When Hubble discovered the red-shift phenomenon that seemed to indicate that the universe is expanding it was generally accepted that this was due to what is known today as “The Big Bang.” I don’t want to go into the feasibility of the BB theory; Instead, I’d like to show that it’s not the only possible explanation of the redshift.

Actually, there are many alternative theories, but there’s one that is completely ignored by scientists today. One of the features of the Big Bang Theory itself is that, though the universe is expanding, it could eventually collapse due to gravity in what has been humorously termed “The Big Crunch.” This could be followed by a new Bang, followed by another Crunch, etc.: “The Cyclic Universe” theory.

With or without cycles, what if the universe is currently in the state of Crunch and not Bang? It wouldn’t matter where in the universe you were located, as you viewed other galaxies through a telescope, you would get the same result: a red-shift. Each galaxy would be screaming towards a common center and the closer to that center the faster it would be hurtling. This would explain why current cosmologists think galaxies are not only separating but accelerating apart.

I’ve been searching for years why scientists don’t believe the universe is currently in a Crunch and not a Bang, yet they ignore the possibility altogether. They can’t be puzzled by the question of what is at the “center” of the universe attracting every particle into it. The explanation is, of course, it’s the collapse of the universe as a whole, as do stars and planets whose material condenses into a ball due to gravitational attraction.

While I would like to take credit for hatching the idea that the universe is currently in a “Crunch” state, it was my brother, Jim, who many years ago planted the idea in my head and once it took root, it remained until today.