I continue to explore alternate cosmological models, a process I started when I asked a credentialed cosmology researcher why he said red shift was not proof of the big bang but rather was also compatible with the stead state cosmology. That surprised me. While he himself believed the big bang expanding model explained the universe best he still said that redshift was not in and of itself proof. I never really pondered the challenges of each of the different models. Its set me on a train of thought I haven’t explored before.
I am reading “The 4% Universe” by Richard Panek, regarding dark matter and dark energy etc. In this book he outlines the immediate problem produced by Newtons law of Universal Gravitation. The question that naturally flowed from universal gravitation is, “Why doesn’t the whole universe just coalesce into a single mass of matter”. Newton interestingly resolved it by declaring God had put the stars and things far enough apart from each other to render the problem irrelevant. But the problem remained significant. Albert Einstein himself included lambda in his revised theory of general relativity, to signify an as yet undiscovered force which kept the universe from collapsing. Though he later abandoned this when he adopted the expanding universe concept, over the steady state approach.
What to me ultimately is of interest is simply this. Keeping a steady state model from having a natural end of the universe in a giant ball of matter is just as hard as some of the challenges with an infinitely expanding model or a cyclical model. Truly there are dilemmas to ponder in any cosmology.