>>>>However, the evidence is that the farther and farther you look, that is apparently not the case. Light essentially dies out and then everything goes black.
>>>>It might be a good idea to ask:
>>>>What would the universe look like if light had a finite range?
>>>
>>>Some parts of it wouldn't. I mean, wouldn't look at all. They'd be invisible to us, just as sound from a far enough distance is inaudible.
>>
>>And isn't that consistent with what we observe?
>>
>>IE, Olber's paradox?
>
>Oh, it has a name. Of course. But the finite reach of light is just as valid an explanation as the big bang one -


Except the Big Bang predicts there will be no mature galaxies in the young universe, the finite range of light predicts there will be


What does observation say:

http://www.gemini.edu/node/74

It says the Big Bang isn't as valid as the finite range of light.


> in the latter case, the distance to the farthest star is finite, simply because while the space may be infinite, the part of it covered by the expansion of the big bang matter isn't.
>
>But, at least, your take on this sounds at least equally possible as the big bang. Unless physics has some proof to disprove or confirm your theory, which I'd like to see. Then I'll gladly take back the "equally possible".
>
>>>>At some point out in the cosmos, light would stop coming to us, which observationally seems to be the case.)
>>>
>>>There's also an alternative explanation: the redshift is a true Doppler, but not because of any big bang, but because the whole universe is actually intelligent. And running away from us as fast as it can, which is proof enough that it is intelligent.
>>
>>I'm trying to propose a real answer to a real question. Thanks for mocking that.
>
>You're welcome. Being back home, I fell under my own influence again, and a moment of mockery is just a symptom of the brain taking a break on the front while the background processes think about it. We do that a lot. See my other answer about the cultural background of this.