Is it possible that the universe are collapsing at this very moment but wee are unable to se it?

If all the stars & galaxies emerged from an non rotating point in universe I expect that they would fly outwards but that the gravity will gradually slow
down the velocity of everything so they will eventually stop and than start to accelerate back to the origin of the staring point.

But what happens if the point rotating around 1, 2 or 3 axis?

Will the stars & galaxies in this case ever come to a complete stop in their path before the start to falling back to the point of origin?

Imagine that the galaxy that wee se traveling at the speed of light relative to us now traveling towards us then wee will only se the back light so to speak but the front light will wee not see until wee actually collide.

Or in other words wee will observe an expending universe right to the time when wee collide.

Imagine that the galaxy that wee see travelling at the speed of light relative to us now travelling towards us then we will only see the back light so to speak but the front light will we not see until we actually collide.

Or in other words we will observe an expanding universe right to the time when we collide.

Imagine that the galaxy that wee see travelling at the speed of light relative to us now travelling towards us then we will only see the back light so to speak but the front light will we not see until we actually collide.

Or in other words we will observe an expanding universe right to the time when we collide.

Have you ever noticed a train approaching sounds a bit louder, and the whistle sounds a bit higher in pitch, while a train leaving sounds a little quieter and the whistle sounds a bit lower in pitch. This is only at the speed of sound. If a plane is travelling faster than the speed of sound, you won't hear it until the sonic boom shock wave arrives.

If you put the same ideas towards light, if something was travelling towards us (very fast - closer to the speed of light), you would probably notice it is brighter, and activity would appear a bit faster too since light leaving the source would have less distance to travel compared to the "old light" which travelled from further back. If something was travelling faster than light, then it would catch-up on the light emitted and absorb that light, so to us, this would probably look like a black hole since whatever light tried to come this way wouldn't be fast enough to get ahead for us to see the light.

If everything was collapsing faster than the speed of light, then the entire sky would appear dark.

...but this is only a quick guess. If what you suggest is true, there isn't anything we could do about it, I don't think you need to worry about this, the shock wave would be spectacular, not even our Sun would have enough energy to stop the collision.

...but this is only a quick guess.

I believe our current view of how the universe is behaving is woefully inaccurate. To answer your question, in a limited way yes it is possible, just not quite the way you're describing it. That's really all I'm willing to say at this point in time, since I know how easy it is to be labeled a "lunatic" in the scientific community. I hope I can find a better answer for you sometime in the future.

Hi all, this is my first post in the forums but l have been crunching for some time now.

Interesting scenario there simplex0 and nice reply by Joses. Indeed if galaxies were moving closer to us then they should appear brighter.

Correct me if l am wrong and this might sound stupid to most of you, but how do we know where the galaxies should be moving towards to if we don't know in which space the big bang occurred? And technically that would be hard to pinpoint since space as we know it is a product of the big bang as well(as far as l remember).

It is very puzzling that galaxies move away from us at ever increasing speeds.

Again sorry if my post is stupid.

I'll be the lunatic/crackpot, James. I can bear it ;)

The field of Cosmology is NOT that complicated. Explaining theories that aren't valid or don't withstand scrutiny...is.

"It should be possible to explain the laws of physics to a barmaid." Al Einstein

Physics explain what's happening in Cosmology, but mathemeticians now use a host of wild, untestable theories. Mathematics does NOT explain observable events as we see them.

Technically, the big bang occurred everywhere. Immediately after the big bang, the universe was only the size of a single atom, but expanded very quickly. As space expanded, the matter was able to cool down, and form galaxies, etc.

Succinctly, no. Nothing with mass in the universe can travel at the speed of light, and massless particles (such as photons) can only travel at the speed of light. (These are consequences of the Theory of Relativity, much of which has been experimentally verified)

Nice to hear you don't subscribe to M/String Theory. There's hope for you yet!

The best evidence is light bending by massive sources, esp. galaxy clusters, also predicted before observed.

