Essential to the support of this concept, are speed and time;  all three: space, time and speed, serving as fundamental keystones to modern physics.  For example, given two distinctly different positions in space, one might readily prove this distance by firing a projectile past both locations, causing a sensor to be tripped;  both events being recorded on a time graph, such as an oscilloscope.  By altering the distance between locations, the duration of time elapsed between trips would change proportionately, indicating the presence of another ubiquitous medium, we know as time, which seems to be somehow metrically linked to space.

In this example, space and time are thought to be constant in their relationship, which means that both might be metrically invariant, or that both might be metrically variant, providing both change in the same way.

Metrically variant is the same as saying that the space-gauge is not constant, and relates to the physical size of things, such as atoms.  If the space-gauge decreases in time, objects become smaller, and atomic distances shorter:  such as the orbital radius of electrons associated with cesium atoms, as example.  Since this relationship is commonly used in laboratory timekeeping, with shorter orbits and electrons moving at a fixed speed around the central atom, laboratory time would speed up.

There is the question of speed, as to whether or not speed is invariant.  If we allow speed to be invariant, there is the third combination in the relationship between time and space, that time is invariant and space is variant.  Let me explain.

First, if space and time are invariant, then over time, objects moving between two locations at some constant velocity, would always take the same length of time, each and every time the experiment was conducted, year after year.

On the other hand, if space and time are variant, proportionately so, then over time, objects moving between two locations at some constant velocity, would always take the same length of time, each and every time the experiment was conducted.

Finally, if space is variant, then over time, objects moving between two locations at some constant velocity, would take different times moving between these two locations, each and every time the experiment was conducted.  If the locations were closer, then it would seem that the time it takes to travel between would be quicker, and if further apart, longer.

If this distance, rather than a straight line between locations, was instead the distance an electron would travel in completing a single orbit around its respective atom, then laboratory time would be variant, exactly offsetting any perceived time changes in the projectiles transit between locations.  In other words, though the projectile travels, say a shorter distance between locations at an always constant speed, since time also speeds up, the observer would never experience any difference;  all three possibilities yielding the same results.  So which is correct?

If one considers the universe as our laboratory, and if the third possibility is correct, that time is subjectively invariant, speed invariant, or nearly so, and space variant, then light emitted by distant galaxies, will have been emitted at some time past when orbital distances were greater than they are now, which means that emission frequencies were lower.  This of course, would be the cause of the red-shift, rather than the Doppler effect of receding galaxies.  If on the other hand, size became greater, we would see a blue shift towards the higher frequencies since the emission orbits would be smaller than those of today.  This forth option is not illustrated.

Unlike the expanding universe hypothesis, where the distances between celestial objects increases, as the interpretation of Hubble law in terms of receding galaxies, the reverse is not true in this model, called the Contracting Universe Hypothesis.  Because only the atomic packing is affected by the change in space-gauge, the distances between gross material objects as atomic aggregates, such as stars, moons and planets does not changed.  In this sense, the Contracting Universe Hypothesis is not the reverse of the Big-Bang model.

In this present study called the Contracting Universe Hypothesis or Mass Decrement Cosmological Model, it is the variation of space-gauge which is thought to alter the intra-spatial distances of matter, such as the crystal structure distances between atoms, and the sundry associated atomic orbital radii, but not the inter spatial relationships of matter, such as the distance between galaxies, stars, planets and moons.

These constructs are based upon a more elementary thesis concerning field theory, as a departure from conventional particle theory, the mainstay of the Standard Model, and in turn the Big-Bang Hypothesis.  Essentially, it goes like this.

The field is a collection of surfaces as form (See Field Theory) which extend infinitely in all directions, hence the field itself is also infinite.  As manifolds of the simplest order, these surfaces may be represented by no less than three variables, which means that the field must be three-dimensional:  such as a volume. Within any unit volume of this field, a certain finite number of surfaces will be passing through;  cutting this finite region.  This is called the field density, presently calculated to be:  1.51 x 10³⁷ surfaces per cm³.  This represents the fine structure of our physical universe; the ultimate resolution of the size, weight and movement of the smallest particles and quanta.

