What if our nearby galaxies are in an eliptical orbit around something really large like 35 billion light years away? If the trajectories of nearby galaxies are ordered some way, this would explain the seperation of galaxies from the Milky Way to as far as 14-17 billion light years away. As we move farther away from this central thing, the trajectories of these galaxies would cause them to diverge (and seperate from one another). After we pass the apex of the outer end of the orbit, galaxies that are in a similar path to the Milky Way would converge (and come closer together). Once these galaxies approach the massive center of our galactic cloud, the place and time where they would collide violently in each others paths would eventually occur. This would be known as the big crunch where everything in it returns to primordial soup (elementary particles). Once the particles of this primordial soup pass the apex of their inner orbit, their volume would begin to expand violently. This would be the New Big Bang. As distances between orbiting masses increase, the masses' trajectories would differentiate to the point where galaxies like ours today bunch up, form and light up stars!!! It is possible that the recycling of matter happens continously throughout the universe.

here is an updated image of my multiverse theory which gives additional explanation in regards to how light may travel from billions of light years away...



"Speaking of big crunch theory, how can the universe possibly slow down? (Since it is currently speeding up)"

I have very little knowledge of dark matter, it's relationship with gravity, etc. My guess is that the expansion itself will one day deccelerate. The actual velocity of the galaxies (relative to the gargantuan central mass around which our galaxies orbit) would increase as these galaxies converge back into a single point. In an eliptical orbit, orbiting masses accelerate as they approach their inner apex of its orbit and deccelerate as they approach their outer apex.

"How does this theory correlate with the expansion of the Universe we've been witnessing over the years?"

According to the Cyclic Mutliverse Theory
The galaxies and the particles they compose of, in general, are diverging from a single point. Space-time itself, in this theory (as currently defined), does not expand or contract, but rather the galaxies do diverge in such a way that light as we collect it portrays a redshift that leaves us with a conclusion that galaxies that are farther away are moving away from us faster than near-by galaxies. For those with a good pc monitor, I put a slight blue tint and green lines in the image on the first post... the shallow blue tint indicates the path where matter, that makes up our observable universe, will travel - according to the C.M. theory (as it is now), while the green lines demonstrate how light from the earliest places in the universe can appear to surround from all directions, even if they may not be located in such places from us (relative to the gargantuan mass).

As for the gargantuan mass (a very 'hefty', massive thing), its existence is either to be or not to be confirmed. Because of the mass of such an object... we cannot detect such a thing through means that our current scientific knowledge can devise. For now, it is best to come up with theories that scientists today can augment (or admend) to today's commonly accepted scientific theory of the big bang - even better for those new theories that can be tested with data that is obtained with our scientific instruments.

Another question such as, "What may lie beyond this hypothesized Gargantuan Central Mass and the galaxies revolving around it?" demands that the Cyclical Multiverse Theory to have some level of supporting evidence to back it up.

"So where is the repeatable, independently verifiable, evidence for your revolutionary view point?"

For such evidence we must look for evidence that supports the Big Bang Theory.
In the Cyclic Multiverse Theory (which does not involve concepts such as Dark Matter), our galaxy is one of a cluster of galaxies that is rotating around a large central mass that we cannot detect with waves which we have yet to detect using scientific instruments.
So, in order for a sort of Cyclic Multiverse Theory to gain a foundation in science, it has to be able to explain much of the data that our reliable scientific instruments detect.

Things that would help the cause of supporting the Cyclic Multiverse Theory... (i think...)
- detecting lateral movement of galaxies which are billions of light-years away - with great certainty.
- the discovery of new waves that suggest that the big bang is really a continous expansion of matter from a small superdense mass (reffered to as the singularity) that is formed by a continuous compression of mass from the other side.
- the discovery of a large superdense mass around which matter violently contracts and expands during a sort of complex orbit.

Nice spirograph.

How does your theory account for the observed flatness of the universe? If there were a Gargantuan Central Mass, I'd expect for there to be a non-uniform distribution of galaxies.

__________________
Do try not to take me too seriously.

Given the highly vast distances to which stars are apart from one another, I would not see this being an issue.
Galaxies do indeed collide with one another, such as HERE but aside from gravitational effects, no stellar bodies ie, suns, planets, and moons themselves *seem* to "crash into each other".
If indeed this is what you meant by a "violent collision" then I would have to disagree on at least that portion.

