index $ \def \hieruit {\quad \Longrightarrow \quad} \def \slechts {\quad \Longleftrightarrow \quad} \def \SP {\quad ; \quad} \def \MET {\quad \mbox{with} \quad} \def \half {\frac{1}{2}} $

Euclidean Universe

A first consequence of the hypothesis that our universe is "infinite" is the nature of geometry, which is simply Euclidean and flat. There is no need at all for the curved Spacetime geometries of General Relativity. An infinite Euclidean universe readily solves the Flatness problem and the Horizon problem in the first place. It does - of course - not solve the Magnetic monopole problem, which is just another artefact, arising from distorting Maxwell's classical laws of electromagnetism.
In Einstein's General Relativity theory, a four-dimensional space-time manifold is employed, which is curved into nothingness. The latter may be regarded as a distortion too. By the way, nothing is special about the mathematics of tensor calculus in GR : Solid Mechanics extensively uses tensors to describe stresses, strains, and the relationship between them (Wikipedia). A surface may be bent in a space with a higher dimension. But nowhere in Solid Mechanics - or elsewhere in classical physics - there exist Applications of Manifolds not embedded in Euclidean Space.

Apart from physics, the whole idea of Minkowski space-time is doubtful in another respect. Let us quote from a (PDF) article by Norman (N J ) Wildberger, titled Evolution versus Intelligent Design: a mathematician's view. Going more out on a limb, I will call on modern neuro-psychology and Einstein's theories of relativity to destabilize the familiar view of the universe as a dynamic place which is unfolding as we watch, along lines that we can potentially understand. I will suggest that the world has already been created in its historical entirety. We are just too low dimensional and internal to it to witness it across both space and time. This is consistent with the idea of an omniscient deity, whose existence probably implies that everything is already known, and so any idea of free will must be an illusion. Alright, so humanity is guilty of nothing. Because we couldn't have done otherwise, even if we wanted to. Or, as formulated by Doug Marett (2013) in his Spacetime- Right or Wrong? : What space-time implies is that all events, past, present and future, are already written in the fabric of space. Such a conclusion relegates all human activity to simply being automatons acting out the frames of a preordained film strip. If we were to believe Einstein we would have to believe that there is no free will at all. That in and of itself should be reason enough to reject the space-time concept without further consideration! And from Relativity Reexamined at page 29: Einstein wanted to reduce all physics to pure geometry; he thought that a conveniently curved space-time universe would provide an explanation for all physical laws from electromagnetism to gravitation. This was his avowed aim and he worked toward this goal for half of his life. [ .. ] But the goal was never reached. Einstein managed to interconnect curved geometry and gravitation in a brilliant way, but his unitary theory, as he called it, was never achieved.

The geometries in Einstein's General Relativity theory have been made "possible" by the discovery of Non-Euclidean geometry (Wikipedia) in the beginning of the 19th century. This has lead to the (mis)understanding that non-Euclidean geometries might possibly be relevant to physics. However, the the only thing it shows is that Euclid's Fifth's Postulate - the one of the parallel lines - cannot be deduced from the other postulates; it's an independent axiom. Which as such is an important result indeed. Non-Euclidean geometries can always be embedded in Euclidean geometry - there are many models of non-Euclidean geometry in common geometry.
In the following posting at Mathematics Stack Exchange it is argued that Euclid's Fifth's Postulate is not only essential for Euclidean geometry, but it's also essential for elementary algebra:

Non-Euclidean Geometrical Algebra for Real times Real? + mirror

In summary, a Static Euclidean Universe (SEU), much like the one as proposed by Eric Lerner, shall be adopted.

Let's proceed with a another quote from the abovementioned article by N J Wildberger:
Scientific types ought to be a bit more open-minded about things which border on the unknowable. Dramatic denials of God or any kind of cosmic intelligence by biologists, esteemed as they may be in their own communities, seem to me to be almost as unjustifiable as the emphatic assertions of religious extremists, or the overly confident descriptions of the first trillionth of a second by Big-Bangers. Another quote comes from the book [Fahr 2016] and is copied / translated from page 33 without permission. Strange notice may be that page 314 contains literally the same piece of text, as if there is something wrong with my memory. Or the message is so important that it cannot be repeated often enough. Starts with a Bang:

Warum also drängt sich das Bild des Urknalls dennoch dem menschlichen Verstand mit so starker Suggestivität auf, förmlich wie eine unvermeidliche Vision? Natürlich haben Bilder einer Atombombenexplosion hierbei ihre ungeheu- erliche Suggestivkraft entfaltet. Doch fragt man sich dann aber angesichts solcher Bilder: Entsteht hier eine Welt? Oder vergeht hier eher eine? Auch bei Bildern einer Supernova- Explosion geht es einem kaum anders; auch hier glaubt man so etwas wie einen lokalen Weltbeginn wahrzunehmen, und man fragt sich: Könnte nicht vielleicht die Welt als gan- ze in Form einer globalen Meganowa-Explosion, sozusagen wie aus einer gigantischen Wasserstoffbombe hervorgegan- gen sein?

So why is the image of the Big Bang so pressing upon the human mind with such strong suggestiveness, punctiliously like an inevitable vision? Of course images of an atomic bomb explosion have meanwhile unfold their tremendous suggestive power. Yet one is asking in the face of such images: is a world emerging here? Or does one rather perish? Also with images of a supernova explosion things go hardly different; here also one believes to perceive something like a local world beginning, and one wonders: Couldn't the world as a whole have been born in the form of a global meganova explosion, so to speak as if it had emerged from a gigantic hydrogen bomb?

