Big Bang models.

In the standard cosmological model, the Friedmann equation governs the expansion of the universe:

$H^2 = \frac{8\pi G}{3} \rho - \frac{k}{a^2} + \frac{\Lambda}{3}$

where:

• $H$ is the Hubble parameter,

• $G$ is the gravitational constant,

• $\rho$ is the total energy density,

• $k$ is the curvature parameter,

• $a$ is the scale factor,

• $\Lambda$ is the cosmological constant.

If we reverse time ($t \to -t$), the scale factor $a(t)$ contracts, increasing density and temperature as we approach the putative origin in the Big Bang framework. In the steady-state model, however, the scale factor and energy density remain essentially constant over time, so reversing time does not lead to a singular beginning but to a universe in perpetual equilibrium.

The energy conservation equation remains:

$\frac{dE}{dt} = 0$

indicating no net change in total energy, whether we move forward or backwards in time. We can test this mathematical distinction through observations of the cosmic microwave background, galaxy evolution, and large-scale structure.

For redshift, Hubble’s law relates recessional velocity ($v$) and distance ($d$):

$v=H_0 \times d$

Where $H_0$ is the Hubble constant observed at low redshift for most galaxies; at these enormous distances, it indicates no meaningful cosmic expansion. In standard cosmology, $v = H_0 \times d$ predicts that recessional velocity varies linearly with distance, and observations of distant Type Ia supernovae and galaxy surveys support this. For example, at a distance of one billion light-years, using $H_0 = 70$ km/s/Mpc, the expected recessional velocity is about 21,500 km/s. This standard model interpretation matches observed redshifts, where distant galaxies routinely reach $z>1$, implying rapid expansion over time.

In contrast, my model is that the observed redshift does not arise from space but instead from cumulative energy loss and scattering over vast distances; the observed values are notably lower than expected if every megaparsec contributed to recessional velocity. For instance, galaxies in the nearby Virgo Cluster (about 16.5 Mpc from Earth) display redshifts corresponding to velocities of roughly 1,100 km/s, which is lower than the linear relationship would suggest at greater distances. My interpretation favours a redshift that increases gradually due to local kinematic effects and energy transformations, not a swift, universe-wide expansion.

To illustrate this comparison quantitatively, the actual observed redshift, $z$, can be calculated by: $z = \frac{\lambda_{obs} - \lambda_{emit}}{\lambda_{emit}}$ where $\lambda_{obs}$ is the observed wavelength, and $\lambda_{emit}$ is the emitted wavelength.

In my analysis of observed redshifts, the shift is not large enough to suggest rapid expansion.

The galaxies' range is too small to affect their positions over such a short period. My calculations account for the general range of observed velocities; if, for 13.8 billion years, the map of the heavens would remain virtually unchanged. Galaxies must have always been moving at their present pace because no natural force can slow or accelerate them without stretching or squashing them. The galaxies' redshift is too slow to suggest expansion. (Moresco et al., 2012)

How does the Hubble Telescope view a Three-dimensional universe?

The Hubble Space Telescope (HST) captures images of the universe as Two-dimensional layers, width and length, within Hubble's limited field of view. Astronomers use several techniques to reconstruct the third dimension, depth, by combining Hubble's observations with distance and motion.

Hubble determines distances to celestial objects using parallax for nearby stars, standard candles like Cepheid variables and Type Ia supernovae for more distant objects, and redshift measurements for galaxies. By mapping these distances, astronomers can build three-dimensional models of cosmic structures, revealing the spatial arrangement of galaxies and clusters.

However, much is missing. The observable universe appears to recede uniformly, as only a steady-state cosmos should. Looking outward from the centre of Hubble's Bubble, the average number of dwarf galaxies gradually decreases equally in every direction with distance. Dwarf galaxies farther out become increasingly hard to detect. More distant dwarf galaxies, even those of equal scale and brightness, become fainter; dark energy is the matter we cannot see.