Over time, these surface undergo self convolution (See auto-convolution) resulting in a gradual "apparent" increase in number for any and all finite regions of the field.

The space-gauge is a number arbitrarily inversely proportional to the field density, and as such, its value becomes smaller in time, since the count of surfaces increases over time, for any given finite region of the field.

Immutably tied to this figure, is the size of field configurations (what contemporary particle theory refers to as particles), which in time become smaller as the space-gauge decreases, because their presence, or for that matter, existence, is dependent upon the field, being themselves products of the field whose presence and size is determined by the field.

To understand this, rather than one of the many possible and hypothetical field configurations, consider then a wholly artificial and contrived object, such as a cube, in this following example, consisting of twenty-seven smaller cubic regions as part of a very uniform field of orthogonal surfaces (shown following in two dimensions as squares).

In a past field of a given density (Frame A), this object will be of a certain size, but later, as the field increases in density because of all these decaying waves (Frame B), the same object of twenty-seven cubic regions will be smaller, as does the the collection of cubes. These dimensions, as they should be, are relative to the observer's standards of measure, in this case frames A and B, which we may consider as being unit dimensions.

What this tells us is that as the field gets older, objects get smaller, by virtue that the size of objects is inversely proportional to the field density.   This of course is one of the foundations for the Contracting-Universe Hypothesis, since simple waves, thought to be analogous photons, are  unaffected by this changing field density (variable space-gauge).  This is why photons, after traveling vast time and distance throughout the universe, as simple waves, remain unaffected whilst material things become smaller.

Indirect and unintentional support of this thesis comes from the work of Thomas C. Van Flandern - outside link of the U.S. Naval Observatory Observatory (Scientific American, February 1976, Is Gravity Weakening?) in a very extensive and exhaustive study of the lunar period.  Using a cesium clock in order to measure the exact time certain stars were occulted by the moon's limb, an ongoing task taking many years, Van Flandern discovered that the moon was slowing down in orbit by about two thousandths (.002) of a second annually.  This would be the extra time its forward edge would meet and cover a star of known position.  He came to the conclusion that the moon is slowing down in orbit by about 22.2 x 10^-11 parts annually, for all causes including meteorite impact (nearly negligible) and tidal friction, the latter coming to 15.0 x 10^-11, leaving an inexplicable and unaccounted 7.2 x 10^-11 parts annually.

To Van Flandern, as the title of his article suggests, he could only suppose, that for the moon to have a slower orbital period, the earth-moon distance must be increasing, presumably because gravity must be getting weaker, which could mean that the gravitational constant is decreasing.  At the time of its writing, he never imagined that the earth and moon might be getting smaller, in essence drawing away from each other surface-to-surface.

Today, in light of the possibility of this new hypothesis, one should expect measurable change in the size of local celestial objects, such as the moon, reflecting the variation of space-gauge in time throughout the whole universe.

If in fact material objects are becoming smaller and smaller, such as our earth and moon, as well as ourselves and the material objects around us, our devices of measurement and timekeeping,  then time itself must be as well changing.

To understand this, imagine a world such as ours getting smaller and smaller, in this example, exaggeratedly so.  As we drive around this world along its trans-equatorial freeway, we should find that we are getting from one place to the next more quickly, and that driving around the world takes less and less time.  Of course, our cars are getting smaller, so we use less gas.  But more important, our clocks are becoming smaller:  both the length of the pendulum in ordinary clocks, the size of the electron's orbit in atomic clocks, causing our measurement of time to speed up in a way which is proportional to decreasing distances being traveled.  Thus, when we drive from place to place, we cannot really tell if we're getting there sooner, since our clocks are also going faster, leaving us with the impression that earth side time and space are constant!

