I'm not sure exactly.

Logically, I just don't like it when people talk about the big bang theory as if it were fact, and not just a reasonably good placeholder theory. I think we're too observationally limited to be doing that; it's irresponsible and possibly even hindering people from looking at the universe differently.

When I was manic, I preferred not to read much if at all about the things I was obsessed about. I wanted to eventually see how off base I was and how close my conclusions were to what noted scientists/physicists have made. Essentially I wanted to give myself space for original thought.

You could google "biocentrism" and "the universe isn't expanding". Biocentrism was interesting as it states that observing the universe creates it.

This has basis in quantum mechanics when considering wave-particle duality in that merely observing certain particles changes their behavior. Maybe the universe is a particle and exist in it's current state because something outside of it is observing it? Maybe looking at the universe explodes it, and looking away shrinks it, and we can only exist during an infinitely small period during this phase change.

One of my themes during the mania was that the universe has a very specific geometry, or behaves like a mutating tessellation in that small and large scale principles can be observed in everything, yet never present exactly the same.

Great, now I might not sleep tonight.