Someone posted this to my question on QUORA.

Einstein's theory of relativity can be explained through the interactions of gravitational wave theory. Time dilation and length contraction can both be interpreted as results of the expansion and contraction of gravitational waves. When an object is moving at near light speed, it must be producing a huge amount of gravitational waves. An observer looking at the speeding object will see a distorted image caused by the expansion or contraction of gravitational waves.

Time slows down or decreases because the distance is increased by the gravitational wave during the expansionary period. Length contraction is explained by the shortening of space-time during the contractionary period of the gravitational wave. The trough of the wave is located at the actual moving object itself while the crest is just in front of the object. However, once the gravitational wave finally hits the border of the universe, it will just permanently expand the space-time and therefore the universe.

When the formation of gravitational waves start dissipating due to the lack of gravitational interactions, the universe will collapse on itself and restart the cycle of the Big Bang. However, gravitational waves will only stop being generated when all the matter in the universe combines into a super dense object/nucleus or SDN. Therefore, the maximum lifetime of a universe can be determined by how long until all the mass in it forms into one nucleus.

Can someone read this (its very short) and the part where he concludes the universe will end in a big cruncch and tell me if its valid?


closed as unclear what you're asking by John Rennie, user36790, user108787, ACuriousMind, heather Aug 29 '16 at 12:07

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • $\begingroup$ There is little point in posting a OneDrive link for people who don't have a OneDrive account. You need to edit your question to include all relevant information. $\endgroup$ – John Rennie Aug 28 '16 at 10:27
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ The response to your question is complete nonsense. $\endgroup$ – John Rennie Aug 28 '16 at 10:32
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This is one of those "My Theory of the Universe" pieces that people with no mathematical background generate because it superficially sounds like it might be plausible if the reader knows little or no physics. Show us the maths. $\endgroup$ – user56903 Aug 28 '16 at 10:33
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ His reasoning is complete nonsense. I could claim to be a Nobel nominee as well. That wouldn't make it true. $\endgroup$ – John Rennie Aug 28 '16 at 10:36
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ But to answer your question, modern cosmology (since the 1990s or so) considers Big Crunch scenarios to be extremely unlikely because the expansion of spacetime has been observed to be accelerating. The exact mechanism for this acceleration is still a mystery, but dark energy is a popular candidate. $\endgroup$ – PM 2Ring Aug 28 '16 at 13:25

This answer is not sound. At least, it is completely over my head and I can't really make sense of it.

However, it is extremely unlikely to be true, and to find out why, I would suggest you read the story of an actual Nobel Laureate who thought (as most people did in the early 1990s) that the expansion of the universe should be slowing down, possibly to revert towards a big crunch scenario. This particular Nobel Laureate worked out detailed and ingenious measurement schemes to confirm his research community's hunch that the deceleration parameter, which defines how the scale factor in the FLRW universe varies with time, was positive.

He found he was wrong.

He spent months looking for his mistake in his data processing. When at last he conceded that there was no mistake, his observation was the first confirmation that the deceleration parameter was, in fact, negative and the first strong indication that the cosmological constant was positive (an accelerating expansion is either owing to a positive cosmological constant or exotic dark matter whose identity we so far have no idea of). His name is Brian Schmidt and his Nobel Lecture tells you the tale of his discovery that the big crunch is highly unlikely. Even better: his story is definitely not over my head and I think you will find it much more readable and understandable than your quoted answer.


Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.