If in fact material objects are getting smaller and material clocks faster, whilst space-gauge remains constant, the earth-moon distance, surface to surface would be increasing.  Thus radar signal bounced off the moon would take longer to return, and the moon would have to travel further in orbit to occult a certain star, exactly the results Van Flandern's studies have discovered.

Within our solar system and local universe, this effect would be barely perceptible, noticeable as a slight recession of stars at the opposite fringes of our galaxy, if we could see all the way across, or in the previous case, an almost imperceptible surface-to-surface recession of local objects, such as the earth and moon.  But outside our galaxy, and well beyond our local cluster, this effect of spatial material diminishment should be observed as a change in frequency. 

In particular, light coming from outside our galaxy, from deep space, would be coming from very old stars;  where if one was looking at them through the 200-inch telescope at a distance of say a billion light-years, the starlight seen would be a billion years old and representing stars at least a billion years old as well, if they still exist.  If in fact, matter gets smaller in time, these stars should be slightly larger than today's stars.

If this were the case, we should be able to observe several things, such as the light coming from these as being slower in frequency.  This would be true, since the emission sources themselves (the nucleons and electrons) would be larger.  For a given emission spectrum, the emission lines should be displaced towards larger wavelengths, exactly what Hubble and Humason found in their spectral studies.

A shift towards the red end is the same as a shift towards radio frequencies, which is something else noticed about distant emission sources;  the percentage of radio emission sources increases with distance.

As one looks further and further away, fewer average galaxies are evident, until eventually all emission spectra shift away from visible light into the radio region.  Even farther away, emission sources shift beyond radio wavelengths so great, that detection becomes next to impossible, without of course the aid of the Dicke radiometer.  And thus we come to background radiation;  not as the traces of some big bang, but as the final remnants of solar energy coming from the stars across an infinite universe.

In essence then, as we look at stars and galaxies, we are looking at them through different times, where from now to then, they were once larger emissary sources.

This of course explains many things: Hubble law, background radiation, and Olber's paradox, not to mention old matter.

If photons are indeed simple field waves, their passage through the field would be uneventful in terms of any variation of the field density or packing.  Conversely, the size of elementary particles, as being analogous to field configurations, would be dependent upon the field density.  Since this density must be increasing, and since particle size is inversely proportional to field density, in each new generation of particles, particles would have smaller diameters.

Though not comprehensively developed, intra- and inter particles spatial relationships, being principally geometric associations, would also reflect mass decrement, which means large collections of particles, such as a gas inside a flask consisting of a constant number of gas molecules, should take up less volume.

Whether or not galaxies would be smaller remains to be seen, since this thesis does not portend to know gravitational performance under the condition of mass decrement.  If such were the case, an average sized spiral galaxy would apparently shrink to something no larger than the size of a walnut in 111 nonillion years.

Consider light emitted by very distant galaxies millions of years ago.  If this light was stable in time, it would still carry the traditional aspects at its time of emission millions of years ago.  Specifically the frequency of its quanta would directly relate to the spatiality of its emitting atoms, which, being bigger then by today's standards, would have larger electron orbits.  Having larger electron orbits, it would take electrons longer to complete their respective orbits, hence a given emissive orbit then, would appear as being of lower frequency!

Thus, photons generated millions of years ago by the emitting electrons of the Balmer series, would appear to us shifted towards the red end;  exactly obeying Hubble law!  Ostensibly, light coming from ancient sources would appear reddened, without the need of an outward rush of receding galaxies, nor the notion of "tired" light.

On a local scale within our own solar system, a similar phenomena can be observed.

Since the space-gauge is increasing in time, local material objects are seen to get smaller.  Careful measurement of the moon's orbit shows an annual lengthening of its orbital period, which can be caused by several things: (1) a slowing in orbit due to tidal friction, meteorite impact, or (2) a decreasing radius due to universal mass decrement.

