The Cycle of the Universe

[michaelmorris]

As far as I understand it, the evidence at the moment strongly points to the universe expanding at an ever increasing rate, making a 'Big Crunch' impossible.  

Einstein's 'thought experiments' were backed up by mathematics and later by observations.  Without supporting mathematics and/or experimental/observational data supporting your theory, your hypothesis is merely conjecture, not a theory.

[Piero]

1 hour ago, michaelmorris said:

Einstein's 'thought experiments' were backed up by mathematics and later by observations.  Without supporting mathematics and/or experimental/observational data supporting your theory, your hypothesis is merely conjecture, not a theory.

I agree with the above, and I would also add that a nice and more attractive hypothesis is also backed up by some mathematics and / or some experimental data (e.g. riemann hypothesis).

 

So, I would say to the OP, that without some preliminary maths and / or data, I doubt that his idea will be considered as an attractive hypothesis which could then evolve in a theory after providing more solid mathematics and/or experimental data to back it up. The problem is that everyone can ideally say whatever s/he wants. Therefore, I would also invite the OP to go deeper in her/his thoughts and the related scientific background as a first step.

P.S. this first step took about 10 years for Einstein. Not to put off anybody with this, but I would be more careful before saying that his theory is somehow wrong without any deep understanding of it and without recognising that it has been backed up by about 100 years of observations.