I've had a theory for a while that the universe is divided into different sections. There could be an infinite number of these sections, or less than 10, that's not what I'm trying to explain. All of these sections are connected to each other with the last of the sections connecting to the first (think of a circle to simplify it, like in the diagram.) At any given time, about half of these sections are expanding(labeled B in the diagram), and half are contracting (labeled A in the diagram). When the expanding sections push on the contracting sections enough, they will eventually condense to something the size of mass of particles involved in the infamous big bang. At that point, the previously contracting sections will explode, and begin to expand. When this happens, they will push on the other sections and cause them to contract, starting the cycle all over again.

This creates an infinite cycle of big bangs. Right now, the sections of the universe we are in is expanding assuming the big bang theory is correct.

There is a massive problem with your "theory" (actually it's a hypothesis, it doesn't become a scientific theory until it is generally accepted as being correct) it doesn't fit the observations.

Firstly measurements show that all the galaxies in the univese are rushing away from each other... in other words the entire unverse is expanding. If your hypothesis was correct then we should see areas of the universe where galaxies are rushing towards each other. We don't.

The second big problem is the Cosmic Background Radiation. This is the left over radiation from the big bang. This (with the exception of very minor variations whih are totally consistant with the current big bang theory) radiates uniformly from all directions. If your hypothesis was correct then that radiation would have to come from specific areas of the sky. Again it doesn't.

There is a reason that the big bang theory is so widely accepted by astronomers and physicists... it does fit with all the observations, even those discoveries made since the theory was formulated. Indeed the big bang theory predictd the cosmic background radiation BEFORE it was discovered.

The problem with so many of these "My theory On..." topics is that the original poster (and this is a general comment not aimed specifically at you airsoftbro11) rarely seems to understand how scientists develop a hypothesis. These ideas, whilst imaginative, simply seem to be based on what the origianl poster seems to think would be a "cool idea". A real scientific hypotheis is developed by research and understanding what has been observed. A hypothesis is an attempt to explain those observations. It must be consistant with ALL of the observations, if it is not then it fails and is discarded.

"My theory On..." topics usually work the other way round, They start with an idea and then search for some observations that support it. As a result they almost never explain everything that is observed and so almost never work.

Just because we can't see evidence of things coming closer together in the universe doesn't mean it isn't happening. The sections could be incredibly huge, well beyond the range that we could see or study. We might only be able to see, or see the effects of 1% of our section.

I don't understand what you mean about the cosmic radiation, could you expand on that a little bit?

I'm not trying to say my hypothesis will be written down in history books. Indeed, it's nothing more than a "wouldn't it be cool if..." situation. I'm just trying to start a discussion here