These studies have observed a delay in the moon's transit around the earth, as it occults certain fixed reference stars, by 22.2 x 10^-11 parts per year.  Of this amount, 7.2 x 10^-11 parts per year can be directly attributed to a reduction in the moon's radius, since the balance of 15 x 10^-11 parts per year is caused by meteorite impact and tidal friction.

The quantity 7.2 x 10^-11 is exactly the same as the quantity derived from Hubble law as the annual wavelength change from distant emissions, the striking similarity attesting the common effect of universal mass size decrement.
 
 

Beyond the distance of tens of billions of light-years, the optical resolution of stellar sources becomes exceedingly difficult, forcing astronomers to map the celestial sphere using radio telescopes of even lower resolution.  Eventually though, well beyond the range of optical resolution, radio resolution declines, leaving a fuzzy background of low frequency radio radiation.  With most likely some exception, all of this radiation is derived from normal stellar sources, burning with the same intensity and temperature as our sun.   And, as Olber surmised;  a heaven blanketed by virtually an infinite number of very small solar disks.  But distance is time, and stellar sources hundreds of billions light-years distant, emitted their light at a time when the universe's space-gauge was less than now, and mass objects, along with electron orbits, were bigger then.  Though most of these objects are gone, we see the legacy of their light, the greatest percentage of which has shifted beyond detection by even the most sensitive radiometers;  the sum total of all quanta, no brighter than the night sky!.  You see, Olber was right, it just isn't that hot.

In this hypothesis, the rate of generation of hydrogen in any finite region of the universe, is directly proportional to the field density, as a matter of probability.  Thus, as we look back in time, when the field was less dense than now, we should observe fewer celestial objects for any given finite region of space.

If we view ourselves as being surrounding by an infinite series of concentric celestial shells of some thickness, the number of stellar sources in each shell decreases in respect to any given shell's distance from us.  But, though the number of stellar sources decreases with distance, the size of stellar sources within any given shell, increases with distance, providing a virtually constant emissive area for a given celestial shell at any distance from the observer, relative to any other shell.  Ideally then, a shell at 100 billion light-years would provide the same total emissive surface area to another shell at 10,000 billion light-years, the only difference being, the light coming from the most distant shell, may be undetectable, having shifted well beyond all conceivable electromagnetic frequencies.

For any given star, the intensity of emission, measured at the star's surface follows a black body radiation curve.  The expression for this is called Planck's radiation law;  usually measured in Webers per square meter per millimicron.  For a star burning at 6,000 degrees Kelvin, the curve peaks at 10⁵ Webers per square meter at 500 millimicrons (5 x 10^-7 meters).

Since we are not concerned with the total emissive surface area of the star, but only its side facing us, the emissive area of a star is the area of its solar disk, equivalent to pi times the square of the solar radius.  For an average star like our sun, this comes to 1.65 x 10¹⁸ square meters.  Multiplying this area by the peak radiation intensity yields a total peak radiation flux of 1.65 x 10²³ Webers from the sun.  This would be typical of the average stellar peak radiation flux for any given star.

Evaluating the number of stars inside a celestial shell one light-year thick and at a distance of 1,000 light years requires knowing the average local stellar density in space, which comes to roughly 6 x 10^-13 stars per cubic light-years.  A celestial shell one light-year thick at 1,000 light-years distance would contain 7.5 x 10^-6 stars and would provide a total emissive area of 1.24 x 10¹³ square meters.  Dividing this by the total area of the shell gives the emissive ratio 1.4 x 10^-19.  An emissive ratio of 1.0 would mean that the entire celestial sphere would be a complete emissive surface radiating at 10⁵ Webers per square meters at 500 millimicrons.  Multiplying this magnitude of emission by the emissive ratio gives the expected stellar peak radiation of stars 1,000 light years away and comes to 1.4 x 10^-14 Webers per square meter at the earth's surface.  This value is fairly representative of all stars in general at any distance, except for our sun, which because of its closeness to us, overrides all other radiation sources in its direction.  If the earth were to reside one half the mean distance between stars (approximately two light-years), as measured from our sun, the sun's incident radiation falling on earth, would only approximate this celestial average.