This also has profound implications on the structure of our universe, but it is one of those conceptually and mathematically complicated subjects. (Which flows logically from the simple base postulates of GR)

We know that our current theory of gravitation is incorrect, but that does not mean that what we have is wrong. It simply means that we may need a small correction term to the math, or that some other physical process exists - the leading theory right now being Dark Matter.

My problem with the graviton is that it would 'know too much' because it would couple with the other forces - in order to produce light-bending, for example.

Got a little off track there. Photons. Light.

Duality..Paradox. Light as a wave and a particle.

Do you believe that light can be explained by a quantum vector field?

Do you believe that light can be explained by a quantum vector field?

Going back to the original question of the thread.

Is it possible that the universe are collapsing at this very moment but wee are unable to se it?

If all the stars & galaxies emerged from an non rotating point in universe I expect that they would fly outwards but that the gravity will gradually slow
down the velocity of everything so they will eventually stop and than start to accelerate back to the origin of the staring point.

It's also possible that what lies outside our universe may push back on the universe one day, condensing it. Or what encompasses our universe may actually be sucking it out.

Going back to the original question of the thread.

Is it possible that the universe are collapsing at this very moment but wee are unable to se it?

We may see the full extent quite a bit later, but the relative velocities of nearby objects are so small that we would see it there first. It can't hide.

If all the stars & galaxies emerged from an non rotating point in universe I expect that they would fly outwards but that the gravity will gradually slow
down the velocity of everything so they will eventually stop and than start to accelerate back to the origin of the staring point.

If the universe will stop (or even reverse) its current expansion depends crucially on the density of the universe. If there isn't enough matter in here (exerting gravitational forces), the expension will never stop. The visible (known) matter in the universe accounts for less than 2% of the needed "critical density". Even when considering the dark matter evident from the measurement of the rotation of galaxies and their movements in the galaxy clusters, we have only about a fourth of the needed mass.

And there is still the issue of the so called Dark Energy (pushing the universe apart). Current observations may hint to quite a bit of it (more than 70% of the total mass/energy in the universe is currently supposed to be dark energy), which leads to an accelarated expansion and not a slowdown. But frankly, I don't buy into that yet (but this is my personal opinion not based on anything I would call a sound reasoning, it's more a feeling, I simply don't like it ;).

It's also possible that what lies outside our universe may push back on the universe one day, condensing it. Or what encompasses our universe may actually be sucking it out.

It's also possible that what lies outside our universe may push back on the universe one day, condensing it. Or what encompasses our universe may actually be sucking it out.

To me a question of what is "outside" our universe is more philosophical than scientific. I strongly advocate idea, that "outside" our universe shouldn't even exist.

I read somewhere, that by recent long-term CMB observations and measurements, it has been concluded that after all our universe seems to be flat instead of open. So it might be that your (and mine) feeling might not be far off.

My reasoning in support of non-open universe goes somewhat along this line: the further out we look, we see further back in time. And we see redshift. To me that redshift means nothing more than a fact that things we observe moved at such speeds relative to us at THAT time, not NOW. And since doppler effect (blue/redshift) is a function of speed, is as such invariant to distance, so, if our universe was indeed accelerating in expansion, we should see a lot more redshift closer to us than further out.

And not wanting to become a victim of Dunning�Kruger effect, I am fully aware that my knowledge in this area is far from perfect, I just wanted to present my line thinking about this question.

Ok, i define our universe as the "bubble universe" theory. Convenient, isn't it? Nice theory also.

What's the bubble forming in?

Want to not discuss it as it doesn't fit your theory? Easier to ignore than put a hypothesis forward?

It's just as philisophical as dark energy. 'We think something is accelerating the universe, so it must be inside'. That's kind of ignoring any other opinion, as it doesn't fit yours.

I believe the fate of the universe depends solely upon the medium into which it was born, big-banged. Blow up a balloon real fast, a huge influx of energy. What happens to it depends upon the pressures outside it.