I use "air quotes" too "much".....
-Meme

__________________
-Anonymity in the world of men is better than fame in heaven, for what's heaven? What's earth? All in the mind.
~Jack Kerouac

I remember hearing that given enough time, an irregular elliptical galaxy would transform into a spiral galaxy, simlar to how in a clean sink drain, water has a tendency to spin. Becuase of the spinning, the universe flattens out like a hand-tossed pizza - and so it spreads out wide and thin.

The problem with that is, we are observing the same flatness even with the most distant objects. Aside from local gravitational effects and the uniform expansion of space, we are not observing relative motion in distant galaxies. For there to be spinning and flattening, there'd have to be much relative motion of distant galaxies.

__________________
Do try not to take me too seriously.

Very interesting idea. I like it's originality to be honest. My only problem (at first glance anyway) is the exclusion of dark matter, which is pretty well experimentally verified. If the theory can somehow explain the effects of dark matter/energy, then I think you might have something. Theoretically, at least. And you know what they say about theoretical physicists, if you're not wrong at least half the time you're not being creative enough!

Each particle will orbit slightly differently according to the pull between it and the larger mass. The universe has many objects all with different masses (some very small, some tremendously large) each of which will have a slightly different orbit around this central gargantuan mass. If the orbit of the universe is analogous to the orbit of particles then what prevents the particles from spreading out and becoming a ring around this central mass like the rings of a planet?


In the case of the universe "flat" does not mean "pizza shaped" it simply means that two parallel lines will not converge. The regular rules of geometry are observed. This is opposed to Curved space in which two parallel lines will converge and double back. When you hear about the "flat" universe do not think shape. So far as we know the universe is sphereical in shape.

__________________
"Patriotism is supporting your country all of the time... and your government when it deserves it." - Mark Twain

No, I believe it's the other way around - the prevailing theory shows that ellipticals form from the collisions of spirals.

There are three basic types of galaxies: elliptical, irregular, and spiral. I'm not sure if there's such a thing as "irregular elliptical."

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

I was just reading an article that discussed this earlier today. In the
hierarchical models of galaxy formation, all galaxies start as disks. Major mergers lead to the formation of elliptical galaxies.

ok. I remember somewhere too that the elipticals are formed by colliding spiral galaxies... but I was thinking that given enough time, and without colliding with other galaxies, that particles in an eliptical galaxy could move around in such a way so that after a few billion years, the contents of this galaxy would start to rotate and eventually form a disk larger than each of the small galaxies that originally collided. I would then relate this to a cloud of galaxies which i think is pizza-shaped. If clouds of galaxies like this collide with each other, the effect I think would be similar to how galaxies, or clouds of stars, collide with each other.

There are quarks forming a cloud of quarks, an atom...
There are atoms forming a cloud of atoms, a star system...
There are star systems forming a cloud of star sytstems, a galaxy...
There galaxies forming a cloud of galaxies, a universe...
Is our universe part of another cloud?

Why would a cloud of galaxies be pizza shaped? What central mass could they be oribiting to make them so? Don't you think that the gravity from a mass gargantuan enough to form a 'Galaxy of Galaxies' be strong enough to tear its oribiting galaxies to shreds?

Fish have scales.
Snakes have scales.
Isn't a fish really a snake?

It's the same sort of argument.

__________________
"Patriotism is supporting your country all of the time... and your government when it deserves it." - Mark Twain

No elliptical galaxy would ever randomly (i.e., no forces present) turn into a spiral. Without some kind of perturbing force an elliptical galaxy is in relative equilibrium. Also note that not all elliptical galaxies were formed by two colliding spirals. They are much more common in the universe than spirals are, so you would almost double the number of original galaxies present earlier in the universe.

yeah i believe (from all the stuff i read about this) that the universe is in a cycle....big bang....dies out...another big bang...dies out...big bang, etc and the cycle will never end because the matter cannot be destroyed or created it just changes form

what are branes

A brane is a universe like ours embedded in higher dimensions. According to this theory, branes periodically collide, and the result is something like what we call the Big Bang.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

I like the blue ball theory, where our universe is really just another ball being played on a larger universe's soccer field. So they drastically slowed time down relative to theirs to keep the ball the same size - why wouldn't they? After all, it's their ball!

Hope they don't accidently pop it...

is it believable?

It's being taken seriously. I am not sufficiently knowledgeable to make a judgment for myself.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

so in this theory, is it like the universes are separated or attached?