In general, no matter the distant source, radiant energy striking the earth should be constant, except for that which is absorbed.  By in far the greatest influence upon absorption are interstellar grains, which for a given mass, absorb more radiant energy than solid matter, gases, and ice crystals.

So severe is this interstellar absorption, that light from a star equivalent to our sun, would be invisible after propagating a distance of 9,000 light-years.  Presumably intergalactic absorption is a great deal less than this, since starlight coming from galaxies several billion light-years distant can be seen.

Frequency is a factor also, with low frequencies being less attenuated than high frequencies.  For example, blue wavelengths are extinguished more than red wavelengths, by about three visual magnitudes.  Wavelengths below infrared seem unaffected.

As far as intergalactic extinction of electromagnetic radiation, the density of intergalactic matter is considerably less than inside galaxies, allowing radiation to travel much greater distances by a factor of perhaps several thousand.

Given that there is no simple expression for light extinction, particularly on a grand scale across the full expanse of our universe, nor any correlation between the amount of extinction for a given wavelength relative to the space-gauge, the affect of intergalactic extinction is not included in the following.

Evaluating light coming from a very distant star in some distant galaxy, say 100 billion light-years away, we first surmise the time of emission to be 100 billion years ago;  giving us the space-gauge (or field density) at the time of emission, which is also 100 billion years before the space-gauge now.  Since the space-gauge, in terms of field density, is increasing by 8 x 10^-11 parts annually, emissive sources then were larger by 100 billion times this annual change;  or about eight times larger.

Presuming this star to be average and burning at 6,000 degrees Kelvin, its peak wavelength arriving earth side, would be eight times the normal peak wavelength (500 millimicrons), or about 4 x 10^-6 meters;  a natural reddening, so-to-speak, of starlight, because of time.

Even more distant sources would find their radiation curves pushed even further into the red end.  By adding together all sources of starlight for a given observed wavelength and plotting this, Curve I is determined.  This was done by using Planck's radiation law for emissive frequencies between 1.1 x 10^-8 meters and 10¹⁹ meters for sources more than 10¹⁰ light-years distant.  The outermost limit was set at 10⁵⁰ light-years.

The curve vaguely follows a black body radiation curve until it sustains itself on a slightly declining plateau, rather than dropping rapidly at shorter wavelengths.

If the various causes of extinction were included in these computations, wavelengths larger than the normal 6,000 degree black body curve, would find themselves greatly attenuated, which would then cause Curve I to follow a more rapid decline somewhere within the shaded region.  This is reasonable to assume, since all wavelengths larger than the normal 6,000 degree black body curve must find their source in distant and very old space, in order to be that large, and therefore must travel greater distances than shorter wavelengths, and thus suffer greater extinction losses.

What is important to realize in this extinction process is that interstellar and intergalactic grains, gas molecules and dust particles, are also correspondingly larger during the time of older emissions, and though having a normal affect on the extinction for wavelengths then, cannot be discounted in regards to their affect on wavelengths we perceive as being too large by our local standards now, such as infrared.

In this light, the resultant Curve I can now embrace actual measurements of background radiation (1, 2, 3, and 4.), which incidentally do not fall exactly on a 2.73 degree curve, as their exponents claim.

In regard to the front-end overshoot of Curve I, which hardly follows a black body radiation curve, several things should be mentioned.

Since all computations occurred for source distances no less than 10¹⁰ light-years distant, shorter wavelengths at emission comparable to normal 6,000 degree black body spectrum, were essentially non-existent at the time of emission, since the sources were too large, thus eliminating radiation intensities for wavelengths smaller than 10^-7 meters.  Wavelengths smaller than 10^-8 meters were excluded from computations because they caused overflow in the evaluation of Plank's radiation expression.