Ok, i define our universe as the "bubble universe" theory. Convenient, isn't it? Nice theory also.

What's the bubble forming in?

Want to not discuss it as it doesn't fit your theory? Easier to ignore than put a hypothesis forward?

It's just as philisophical as dark energy. 'We think something is accelerating the universe, so it must be inside'. That's kind of ignoring any other opinion, as it doesn't fit yours.

The bubble universe model proposes that different regions of this inflationary universe (termed a multiverse) decayed to a true vacuum state at different times, with decaying regions corresponding to “sub�- universes not in causal contact with each other

I believe the fate of the universe depends solely upon the medium into which it was born, big-banged. Blow up a balloon real fast, a huge influx of energy. What happens to it depends upon the pressures outside it.

And the fish in the water swims around casually believing water is the only world there is. Just keep swimming.

That's all very well to have your own opinion. As all the mathematicians must be playing a fun game with M-theory. Seems like an awful lot of funding for a mathematical game, wouldn't you say?

Last i saw experimental/observational evidence for that was zero, nada, zilch, zip. Let's get some membranes out, and make a loaf universe!!

And if Wiki is your source of info, please find a more serious, scientific one. The people who correct/quote/contribute are all on board with mainstream science and have little time for others who wish to challenge their view.

Wiki = popular opinion, not fact.

The philosophy you are invoking is the God theory i believe. In the beginning.....

springing out of nothingness into something. Something from nothing. A 'point' that sprang from nothingness to something, within nothing. Spontaeneous creation.

Mr Physik, theology doesn't belong here.

And the fish in the water swims around casually believing water is the only world there is. Just keep swimming.

That's all very well to have your own opinion. As all the mathematicians must be playing a fun game with M-theory. Seems like an awful lot of funding for a mathematical game, wouldn't you say?

Last i saw experimental/observational evidence for that was zero, nada, zilch, zip. Let's get some membranes out, and make a loaf universe!!

And if Wiki is your source of info, please find a more serious, scientific one. The people who correct/quote/contribute are all on board with mainstream science and have little time for others who wish to challenge their view.

Wiki = popular opinion, not fact.

The philosophy you are invoking is the God theory i believe. In the beginning.....

springing out of nothingness into something. Something from nothing. A 'point' that sprang from nothingness to something, within nothing. Spontaeneous creation.

Mr Physik, theology doesn't belong here.

Thanks for making my point Vid. Most appreciated.

How can you know where the universe is going, if you don't know where it's been? The 'point' or 'singularity' of the big bang, well, it came from somewhere.

And the fish in the water swims around casually believing water is the only world there is. Just keep swimming.

That's all very well to have your own opinion. As all the mathematicians must be playing a fun game with M-theory. Seems like an awful lot of funding for a mathematical game, wouldn't you say?

And if Wiki is your source of info, please find a more serious, scientific one. The people who correct/quote/contribute are all on board with mainstream science and have little time for others who wish to challenge their view.

The philosophy you are invoking is the God theory i believe. In the beginning.....

Ok, so the fish would 'notice' how things affected his world. Just like we notice something is affecting our world.....an expanding universe, but you swear black and blue it must be from inside the universe based on.....your hunch? Based on a theory of dark energy? that can't be detected? like dark matter? like a higgs boson? Purely hypothetical explainations?

Did God tell you there was no medium into which our universe came into existence?

Explain to me what the universe is expanding into...that is, the event horizon of the universe. What's on the other side of the wall? Strings? Angels? Ahhh, i've got it, nothing! The universe is growing into nothing.

So, it started infinitely small, surrounded by....nothing. Grew to the size of a pea, compared to what? There is no frame of reference as there is nothing.

Why is the expansion not uniform? what's stopping it from expanding uniformly? What "outside" force is opposing it? Certainly can't be gravity from the inside, it's too weak.

Lay your wisdom upon me.

