The cosmos lives eternally

(red, blue and orange light colorings in the cosmos)

So they imagine, they would be one light particles (photon) far removed this in one Galaxy was born us gets now on the way to the earth. You further imagine, this travels lasts also for not only a year, also not one thousand years, no-one billions years. No, the lonesome photon is away ten billion years, the just still visible light objects are remotely from us so far in our cosmos. Wouldn't they get tired as a photon sometime either? hers loses life energy and unite? If this were the fall, how this would have an effect? A jogger who runs puff gets slower till he stops or in Graß bites. Unfortunately, the light cannot get slower, however. it then would be no more light. Its energy isn't addicted to the speed (this one is always same) but of the wavelengths or the frequency.
Hv (basis of the quantum physics) = it E saidly: The higher the frequency (V) of one be wavy the more energy (E) has it. Transfer to the light: Red light is more energetically poorer, blue light has more energy because of its higher frequency. We remember this for example if we let ourselves be given ray treatment. If we lie under an infrared lamp, the skin warms itself pleasantly but otherwise nothing happens and, if we look inadvertently in the light, it does nothing to our eyes. Quite different, if we lie under UV lamps. The danger of a sunburn is great and our retina before the devastating effect of this thick glasses must for light high frequency protected himself. During radio waves (low frequency) X rays (very high frequency) still penetrate us any time without leaving any traces seem worse. So because it loses energies then would its color change of blues in the direction of the red in any form "tire" dignity light? The astronomer Edwin Hubble 1929 discovered now that himself the more moves the light of Galaxies after red, the further they are removed by us. His colleague Fritz Zwickey actually interpreted this relation the light by spread at interstellar and inter galactic gas residues and dust particles as a "fatigue" in the same year. Hubble approved this idea later, too. Hubble writes in a letter to the physicist R.A. Millikan of May 15th, 1953: "I agree with them, that the hypothesis of the light fatigue is simpler and less irrational."
Simpler and irrational than what? Fact is: They find Dei interpretation of the "cosmological red shift" as a fatigue of the light in none of more official Verlautung to the state of the cosmos -- all the world thinks the red light of far away objects could be explained by a flight of the Galaxies in front of us. Because an object moved away on us to or from us otherwise it changes its color for it due to a physical effect, the double effect is described after its discoverer Christian Doppler. All of you know it: A police car approaches with Martinshorn the tone sound higher than normal. this would correspond on the light transferred of a blue moving. if the car leaves again, the tone suddenly sounds lower, the equivalent to the red shift. These are those which may publish in scientific periodicals, the red shift of the Galaxies and different one of cosmic objects, in this wisely interpret all established cosmic boxes.
And this means: The further a galaxy is, the higher the red share of its light, the faster so it "runs away" in front of us. One traces this universe exploding apparently back at the time, one comes to a beginning about eight to 15 billion years ago -- the estimates sway strongly. The complete cosmic matter was concentrated in one single point which then exploded with an enormous force at this instant. Is this the thesis of the Big Bang "Big Bang" anyway why has this hypothesis gained acceptance with all its inconsistencies about which I still speak English? And not the scientific far more harmless interpretation of the red shift as sign of fatigue? On the search for an explanation I must a little go back in the past tense. It started as almost everything in the physics of 20: Century with Albert Einstein, in this case with its general relativity theory. The solution of its equations on the universe used yielded a expanding or a contracting universe -- at all events no-one static (still before the discovery of the cosmological red shift).

A rake quantity into his equation, the so-called cosmological constant,

(Albert Einstein) Einstein didn't like this at first at all and he smuggled so -- the him late than the thesis of expanding universe met with more and more approval, without delay removed again. After all, he admitted, the constant has been his greatest mistake. The Belgian father Abbe Georges Lemaitre thought up first a universe in 1931 due to Einstein equation (now without a cosmological constant) which has a temporal beginning and extends continually. And when the red shift was then confessed generally, his idea succeeded with itself gradually. A dynamic universe apparently corresponds to not only the Zeitgeist but primarily also our religious ideas which have characterized our science far more strongly than we think. Is it there chance that father is the scientific hypothesis of the beginning of the universe from the trifle calculated of a Roman Catholic? Unfortunately, the analogy lets itself be seen too Roman Catholic church not only in the person of the Belgian father. Partial flows which remind at peculiarities and excesses of the church have gained acceptance just in the science which should be objective and democratic: Turned the idea of a universe so, which continually extends and in which the Galaxies get still faster, the further they are remote, soon one dogma which is as good to break through as impossible. Deviants were punished with nonobservance and exclusion from the municipality of the orthodox: virtually an Inquisition to the disadvantage of science. However, something speaks for the interpretation of the red shift as a Doppler effect anyway? After all, this effect is a known phenomenon -- yes an everyday experience. For the fatigue of the light, on the other hand, only our feeling speaks (we get yes also tired) but feelings should have to look for nothing in science. Clear up and what shall actually at the energy loss of the light at the walk by the eternal ones the cosmos be to blame? Two mechanisms are possible for this, the Lichtstreung or the gravity.