This approach is defensible since close-in stellar objects less than 10¹⁰ light years distant, were resolvable, and therefor cannot be included in otherwise what is considered unresolvable background radiation.  This of course is a subjective choice dependent upon the observer's tools, means and limitations of observation and measurement, which for example, in the case of radio telescopes varies greatly from optical telescopes.

If indeed background radiation emanates from stellar sources as this hypothesis proposes, there is the problem of deciding what constitutes background or resolvable sources at shorter range.  This line of demarcation is represented by a dashed line suggesting that the shorter wavelengths are more likely resolvable sources than the longer wavelengths;  which though apparent by direct observation, is inapparent in computer analysis.

Currently no black body background radiation points have actually been detected falling on there front-end of the curve between 10^-3 and 10^-4 meters, which I believe would give better credibility to the Big-Bang hypothesis.  Instead, the actual observed and recorded points by various observers are splayed outward away from a true 2.73 degree curve in the direction and range of Curve I, which is more supportive of this hypothesis.

From the ontological premises you have just encountered, the spontaneous generation of hydrogen becomes an immutable factor in our understanding of macrocosm, as does the infinite and unbounded expanse of a universal field of surface entities.  Without recourse, we are led to believe that our physical universe is both spatially as well temporally infinite.  Armed with new knowledge concerning surface mechanics, particularly the auto-convolution of surfaces causing a continual increase in field density (space-gauge) over time, we can understand why the "problem of old matter" in a traditional steady state cosmological model is no longer an issue. In addition to this, the reddening of light from distant galaxies, needs no longer to be interpreted as the Doppler effect of receding galaxies, but merely the results of light being emitted by matter bigger than matter by today's standards.  To understand this better, let's follow the zig-zagged passage of a photon emitted by an atom of a star, say in the Virgo cluster.

At a distance of between 22 to 50 million light years away, the photon we see today was originally emitted 22 to 50 million years ago.  Between then and now, the universal field has become more dense, so if we were to compare this photon with one newly produced in the laboratory, the new photon would have a higher frequency than the old photon.

Another example, let's say that the photons we are comparing both come from the k-line of calcium, the corresponding frequencies both being tied to the orbital radius in point.  A long time ago (22 - 50 million years), the orbital radius was larger than now since the atoms were bigger then, hence the differential in frequencies.

This relationship was discovered last century by Edwin Hubble and is it called Hubble law.   The annual change is about 7.2 x 10^-11 parts.Light coming from extremely great distances, in what is understood to be an infinite universe, would shift beyond visual and into the radio spectrum, and then virtually disappear altogether without any trace;  our instruments being unable to detect it.  This would be true for all observers anywhere in the Cosmos.  It might be referred to as local background radiation.

If one could "freeze" a great section of the Cosmos in time, they would discover the occurrence ot the spontaneous generation of hydrogen everywhere at some uniform rate, the coalescence of such hydrogen into various celestial bodies, the formation of galaxies, the birth and death of stars within these galaxies, a few exceptionally large galaxies consisting of mostly burnt out stars, one or two very big galaxies whose stars are but extinguished black hulks, and of course numerous galaxies similar to our own Milky Way galaxy.

If astronomers could see these extremely distant old relics, even though all celestial distances remain unchanged, they would appear to be moving away as though making room for new matter, when it fact, all that is happening is that we and all future observers are getting smaller between their fixed positions!  This is why the problem of old matter which plagued Hoyle's Steady-State model is of no concern.

Prior to the advent of the Big-Bang hypothesis, and another real problem for the Steady-State model, was Olber's paradox, which resolves itself in this model as no problem at all.  Again, because we are getting smaller, we continually shrink down in size below the threshold of detectable radiation coming from all directions from all the stars everywhere in deep space.

Basically, the Contracting Universe Hypothesis takes on each of these four issues confronting static models, namely Hubble law, background radiation, Olber's paradox and old matter, and incorporates them into an exciting new cosmogony based upon a very sensible and complimentary ontology, which provides an even greater understanding of giant anomalies, such as the Great Wall.