Did God tell you there was no medium into which our universe came into existence?

Explain to me what the universe is expanding into...that is, the event horizon of the universe. What's on the other side of the wall? Strings? Angels? Ahhh, i've got it, nothing! The universe is growing into nothing.

So, it started infinitely small, surrounded by....nothing. Grew to the size of a pea, compared to what? There is no frame of reference as there is nothing.

Why is the expansion not uniform? what's stopping it from expanding uniformly? What "outside" force is opposing it? Certainly can't be gravity from the inside, it's too weak.

Thanks for making my point Vid. Most appreciated.

How can you know where the universe is going, if you don't know where it's been? The 'point' or 'singularity' of the big bang, well, it came from somewhere.

You are making the common mistake of trying to look at the universe from the outside. But this doesn't make any sense as a hypothetical observer outside would be completely disconnected from our spacetime inside (remember the hypothetical vaccum fluctuation which inside growed into our universe while it simply disappered in the other spacetime?).

There is a reason I wrote that there is not even an outside.

And how do you come to the conclusion that gravitation is far to weak to influence the expansion? There is experimental evidence for about 27% of the mass needed to asymptotically stop the expansion. The open question is if we find the missing 73% or if those are comprised of the still hypothetical dark energy.

Explain to me what the universe is expanding into...that is, the event horizon of the universe. What's on the other side of the wall?

I don't believe in god, but on the same token i don't believe in the big bang. I find it difficult to fathom basing the current fate of the universe whilst only knowing a % of the whole picture.

The Hartle and Hawking No-Boundary Proposal

Hartle and Hawking's new theory treated the universe like a quantum particle. As a result, they created a wave function that describe all possible universes. The wave function is assumed to have a large value for our own universe, and small, non-zero values for an infinite number of other possible, parallel universes. The other universes are expected to have different physical constants than our universe and are believed to be devoid of life.

The problem with Hartle and Hawking's theory is that it predicted the universe is "closed." Consider a closed universe to be the surface of an inflating balloon. Objects such as galaxies on the surface of the balloon would move away in one direction as the balloon inflates, and eventually end up at their initial positions. In addition, the concept of a closed universe implies that the universe will one day stop expanding, and collapse under the force of its own gravity.

Observations suggest that there is insufficient matter in the universe to create enough gravity to recollapse it. In fact, there is evidence predicting the universe to be expanding at a faster rate than the inflationary theory predicts. Thus, observations favor the idea of an "open" universe, a universe that will continue to expand.

The universe by definition, as all that we know. Are you claiming we now know everything that there is to know?

There is a reason I wrote that there is not even an outside.

So, answer the question. When i peer through the event horizon, what do i see? What do i travel into? The ocean with the fish in it?

And how do you come to the conclusion that gravitation is far to weak to influence the expansion? There is experimental evidence for about 27% of the mass needed to asymptotically stop the expansion. The open question is if we find the missing 73% or if those are comprised of the still hypothetical dark energy.

You answered your own question.

So, Mr Physik, there is part of our universe beyond what we can see. I get that from what you're saying. But it doesn't explain this..

[url] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_formation_and_evolution[/url]

In 2007 the Keck telescope, a team from California Institute of Technology found six star forming galaxies about 13.2 billion light years (light travel distance) away and therefore created when the universe was only 500 million years old.

If something 'logically' follows on from GR, why does it become complicated? It either is..or isn't.

Where did the initial big bang 'singularity' suddenly appear from? Not there 1 microsecond, expanding exponentially the next.

So how, with any accuracy, can we predict when galaxies first formed?

I find it difficult to fathom basing the current fate of the universe whilst only knowing a % of the whole picture.

The Hartle and Hawking No-Boundary Proposal

The same idiot that gave us singularities and big bang's. First he comes up with multiple universes, then we get 1 from a big bang.

Where did the initial big bang 'singularity' suddenly appear from? Not there 1 microsecond, expanding exponentially the next.

