The recent century and a half was marked by the greatest achievements of scientific progress. In many fields of science, the idea of development of matter carves its way; this idea is connected, in particular, with the names of such great researchers as D.Mendeleyev -- in chemistry, Ch.Darvin -- in biology, K.Marx -- in social sciences, A.Einstein -- in physics. There is some progress in other branches of science as well, including cosmogony -- the science on origin and evolution of celestial bodies and their systems, including the Solar System. However, the achievements of cosmogony cannot be compared with those in other fields of science. One can even say that chaos reigns in this field. Nearly each researcher (astronomer, celestial mechanician, physicist, mathematician, etc), having rejected all the previous cosmogonical hypotheses, creates its own one. The number of books on cosmogony is equal to the number of hypotheses.
Is it good or bad? Both good and bad. It is bad, because in cosmogony, in contrast to other fields of science, there is no an objective theory able to explain in a proper way one of the most important stages of development of matter -- the phase of origin of our Earth and the whole Solar System, as well as their further development. Meanwhile, this theme is of great philosophical significance.
Many researchers try to resolve this important problem again and again. And this is good. It means that this problem will be resolved sooner or later. And the more is the number of hypotheses; the sooner will be the solution. At that, the merit for this will belong to the authors of different hypotheses, at least because scientists, having become familiar with erroneous hypotheses, can avoid these and similar errors in future.
The author calls attention of the readers to one more hypothesis of origin and development of the Solar System in the Universe being infinite and eternal. If this hypothesis has attracted at least several new researchers, the author would consider his task fulfilled.