Cool theory. How many galaxies have we proven that we can no longer observe due to this theory? It’s just too dang bad that none of this can actually be proven due to the scale required to actually take “measurements”. And it’s weird because the universal expansion is happening at a constant rate of 70km/s/Mpc. Almost like looking through a cloud of smoke. The further you go the harder it is to see. Almost like the light is losing energy as it travels through the universe, rather than Dopplering away from us at a constantly accelerating rate. 🤔

I dont know about all that science stuff, but I'm taking a big crunch right now, thanks for supporting me in that

No. Relativity theory states that the speed of light is the Universal Speed Limit on the speed of which things can travel THROUGH space. But SPACE ITSELF can expand at speeds that are faster than light. That is how the "warp engine" of the Star Trek fictional universe is able to move from one place to another at speeds greatly in excess of the speed of light. They are literally like a rock riding on a WAVE of expanding Space-Time that is being propelled to speeds faster than Light. Actually, current cosmology doesn't support the notion that the Universe will end in a "Big Crunch" because that would require that gravity would overcome the expansion of the Universe, slow it....and then eventually reverse it. The current theory supports the exact opposite. The speed at which the Universe is expanding is acctually accelerating, so gravity isn't strong enough to reverse it. So the Universe will endlessly expand....growing colder and darker as the ability to generate new stars slowly dies. Resulting in a "Big Freeze"....or Heat-Death of the Universe...in about 100 trillion years. For comparison our Sun is a middle-aged yellow dwarf star that only has about 4-5 billion more years left in its life. What you are describing is basically just the horizon of the observable universe due to the limits imposed by the Speed of Light. They're may be aspects of THIS universe that are beyond what is essentially an Event-Horizon imposed by the fact the light from events beyond it can never actually reach us. Effectively cutting us off from it.

How so? Isn’t the increasing rate of expansion evidence [i]against[/i] the Big Crunch?

We can’t see more of the universe because of the expansion, we can see more because of better telescopes. The light would take millions of years to disappear, and because our technology is improving every few years, we can see more of the universe before it stops being observable. In the past, the universe expanded x amount so by the time the light reaches us now it will have expanded much more. But we have observed closer objects moving away faster than far away objects, so this means that the way things are ‘now’ the universe is expanding faster than before, disproving the Big Crunch theory.

The Observable Universe is larger in Light Years than the actual age of the universe. Eventually everything will expand into ultimate isolation, and depending on how atoms work all stars will become Iron or will burn out completely. And countless centuries after all atoms will either crunch into a singularity causing another Big Bang or they will continue to isolate until all atoms are evenly dispersed evenly throughout the universe. Until we meet again.

Know what else suffers from increasing expansion? Yer mum!

Have you ever thought about the speed of light? Maybe the reason we can’t go faster then the speed of light, because if we do the people controlling our simulation don’t have time to update the simulation, allowing us to break free. so that is why there is a limit to how fast we can go.

What if the universe is actually just breadsticks.