I atleast give M-Theory a rap for having a go at explaining it, whilst current science palms it off to philosophers to debate over. Puts it in the too hard basket as it interferes with their current theory.

Matter can't be created or destroyed? Law of some sort? ;) 'Big bang' energy came from....

it doesn't explain this..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_formation_and_evolution

In 2007 the Keck telescope, a team from California Institute of Technology found six star forming galaxies about 13.2 billion light years (light travel distance) away and therefore created when the universe was only 500 million years old.

Damn, i'm using evil Wiki.

Of the oldest observable light, our universe is 13.7 billion years old. But what about the part of the universe we can't see, beyond the horizon? I assume it's still part of our 'universe' by your own definition.
So how, with any accuracy, can we predict when galaxies first formed? There could be 20 billion light years worth of creation beyond our horizon. Well, that could mean we don't really know squat about what formed and when. Correct?

No. The universe as a whole came into existence about 13.7 billion years ago. We know that, because no light older than that had the chance to reach us so far.

Looks like you mix up now quite some stuff. Hawking had nothing to do with the Big Bang idea for instance and he didn't invented the singularities either.

M-theory won't explain how the universe came to existence. Furthermore, it first has to grow into a consistent theory (which it isn't currently).

There is some concept named energy conservation which is generally fullfilled except on very short time scales. That is where the vacuum fluctuations come into the game. And by the way, the total energy of the universe may be zero ;)

It is possible to settle the issue by a simple calculation. Astronomers can measure the masses of galaxies, their average separation, and their speeds of recession. Putting these numbers into a formula yields a quantity which some physicists have interpreted as the total energy of the universe. The answer does indeed come out to be zero within the observational accuracy.

Vacuum fluctuations? Theory? No facts? Not provable but invented to fill a knowledge gap?

So, is this electromagnetism explained in another way?

As the gap between the plates is narrowed (to a few nanometers), fewer waves can contribute to the vacuum energy and so the energy density between the plates falls below the energy density of the surrounding space. The result is a tiny force trying to pull the plates together – a force that has been measured and thus provides proof of the existence of the quantum vacuum.

No. The universe as a whole came into existence about 13.7 billion years ago. We know that, because no light older than that had the chance to reach us so far.

Didn't you say though that there's part of the universe beyond our viewable range? Please be consistent.

Looks like you mix up now quite some stuff. Hawking had nothing to do with the Big Bang idea for instance and he didn't invented the singularities either.

Penrose penned (pardon the pun) the singularity, Hawking 'borrowed' it as the source of the big bang.

There is some concept named energy conservation which is generally fullfilled except on very short time scales. That is where the vacuum fluctuations come into the game. And by the way, the total energy of the universe may be zero ;)

Vacuum fluctuations? Theory? No facts? Not provable but invented to fill a knowledge gap? We aren't talking gravitons are we? Of course not. We're quoting Hawking again. The man that gave us the unworkable multiple universe theory. Well, he thought it worked anyway.

http://www.braungardt.com/Physics/Vacuum%20Fluctuation.htm

It is possible to settle the issue by a simple calculation. Astronomers can measure the masses of galaxies, their average separation, and their speeds of recession. Putting these numbers into a formula yields a quantity which some physicists have interpreted as the total energy of the universe. The answer does indeed come out to be zero within the observational accuracy.

That's Hawking's zero energy. But that doesn't account for our dark matter or dark energy, does it? So is Hawking wrong, or wrong?

So, is this electromagnetism explained in another way?

That's why I said earlier that such advanced theories are currently not much more than playing around with some advanced mathematics without any factual base.

And when you have a higgs boson and a graviton that justify and qualify the other 16 particles, one can start spouting QM as a usable, testable theory. Not a mathematical theory that produces questionable experimental evidence based on hypothetical particles.

That's why I said earlier that such advanced theories are currently not much more than playing around with some advanced mathematics without any factual base.