The glorification of violence is indeed Bankrupting Physics. Think about particle accelerators for example, especially the Large Hadron Collider. As if Depth of Truth is proportional to Heaviness of Bombardment. As if all this smashing of matter can reveal anything else than space debris. The Embarrassing Nonsense of Particle Physicists - No, we do not need a New Collider. There is no light at the end of the [supercollider] tunnel. It is clear, however, that modern physics is herewith just following a common trend in our nowadays "civilized" society, where you can hardly watch a movie without a murder in it. Death is more interesting than life. But okay, let's forget about all this and go back to business. To make a long story short, has it become virtually impossible that other than Censored Papers Demolish the Big Bang Hypothesis?

According to standard (Big Bang) theory an "infinite" universe is impossible. One of the most frequently employed arguments to defend this stand is Olbers' Paradox (Wikipedia) which is also known as the "dark night sky paradox". It is the argument that the darkness of the night sky conflicts with the assumption of an infinite and eternal static universe. In the hypothetical case that the universe is static, homogeneous at a large scale, and populated by an infinite number of stars, any line of sight from Earth must end at the surface of a star and hence the night sky should be completely illuminated and very bright. This contradicts the observed darkness and non-uniformity of the night.
A "line of sight" or rather a ray of light does not really exist in the first place. Even if we adhere to geometrical optics for simplicity, light still comes to us in thin conical bundles. A bundle of light rays - departing from a star - is weakening according to the inverse square law for distance. Stars look fainter as they are farther away.
Common formulations of Olbers' Paradox contain another hidden assumption, namely that the lifetime of stars is infinite. An essential ingredient of the counter argument is of course that stars are born and stars are dying. There is a great chance that an outgoing line of sight will meet a place where a light source has not yet been ignited or meanwhile has extinguished.
The common Big Bang model explains the observed non-uniformity of brightness by invoking spacetime's expansion, which lengthens the light [ .. ] to microwave levels via a process known as redshift; this microwave radiation background has wavelengths much longer than those of visible light, and so appears dark to the naked eye. In this respect, as we have seen, the Big Bang model is not much different from our UAC theory, as the latter is equipped with Intrinsic Redshift. Thus an analogous argument might be used for debunking Olbers' Paradox, provided that our intrinsic redshift might become large enough for the purpose.
There is evidence of a more mathematical nature, though, showing that the dark night sky is not a paradox at all. It's a well known fact in mathematics that there exist many more real numbers than there are rational numbers. All rational numbers $y/x$ can be represented by points in a rectangular equidistant grid with integer $(x,y)$ coordinates. The grid points may be considered as stars in a universe, which in our simplified model is 2-D, flat and infinitely large.

Starting from the origin, it's easy to draw a (light)ray that passes all stars without hitting any of them. Just define a ray like $\,\color{blue}{y=\sqrt{2}\,x}\,$ or $\,\color{red}{y=x/\sqrt{2}}\,$. It is known that $\sqrt{2}$ is irrational, so it's impossible to have a rational slope $y/x=\sqrt{2}$ or $x/y=\sqrt{2}$ as would be required. Take any irrational number as the slope and it is clear that there are infinitely many more of those rays.

Even if we would have to deal with Olbers' Paradox in an Euclidean universe, then it is still in favour in comparison with any Big Bang model. The reason is observational evidence. Particularly relevant is the information that has recently reached us via the James Webb Telescope. That new information is exactly as foreseen by Eric Lerner at his website: One crucial prediction of the Big Bang, expanding-universe hypothesis is that because of an optical illusion, extremely distant galaxies will not appear smaller and smaller on the sky but larger and larger. The illusion occurs because the galaxies are hypothesized to be closer to us when they emitted the light than they are now, and therefore appear larger. If the universe is NOT expanding, however, distant galaxies will look smaller and smaller, as in ordinary space. And this trend will be continued with JWST, generating observations of galaxies that would appear to be too small to be physically possible if the expanding universe hypothesis were true, but exactly as expected if there were no expansion.
Now there may be people arguing that they have found Errors in the "The Big Bang Never Happened".
But as far as established astronomy is concerned, more than one wrong prediction comes into my mind. Remember the far too thin layer of dust on the surface of the moon and hence the giant footpads at the legs of the Apollo Lunar Module. Comet Kohoutek is a comet that passed close to the Sun towards the end of 1973. Early predictions of the comet's peak brightness suggested that it had the potential to become one of the brightest comets of the 20th century, capturing the attention of the wider public and the press and earning the comet the moniker of "Comet of the Century". Although Kohoutek became rather bright, the comet was ultimately far dimmer than the optimistic projections: its apparent magnitude peaked at only -3 (as opposed to predictions of roughly magnitude -10) and it was visible for only a short period, quickly dimming below naked-eye visibility by the end of January 1974. Comets clearly are not dirty snowballs, like standard astronomy has let us to believe, so where is the second part of that documentary about Rosetta and Philae? And how about the New Horizons mission. Didn't it reveal that Pluto is much younger than expected? The (former) planet even has an atmosphere! If standard astronomy already fails in the nearby world of our own solar system, how much can it be trusted then when it claims having produced yet another "photograph" of a Supermassive Black Hole?

There is a late development in the G. de Vaucouleurs section of UAC, where it is suggested that, independent of any model, a value of $\,x\,$ that cannot be surpassed is $\,x=w=3.383634283\,$. Here $\,x\,$ is a dimensionless "radius of the universe" with the "real" radius equal to $\,R_w=w\cdot c_0/H\,$; $c_0=$ speed of light and $H=$ Hubble parameter. It means that Olbers' Paradox for our infinite universe is effectively solved: almost none of it is observable here and now.