It is from this premise that the study of the contracting universe hypothesis has arisen, resulting in an infinite universe where new matter is always slightly smaller than old, where over long periods of time, distant starlight appears redder, and where the universe's inhabitants, no matter where within it they might reside, have skirted Olbers' eternal furnace by shrinking beyond the threshold of its full fury, never for a moment sensing or realizing that from whence they came, had they and their world been stable in size and not shrinking, they would have long ago been vaporized by this searing cosmic heat. We instead, as inhabitants of this great universe, find that in receding down from some former size, we hear only the soft whispers and crackles of radio background noise, being the distant tailings of some awesome fury, and a faint reminder of what might have been a terrible fate.

And so it seems, with our telescopes, we are able to peer only so far out: like fish in a fishbowl, where beyond this limit, reality becomes an irresolvable curtain of radio energy. However, quite unlike fish in a fishbowl, as we move from its center, the perimeter of the bowl stays with us, always keeping itself at a constant distance from us, thereby allowing us to see new things as they penetrate our spherical horizon. Thus if we wish to venture to some far corner of the universe, even though at first it may be no more than a cosmic blur, as we move closer into this region, its image will become clear, revealing precisely what is ahead. Such a universe as this is not so bad considering that though we may appear to be confined, we are not, and are instead free to travel beyond all imaginable expanse; with the comfort to know, that wherever we might venture in our silver vessels, we will be met by the same soft twinkling of stars and galaxies scattered across the same dark velveteen sky. In short, the universe is the same everywhere, yet unbounded.

Evidence for this new cosmological model is becoming obvious from the recent satellite deep space photos, which show an unprecedented crowding of galaxies;  something not expected from a finite evolutionary universe.   Rather than crowding, one should expect to see a thinning of galaxies at great distances from earth position.  Clearly though, from these new photographs, the specter of Olber's Paradox can be realized;  radiant energy blanketing the entire sky!

Whether or not mainstream astronomers want to accept it, there is a viable alternative to the Big-Bang.  It is an evolutionary collapsing universe, as a unique variation of Hoyle's Steady-State cosmological model called the Contracting Universe model.

One of the earliest theoretical blows dealt against the Steady-State hypothesis was Olber's paradox.  Heinrich Olber, a German mathematician, proved mathematically how within a steady state system of stars stretching infinitely in all directions, that even though the stars were point like and unresolvable, an infinite number extending outwards into space would provide a solid and unbroken celestial blanket of stars all around us.  That from every direction on the celestial sphere, radiation would pour in with an intensity of the average stars within the universe;  the results easy to imagine:  a seething furnace of energy all around us.

Theoretically, the earth and all the planets should have long ago been vaporized by this intense celestial glare, which seems otherwise not to exist:  the night sky cool and dark, its twinkling stars hardly any threat.

What then, might be wrong with Olber's reasoning?   One solution proposed by Swedish astronomer C.V.L. Charlier was a tiered population of stars:  clusters of stars within giant clusters, and giant clusters with super giant clusters;  such that as the total number of stars increased, the space between increased in sufficient proportion as to hold the radiant intensity below a finite level no greater than the radiant intensity of our Milky Way.  In terms of an infinite steady state universe, this seemed a possible solution, though it was unattested at the time by observational data, and then thought to be somewhat contrived, though not so today, since such a structure has now been observed.

Another solution rested in the reddening of light of receding galaxies, such that the spectrum of light from distant galaxies is greatly weakened or "dimmed".  Within a closed system, such energy though transformed from one frequency to another, is not lost, and in one manner or another should make itself be known, thus hardly solving the problem.

Of all the cosmological hypotheses, only the Big Bang model and the Contracting Universe model satisfy Olber's paradox, the former limiting the amount of heat by holding stellar sources finite, the latter limiting the amount of heat by holding it to contemporary wavelengths which progressively fall out the range of detectable wavelengths.