But that also encompasses the big bung theory. Alan Guth, inventor of the Inflation theory (bolted on to the big bung) freely admits that his calculations, and theory, is wrong. Yet big bungers hold on to the thought religiously. Why?

And the Casimir effect, how is that justified with 16 elementery particles, +2 hypotheticals. Don't they need their opposite spin particles to make sense? Those other 16 particles that were MADE UP i.e. NO EVIDENCE FOR except the fact that mathemeticians needed them for QM to make sense?

And when you have a higgs boson and a graviton that justify and qualify the other 16 particles, one can start spouting QM as a usable, testable theory. Not a mathematical theory that produces questionable experimental evidence based on hypothetical particles.

But quantum theory is NOT a complete theory until the higgs mechanism is found. No proof, no cigar, unworkable theory.

One simply cannot PROVE an incomplete theory. You don't have all the pieces of the jigsaw. Scientists think they know what they are, but can NOT prove the existence of THEORETICAL particles by experiment.

The mathematics of it all may be brilliant, but it is not describing observable real world events because you can't prove the existence of a particle that PROVES QT.

But quantum theory is NOT a complete theory until the higgs mechanism is found. No proof, no cigar, unworkable theory.

One simply cannot PROVE

Well, pardon me. Sounds more like you can't defend an incomplete theory. No Higgs, no theory.

That's kind of how it works.

Edit: Even better. Here's the link to a youtube video where the scientists say what i just told you. No Higgs, no theory.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XbKZwXK-3c&feature=related

I suggest you go trolling there for information straight from a LHC scientists mouth.

I'll rephrase what i said, may have been a bit off. No higgs, no Standard Model. All predictions, experiments, theories...null, void, invalid, worthless.

Can't have a set of massless particles flying around at the speed of light unable to slow down to form matter, can we now?

Just wouldn't be scientific.

Well, pardon me. Sounds more like you can't defend an incomplete theory. No Higgs, no theory.

That's kind of how it works.

Edit: Even better. Here's the link to a youtube video where the scientists say what i just told you. No Higgs, no theory.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XbKZwXK-3c&feature=related

I suggest you go trolling there for information straight from a LHC scientists mouth.

It can be argued that the most interesting discovery would be that we cannot find the higgs proving practically that it isn't there. That would mean that we really haven't understood something, that's a very good scene for science. Revelations sometimes come from the fact you hit a wall and you realize that you truly haven't understood anything.

It can be argued that the most interesting discovery would be that we cannot find the higgs proving practically that it isn't there. That would mean that we really haven't understood something, that's a very good scene for science. Revelations sometimes come from the fact you hit a wall and you realize that you truly haven't understood anything.

That's what the bearded dude states. I agree, that's how science works. In essence, we don't find it, we've been wrong all along? Haven't understood Quantum Mechanics?

Ok, i stand corrected. From what i could gather of the 3 episodes and various other viewings and readings was this. If the higgs mechanism wasn't found, there was no way to add mass to the massless particles to allow them to form larger particles...based on the theory of the standard model.

It's ok to be able to do wonderfull things with the particles in mathematics and hypothetical experiments, but if we can't give them mass it's all pretty pointless.

It just gets to me, really annoys me, that when something doesn't seem to work in 'science' these days, the theory doesn't get reworked. It simply gets stuff added to it. Invented stuff added to it to make the equations balance. It doesn't have to be real, just an an added concept or abstraction to make the maths work.

I'll shut up now. Just frustrated by the lack of what i call 'science' in science. I mean, how can you have this dense soup of super heavy 'syrup' all around us, and not be able to detect it? Yet massless particles are detected.

Edit: This Higgs mechanism. May it only have been around, and able to act upon these particles and form mass as we know it during a certain period of the big bang?

It just gets to me, really annoys me, that when something doesn't seem to work in 'science' these days, the theory doesn't get reworked. It simply gets stuff added to it. Invented stuff added to it to make the equations balance. It doesn't have to be real, just an an added concept or abstraction to make the maths work.