Suggested Models of Expansion

1) Steady-state Observable Universe:
The local Blueshifted Galaxies: anything coming toward us only enters the blue spectrum when about 5 to 10 million light-years away.

No Distant Blueshifts; Beyond 50 to 100 million light-years, it is suggested that cosmological expansion completely dominates and no galaxies show a net blueshift.

There are thousands of angles; only one is blue. Let's not forget the Milky Way; it is moving, and the farther away it is, the more the light is stretched. It will remain blue for a period, but it's not actually coming toward us; it's moving in a different direction.

A galaxy moving in the opposite direction will appear to be highly accelerated, but it is an illusion.

A galaxy a billion light-years away travelling parallel will appear to be redshifted.

In a steady-state model, everything is within a specific range of velocities and travelling in no particular direction; nevertheless, the same illusion of uniform expansion we witness would still exist.

2) Thickness of the stellar Material Expanding:

To cover the diameter of the observable universe, the anomaly event would have had to continue. If it lasted only a fraction of a second, then the amount of matter created could not be thicker than the period it lasted.

3) Illusion of Uniform Expansion:

The Hubble Space Telescope views galaxies as layers in a spherical, two-dimensional universe, where galaxy images shrink uniformly with distance. This is exactly how a steady-state uniform cosmos should look in three dimensions from every angle. This is most noticeable in the average detection of dwarf galaxies. A dwarf galaxy of equal scale and brightness farther away will be smaller, fainter, appear redshifted, and eventually too dim to detect. This can only appear to decrease uniformly if the galaxies are evenly scattered and moving in no particular direction. Unless their combined motion is random, nothing would ever cluster. At least fifty dwarf galaxies surround the Milky Way alone; the true number filling space and creating galaxies must be well beyond Hubble’s estimate.

4) Contradiction of Shuttlecock Inflation:

The so-called "shuttlecock" expansion design imagines the universe expanding outward from a single event or point, with matter and energy dispersing in all directions. However, if such a singular point or discrete explosion existed anywhere in space, observers at or near it would not only detect redshifted galaxies receding, but also see blue-shifted matter approaching from the opposite side of the explosion. This scenario would generate a complex pattern of both red and blue shifts at many angles, depending on the observer’s location relative to these expansion events.

Yet we observe a near-universal redshift of distant galaxies, regardless of direction, with very few local blueshifts. This strongly contradicts what we would expect if the cosmos contained multiple expansion points or if the universe were expanding "inward" toward observers from all angles. Instead, the uniformity of observed redshifts supports the interpretation that expansion, if it exists, is a property of space itself and not the result of discrete, localised explosion events. The lack of blue-shifted signatures from hypothetical explosion centres is a critical observational constraint that any alternative model must address.

The shuttlecock paradox highlights the conceptual error of visualising expansion as originating from points in space rather than as a global transformation affecting all of space simultaneously. This distinction is crucial for accurately interpreting cosmological observations and for constructing logically consistent models of the universe. The problem is that the image looks the same from every direction, yet it shows no single point.

5) The Most Distant Galaxies

The visual effect at the edge of the observable universe is the lack of detail. The galaxies look more like clouds, which supports the idea that we're seeing the early universe.

Supermassive Galaxies, Clusters and their Redshift.

The shift of such monsters should be unrelated to expansion; these monsters have developed from mergers from every direction over an unknowable period. Eventually, when galaxies reach a heavy enough scale, their direction is fixed. When they cluster, they follow the main body, and a supermassive galaxy may become immortalised, feeding on galaxies like basking whales. Their redshift is undeniably not expanding because the galaxies that created them came from every direction. Equally, the galaxies were created by dwarf galaxies from every direction.

Galaxies must conform to a Speed Limit to exist:

Gravitational attraction is not strong enough to acutely change another’s trajectory or velocity over billions of years. (Gravitational wells in the large-scale structure of the universe, 2024). Timelessness must establish a common speed limit, and what I propose here interprets many illusions.

