The current theory of the universe states that spacetime and matter-energy began from the initial singularity 13.8 billion years ago and is, as of now, expanding in all directions, aka The Big Bang Theory

If memory serves, the first clue for this inflationary model (expanding universe) was the light from all other galaxies was redshifted. Redshifting is basically light becoming redder because the source of light is moving away from the observer. This discovery was made by Edwin Hubble (?) and effectively buried the static unchanging model of the universe.

Recently, while surfing the internet, I came across some articles that put into doubt the inflationary model of the universe. I'm not aware whether these articles are from the mainstream scientific community or are simply whacky ideas of some fringe groups.

Nevertheless, it got me thinking about the redshift of galactic light, the observation that gave birth to The Big Bang Theory. Sunsets are known for their beautiful reddish glow and the explanation for this redshift in sunlight is that gas particles in the air scatter most of the light except red light because of the longer wavelength of red light. This is called Rayliegh scattering.

Space is not empty as most of us believe. I'm not aware as to the distribution pattern of matter in the universe but it isn't implausible that there are giant gas clouds in between galaxies. If so, light traveling between galaxies would have to pass through these gas clouds and experience Rayliegh scattering, the net result of which would be redshifted light. This serves as an alternative explanation for why galactic light is redshifted; an expanding universe is not the only game in town.

I'm aware of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) bolstering The Big Bang Theory model as it's a confirmed prediction of that theory. However, it maybe possible to explain the CMBR with a static universe theory too.

In short, The Big Bang Theory could be false.

Comments...