Succinctly, no. Nothing with mass in the universe can travel at the speed of light, and massless particles (such as photons) can only travel at the speed of light. (These are consequences of the Theory of Relativity, much of which has been experimentally verified) All of the evidence that we have points to a universe that is constantly expanding, and if it suddenly stopped expanding, we would be able to see this as the light from the 'stopped' objects reaches us. So if a galaxy 10 million light years away stopped moving away and is now moving towards us, we would notice it unless it turned around less than 10 million years ago. This is assuming that the turn-around is sudden, and that's not how the universe tends to work. :)

Cheers - Matthew

Well, according to Roger Penrose,

“We can imagine that for a sufficiently massive and concentrated body, the escape velocity could exceed even the velocity of light! When this happens, we have a black hole.”

Well, according to Roger Penrose,

“We can imagine that for a sufficiently massive and concentrated body, the escape velocity could exceed even the velocity of light! When this happens, we have a black hole.”

Reverse engeneering, anything caught by that particular black hole would be sucked in at a speed exceeding the speed of light.

Correct me if Roger Penrose isn't saying this.

Hi all, this is my first post in the forums but l have been crunching for some time now.

Interesting scenario there simplex0 and nice reply by Joses. Indeed if galaxies were moving closer to us then they should appear brighter.

Correct me if l am wrong and this might sound stupid to most of you, but how do we know where the galaxies should be moving towards to if we don't know in which space the big bang occurred? And technically that would be hard to pinpoint since space as we know it is a product of the big bang as well(as far as l remember).

It is very puzzling that galaxies move away from us at ever increasing speeds.

Again sorry if my post is stupid.

Is it possible that the universe are collapsing at this very moment but wee are unable to se it?

If all the stars & galaxies emerged from an non rotating point in universe I expect that they would fly outwards but that the gravity will gradually slow
down the velocity of everything so they will eventually stop and than start to accelerate back to the origin of the staring point.

But what happens if the point rotating around 1, 2 or 3 axis?

Will the stars & galaxies in this case ever come to a complete stop in their path before the start to falling back to the point of origin?

Imagine that the galaxy that wee se traveling at the speed of light relative to us now traveling towards us then wee will only se the back light so to speak but the front light will wee not see until wee actually collide.

Or in other words wee will observe an expending universe right to the time when wee collide.

THAT'S what annoys me no end. If a theory is not testable, or is flawed, it is not a working theory. If the theory can be tested and does not work, it is incorrect i.e. WRONG.

Is it possible that the universe are collapsing at this very moment but wee are unable to se it?

If all the stars & galaxies emerged from an non rotating point in universe I expect that they would fly outwards but that the gravity will gradually slow
down the velocity of everything so they will eventually stop and than start to accelerate back to the origin of the staring point.

But what happens if the point rotating around 1, 2 or 3 axis?

Will the stars & galaxies in this case ever come to a complete stop in their path before the start to falling back to the point of origin?

Imagine that the galaxy that wee se traveling at the speed of light relative to us now traveling towards us then wee will only se the back light so to speak but the front light will wee not see until wee actually collide.

Or in other words wee will observe an expending universe right to the time when wee collide.

Is it possible that the universe are collapsing at this very moment but wee are unable to se it?

If all the stars & galaxies emerged from an non rotating point in universe I expect that they would fly outwards but that the gravity will gradually slow
down the velocity of everything so they will eventually stop and than start to accelerate back to the origin of the staring point.

But what happens if the point rotating around 1, 2 or 3 axis?

Will the stars & galaxies in this case ever come to a complete stop in their path before the start to falling back to the point of origin?

Imagine that the galaxy that wee se traveling at the speed of light relative to us now traveling towards us then wee will only se the back light so to speak but the front light will wee not see until wee actually collide.

Or in other words wee will observe an expending universe right to the time when wee collide.