When galaxies interact, they do not speed up; rather, as a collective, they exchange motion, direction, and scale. They influence one another in various ways. They may merge and transfer their motions accordingly, pass through one another, join a cluster, or collide.

They would not accelerate because they constantly pass one another; if they accelerated too much, mergers would be destructive, leaving fewer clusters and more dwarf galaxies, so they would eventually have to slow down permanently.

Galaxy mergers require a relative velocity between the two. However, as a rule of thumb, a relative velocity exceeding 500 to 1000 km/s is generally too fast for a major merger. A typical velocity must exist; otherwise, they would constantly pass each other, and their continual destruction would leave fewer clusters and more dwarf galaxies.

Why expansion exists at a velocity beyond light speed

Georges Lemaître did not explicitly suggest that looking at distant galaxies meant seeing the early universe, but did propose that more distant galaxies recede faster because of the universe's expansion. Therefore, they are not the oldest galaxies; they are simply the oldest images we can measure by distance in light-years.

There is no denying the calculation is wrong; the selected image is suggested to have formed at the same time as the farthest galaxies Hubble can view, 13.8 billion light-years away. Without that suggestion, there's no need for expansion, and galaxies would be at their present velocity travelling in no particular direction.

Particles Reaching Lightspeed

Without infinite energy, mass cannot approach the speed of light. Light itself immediately attains its constant velocity. If atoms accelerated too rapidly, the finite gravity would instantly separate from its energy. A particle can only approach the speed of light with the slowest acceleration; accelerate too quickly, and it will experience spaghettification. Nevertheless, it would still take longer than 13.8 billion years to reach its maximum velocity or traverse the observable universe.

The clouds of creation have always existed.

In the steady-state cosmological model, the primordial clouds of gas and dust that give rise to stars and galaxies are considered to have always existed. These clouds—composed primarily of hydrogen and helium—are continuously recycled through stellar birth, evolution, and death. As stars form from dense regions within these clouds, they eventually return material to the interstellar medium via supernovae and stellar winds, perpetuating the cycle of creation.

Unlike the standard cosmological model, which posits a finite epoch of primordial nucleosynthesis and star formation, the steady-state model holds that the raw materials for cosmic structure have never been depleted or created in a single event. Instead, the universe's creative processes are ongoing and eternal, with clouds of matter always present somewhere within the cosmic expanse.

Observations of star-forming regions in galaxies across cosmic time support continuous stellar birth and recycling, although chemical enrichment and element abundances remain important tests for any cosmological framework.

The available forces cannot create a big bang.

Energy has a maximum density it cannot exceed. Black holes convert energy into concentrated plasma. They can only consume a small amount of energy at a time; virtually all that is absorbed is instantly ejected as a singularity. Ton 618 is 40-66 billion solar masses; that certainly couldn't have formed in 13.8 billion years.

One central question in cosmology is the universe's origin and whether known physical forces can explain a singular event like the Big Bang. The four fundamental forces—gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force—govern all physical interactions observed to date. However, none of these forces, as we currently understand them, provides a mechanism for creating space, time, and all matter from “nothing” in a single explosive event.

In the standard cosmological model, the Big Bang represents a boundary condition, or singularity, where current theories break down. General relativity describes the universe's evolution after this moment, but it does not explain the cause or nature of the initial singularity itself. Quantum gravity theories, such as string theory or loop quantum gravity, try to close this gap, but they remain speculative and unproven.

The steady-state model avoids this problem by rejecting the need for a singular origin. Instead, it posits that matter and energy are continuously recycled, and that the universe has no beginning or end. This removes the need for a physical mechanism or force to initiate a Big Bang and reframes the discussion in terms of ongoing, observable processes.

Thus, as current physics stands, the available forces do not satisfactorily explain the universe's creation via a Big Bang, and this remains an open question at the intersection of cosmology, physics, and philosophy.

