(March 5, 2012 at 4:57 am)Stimbo Wrote: Sorry if it seems like I'm nit-picking, but the Big Bang is pretty much the opposite of a steady-state hypothesis. In fact it was just such a conflict between those two opposing theories that led ironically to the esteemed astronomer Fred Hoyle coining the phrase Big Bang in a BBC interview as a disparaging term: he was trying to denigrate the theory that opposed his own pet steady-state one. Regardless, the Big Bang is an expansion theory, whereas steady-state was constructed in an attempt to balance the expansion rate with an equal rate of newly created matter; until the CMB evidence was discovered, it was essentially a toss-up which side was right.
What you describe in terms of cycles sounds more like an oscillating Universe. Seriously, I'm not trying to be overly pedantic, I just want to make sure there are no loose threads that cretinists can sieze hold of.
Ops, I need to update myself on this topic. Thanks Stimbo.