The kind of universe which, according to Sciama, had to exist necessarily was, of course, the one embodied in the idea of a steady-state universe. Its chief supporters quickly succeeded in gaining for it wide renown which, in an increasingly publicity-conscious age, readily passed for intrinsic merit. Many were swayed, though not Einstein, the creator of the new science of cosmology. In one of his rare utterances on the steady-state theory he dismissed it as a “romantic speculation.” He should have rather characterized it as an abuse of plain logic. Beyond that abuse there lay that supreme ignominy, hardly ever noted, which the universe could conceivably suffer, namely, its breaking into incoherent parts.

The very notion of the universe fared very badly in the hands of steady-state theorists. Not that this could be seen firmly outlined in the distinction by which H. Bondi, a chief spokesman of the steady-state theory, brought to a close the Introduction of his Cosmology. Bondi began by distinguishing between two totalities. One was the“ totality of physical events “which may affect us at some time in the future and all events which have been or will be affected by us.” What he had in mind was the ever widening range of man's observations of cosmic reality, or that totality of things or “universe” which is actually or potentially observed. To distinguish this totality or “universe” from the absolute totality of things or “Universe” was certainly valuable.