The afterglow

The “afterglow” of the universe refers to the cosmic microwave background (CMB). This faint radiation permeates all of space and represents the residual heat from earlier phases of cosmic evolution. In the standard Big Bang model, the CMB is interpreted as the cooled remnant of the hot, dense early universe, released when the universe became transparent to radiation about 380,000 years after the Big Bang.

In the steady-state model, the afterglow is explained differently. Rather than a relic of a one-time event, the CMB results from continuous emission, absorption, and re-emission of microwave photons by interstellar and intergalactic matter. This ongoing process maintains a uniform radiation background, accounting for the observed blackbody spectrum and the CMB's large-scale isotropy.

Regardless of the model, precise measurements of the CMB’s spectrum and tiny temperature fluctuations have become a cornerstone of modern cosmology, enabling tests of both the Big Bang and steady-state scenarios. Future observations and improved sensitivity may help further distinguish between these competing explanations.

Unlike the galaxies, which diminish with distance, Olbers' Paradox is the contradiction between the observed darkness of the night sky and the expectation that the sky should be uniformly bright. German astronomer Heinrich Olbers popularised the idea of an infinite, static and eternally old universe; the microwaves are like looking at the forest through the trees.

Beyond or near light speed

The idea of travelling at or beyond the speed of light fascinates and confuses both science fiction and scientific discourse. According to Einstein's theory of special relativity, no object with mass can be accelerated to or beyond the speed of light in a vacuum (c) because doing so would require infinite energy. Despite this, some interpretations of cosmological observations and theoretical models have led people to believe that near-light-speed travel for matter is attainable or even observed.

A key source of confusion arises from the expansion of space itself. In cosmology, distant galaxies can appear to recede from us at effective speeds greater than c because the universe is expanding, but this does not violate relativity, since space itself is expanding—not objects moving through space. In reality, as an object approaches the speed of light, its relativistic mass increases, and the energy required for further acceleration grows without bound.

Misunderstandings or oversights in theoretical frameworks can lead to exaggerated claims about reaching or surpassing the speed of light. It is crucial to distinguish between the mathematical descriptions of expanding spacetime and the physical limitations imposed on massive particles. No experiment or observation to date has demonstrated a material object exceeding, or even truly reaching, the speed of light.

Clarifying this distinction is essential for accurate scientific understanding and for correcting public misconceptions rooted in misinterpretations of relativistic physics and cosmological models.

Conflicts and contradictions

No cosmological model is free from conflicts and contradictions—either with observational data or within its own theoretical structure. Yet, the steady-state model presented here directly addresses many persistent challenges that have long troubled the standard Big Bang paradigm.

The Big Bang Model, while historically successful, now contends with unresolved and escalating problems: the “Hubble tension” reveals fundamental discrepancies in the measurement and the possible illusion of the universe's expansion rate; the lithium abundance problem remains unexplained; and the unknown nature of dark matter and dark energy persists, despite decades of theoretical effort. Furthermore, the predicted “First Stars” are simply the oldest observed; the oldest have long been ejected from the black holes' weak poles.

In contrast, this steady-state model uses the observable universe itself as both evidence and guide. The endless recycling of matter and energy, the consistent cosmic conditions on the largest scale, and the local emergence of time within gravitationally bound systems serve as witnesses and guides to how it has always been and extends infinitely beyond Hubble’s field of view. Time exists only within formed solar systems that have evolved predictable motion; as a whole, the cosmos remains everywhere in the same present, or NOW.

Both models also face philosophical contradictions—such as defining an infinite, uncreated universe versus explaining a singular beginning. These unresolved issues highlight the limits of current knowledge and the need for continued observation, theoretical innovation, and critical debate.

