>>Not sure if I understood correctly, but it seems you are proposing an eternal, unchanging, Universe. There are some serious problems with that. For a start, the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Briefly, it states that there are irreversible processes. Any new physics that goes contrary to the Second Law is highly doubtful.
>>
>>There is a quantity called "entropy" that always increases or stays constant, once a system is in equilibrium; but it never decreases. No way, however contrived, has been found to counter the increase in entropy.
>>
>>Since this is a bit abstract (although I do recommend some reading on the Second Law of Thermodynamics), I'll mention some irreversible processes that happen on an astronomical scale.
>>
>>Stars convert hydrogen to helium, through fusion. Hydrogen is the fuel used by the stars. Eventually, in larger stars, helium may be converted into heavier elements (the so-called "metals"). However, there is no process which will convert significant amount of helium (or metals) back into hydrogen (and gather the light energy scattered throughout the Universe!)
>>
>>Also, when a star dies, in most cases a remainder stays there (white dwarf, neutron star or black hole). That mass is no longer available to form new stars.
>>
>>Eventually, then, there will be (1) less total material available to form new stars, and (2) this total material will consist almost entirely of "metals".
>>
>>Another problem - quite apart from the Second Law - you have to deal with, for any unchanging Universe, is Olber's Paradox.
>
>
>First, I don't deny there are irreversible processes. But I don't see how my hypothesis is even related to that.
>
>
>Second, what I've suggested is the best solution to Olber's paradox that has ever been proposed.
>
>Light has a finite range.
>
>If there are stars beyond that range, their light won't get here, and we won't see them.
>
>Olber's paradox: solved.
>

All before breakfast! ;-)