Twenty two years ago while studying for my degree in the history and philosophy of science I attended a lecture by the Astronomer Royale at my home town university. He told us that cosmology was on a firm footing, and that now they had quantified black holes and dark matter, complete understanding was just around the corner and they were just mopping up the last few details.
I burst out laughing, and got a dig in the ribs from my prof sitting next to me.
Ever since, I’ve been unsurprised to find that new and better telescopes and computers have brought astronomers and cosmologists and astrophysicists an endless stream of “surprises” to upset their apple cart.
Having realised that the Hubble ‘constant’ had been changed on a regular basis to save the big bang theory, I came to the conclusion that redshift didn’t mean what cosmologist thought it did, and that it was perfectly possible the speed of light had changed over the course of the history of the universe.
So I’m glad to see others have been thinking along the same lines:
July 29, 2010 by Lisa Zyga
By suggesting that mass, time, and length can be converted into one another as the universe evolves, Wun-Yi Shu has proposed a new class of cosmological models that may fit observations of the universe better than the current big bang model. What this means specifically is that the new models might explain the increasing acceleration of the universe without relying on a cosmological constant such as dark energy, as well as solve or eliminate other cosmological dilemmas such as the flatness problem and the horizon problem.
More information: Wun-Yi Shu. “Cosmological Models with No Big Bang.” arXiv:1007.1750v1