at gas and dust molecules which is available everywhere the light is gritted, was the original idea of Fritz Zwicky (cosmic nebulum in characteristic colors). If light loses its energy through spread, far away Galaxies should seem blurred meanwhile what they don't do, however. But this objection isn't justified. The astronomer Paul Marmet of the heart mountain institutes od Astrophysics of the national Forschungsrcenters in Ottawa (Canada) points out that objects remain also clear in clear air although it comes with billions of collisions of the light particles with air particles. The spread of the light causes apparently no diversion but only a deceleration because of the absorption and redouble issue of the light by the Luftmolekühle. With other words: Light is swallowed and spat out again by gas and dust particles exactly in the original direction of his journey. The light according to the Marment hands in a part of its energy to these collisions to the Molekühl. This energy is then sent again in form of an extremely boring radio wave with a 1000 kilometers wavelength. Nobody can track down such radio waves till now. However, possibly neuter hydrogen plays then, if the molecular "brake" works, a central role can't this one be watched by the usual methods of the Astonomen: Very much of this exists -- enough, to, to rob the light of distant Galaxies of its energy in the universe. Marmets statements are only thesis for the time being. Meanwhile, this doesn't apply to the second mechanism which is taken to connection with the light fatigue, it is guaranteed by observation and experiment: the effect of the everywhere existing gravity. To understand this effect, we must take the gravity or gravitation to connection with the energy. Heads as clever as the mathematicians Leonard Euler (1707 -- 1783) and Joseph Louis de Lagrange (1736 -- 1813) already succeeded this: You developed every celestial body not only gravity but also a potential to gravity which changes into energy has the mathematical theory of the "potentials" after for example if an object is raised upward and falls down then. If one drops only a light particle into such a gravitational potential, it wins at energy. Reversed: It gets off the potential, again it must "fight" against the gravity. Energy is lost to it, and lost energy means how we know a moving of the light color in the direction of the red.
This "gravitative Rotverscheibung" was confirmed in the practice in the meantime twice. On the one hand, astronomers have they confirm an experiment to Sirius B, a "white dwarf" (these are very thick, very small stars), of Robert Pound and GlenRebeka at the star watched actually, on the other hand, carried out 1962 with a very exact Gammastrahlenquelle at the 23 meters high tower of the Harvard-Univeristät, the tired effect of the gravity on the light. You prove with that: This one everywhere in the cosmos effective gravity on the light. Meanwhile, this effect is very small, force of single sky objects absorbing the energy cannot explain the complete cosmological Rotverscheibung. The explanation why this whole Pähnomen fulfills the whole visible universe the American physicist James Paul Wesley has (lives in the Black Forest) after delivered. The key for the explanation is Einstein's E mc ² =. It means that mass contains energy, read in this direction, therefore can be converted to energy, e.g. at the nuclear fission. This one reads the Fromel turned over, however, (and this permits the equals sign), it then means energy also has mass. Argumentation to which add energy to Einstein's formula in accordance with the gravity (its potential) of its small but most important measures therefore is set against an acceleration resistance, for example mass carries ("") or the high-energy radiation by the gravity must influenced ("heavy mass") for Man for Wesleys so so. On the whole one universe obtained, so mass and gravity rise in such a measure that through this the Rotverscheibung gets explicable in the cosmological scale: The more Gravitationspotetnial overcome the light must, the more "custom" in the form of energy and color must pay it. A frequency sinks, its red share grows and we need no double effect and no Galaxienflucht as an explanation, therefore also no Big Bang hypothesis.

However why shall not we believe in the Big Bang? All recognized subject scholars finally find this hypothesis all right. But it holds logical and physical contradictions. It begins with the aurochs explosion: Where has it taken place actually? There, where the earth is (because himself yes all Galaxies apparent of us wegbewegen)? With this philosophy of life projected this one grounds in the center of a now but muchly bigger world again like at the times in front of Copernicus and Galilei if the Exposionszentrum lies, however, somewhere else why we then see no more stars in this direction? To weaken this objection, the scholars thought up a little whole new one: Not the Galaxies run away in front of us but the space as such extends in a Hyperaum. All things actually then leave monotonously each other, like the raisins at the surface of a dough which is wrapped up in the oven. However: If the space grows on itself, of course this also applies to the space within the atoms. Everything then grows, however, also our scales. How should we be able to be aware of an extension of the cosmos under this prerequisite? The "horizon problem" is also unsolved in the Big Bang thesis. It means that flows couldn't compensate for themselves within the cosmic Ursuppe because of the fast expansion so that the universe must look quite irregular actually now which it, however, doesn't do. There are in the cosmos considerably differentiable structures but we discover approximately the same in every direction, this one is like structures, the same structures, the same masses.