Why do scientists get so entrenched in the expansion of the universe theory? Since Edwin Hubble discovered the red shift which led to the argument that our universe is expanding, scientists have gotten into the expansion rut and can’t seem to entertain other possibilities.
There are some practical problems with the expansion theory. First of all, it does not comport with the design of the universe, which is in orbits or some other forms that permit an infinite movement. Our universe recycles and does not run out of gas. The expansion theory starts with the Big Bang and ends with the Big Freeze with all the stars eventually consuming all the hydrogen and everything coming to an end in the dark somewhere in deep space. There is nothing in our universe that shares this design.
It is more likely that we either have a universe that is much larger than we can even imagine, so that we cannot see the slight curvature in the circular universe. Our current understanding of our universe may be similar to how early man perceived our earth as being flat.
We could also have an alternating pattern between the Big Bang and the Big Crunch or a space-time fabric that moved back and forth between present-future to past-future. Or we could speculate that after a period of expansion, then we switched back to a period of contraction. These theories are better suited for the patterns that we see in our universe.
There also are practical problems with the expansion theory. How could we view the light from ancient galaxies, which no longer exist, since that light would have traveled faster than our expansion? In other words, how could we see a light that streaked into the future past us billions of light years ago? Further, how could a universe that is 100 billion light years wide have expanded into this depth of field within 13.8 billion years?
Observations have revealed that objects three times more distant are moving three times faster relative to nearby galaxies, and the farther we look into space, the faster the galaxies are moving. In fact, they may surpass the speed of light at these vast distances. However, the speed of light is the universal speed limit. So how can this be?
Well, the speed of light is the fastest that objects can travel. This restriction does not apply to space and time. For example, in the period after the Big Bang, this early expansion probably exceeded the speed of light. Also, our view back into space, which is also back in time, may be distorted by time itself, which is not restricted by the speed limits.
It is also possible that the actual universe extends much farther than we can comprehend. The observable universe may be about 50 billion light years in all directions, but the actual universe may be infinitely larger than that. This might be a good argument for our universe actually being in a never-ending gargantuan orbit with our view only reaching the horizon embracing a small piece of the universe.
But back to the question of how a universe that is about 100 billion light years wide could be formed in only 13.8 billion years? Well, as we said, some of that early expansion could have been faster than the speed of light, but that probably does not explain everything. Could that 100 billion light years, much of which is in the past, be in a space-time fabric that can move faster than the speed of light? And if some of that time reversed from present-future to past-future, would we be able to detect the reversal? Would it all appear the same to us from our perspective?
I can only ask questions, but scientists who are so stuck in the expansion theory do not want to hear questions. That is unfortunate because questions lead to better answers and, in this case, better theories.