>>>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.
>
>The relation applies IF you are thinking about a static and eternal Universe - but I may have misunderstood that part. If there are irreversible processes - and especially with respect to energy - that means that one day, there will be no energy available to power stars, or living beings. Hence, the Universe can't remain in state we currently observe forever.


Breaking an egg is an irreversible process.

But all the elements in that egg came from the stars and goes back to them.

The elements will be spit out again 1 trillion years from now, or 1 trillion years ago.

I'm not seeing the issue. Obviously the energy can't be lost, or there would be no energy left in the universe.

So it has to be dropped somewhere, probably to find its way back into a star, and then re-emitted as light at some point.


>>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.
>
>That's right; I hadn't thought that part through.