Manuscript Note for Reviewers

This work deliberately prioritises simplicity and logical consistency over adherence to traditional cosmological equations rooted in the Big Bang paradigm. While standard formulas such as the Friedmann equation and conventional redshift definitions are referenced for comparison, they are not foundational to the steady-state model presented here. Instead, observational phenomena are interpreted through the lens of an infinite, non-expanding universe. As the model is tested, the relevance of expansion-based measurements should be continually re-evaluated.

I recognise that the arguments and conclusions presented in this paper challenge established cosmological paradigms. I intend to contribute to scientific discourse by offering an alternative perspective grounded in logic and observation. I welcome constructive feedback or clarification on areas where my reasoning may be insufficient or conflict with current understanding. If any aspect of my approach needs further explanation of evidence, I am eager to discuss it.

Thank you for your consideration.

DAVID NEIL JARRETT

References

1. The Interstellar Medium a Billion Years after the Big Bang (2015). Science, 348(6232), 779-782.

   (For: Galaxies are Continuously Transforming)

2. Gupta, A. (2023). The Age of Distant Galaxies and Observational Challenges. Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 135(1037), 045001.

   (For: Galaxies are Continuously Transforming)

3. Faraoni, V., & Cooperstock, F. I. (2003). On the Total Energy of Open Friedmann Universes. The Astrophysical Journal, 587(2), 483-486.

   (For: Mathematical Formalism and Quantitative Predictions)

4. Einstein, A. (1905). Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon Its Energy Content? Annalen der Physik, 18, 639-641.

   (For: Mathematical Formalism and Quantitative Predictions)

5. Lewis, G. F. (2019). The Einstein Equation: E=mc² and the New Physics. Cambridge University Press.

   (For: The Ultimate Fate of the Universe)

6. Sharpe, C. F., et al. (2023). The End of the Universe: Perspectives on Cosmic Fate. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2023(04), 039.

   (For: The Ultimate Fate of the Universe)

7. Moresco, M., et al. (2012). Improved Constraints on the Expansion Rate of the Universe up to z~1.1 from the Spectroscopic Evolution of Cosmic Chronometers. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2012(08), 006.

   (For: Redshift and Cosmic Expansion)

8. Mark Reid, M. J. (2009). The Proper Motion of the Milky Way Galaxy. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 47, 247-280.

   (For: Witnessing the Early Observable Universe from Every Direction)

9. Wikipedia contributors. (2024). Gravitational wells in the large-scale structure of the universe. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.

   (For: Galaxies Must Conform to a Speed Limit to Exist)

10. Lemaître, G. (1927). A Homogeneous Universe of Constant Mass and Increasing Radius Accounting for the Radial Velocity of Extragalactic Nebulae. Annales de la Société Scientifique de Bruxelles, A47, 49-59.

    (For: Why Expansion Exists at a Velocity Beyond Light Speed)

11. Planck Collaboration. (2020). Planck 2018 results. Astronomy & Astrophysics, 641, A6.

    (For: The Afterglow / Cosmic Microwave Background)

12. Olbers, H. W. (1826). On the Transparency of the Universe. Astronomische Nachrichten, 4, 137.

    (For: The Afterglow / Olbers' Paradox)

13. Wright, E. L. (2006). Theoretical Overview of Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropy. New Astronomy Reviews, 50(12-13), 1027-1034.

    (For: Cosmic Microwave Background/Observational Tests)

14. Peebles, P. J. E. (2020). Cosmology’s Century: An Inside History of Our Modern Understanding of the Universe. Princeton University Press.

    (For: Comparison with Observational Data/Conflicts and Contradictions)

15. Carroll, S. M. (2019). Spacetime and Geometry: An Introduction to General Relativity (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

    (For: Mathematical Foundations and Theoretical Context)

16. Wikipedia contributors. (2024). Ton 618. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.

    (For: The Available Forces Cannot Create a Big Bang)

17. Google data search result, as interpreted by the author. (2024).

    (For: Public Understanding of Timelessness and Infinity)