Dedicated o our Theorists of Big Bang:

Logically the conclusion is only substantiated from the Big Bang theory. Therefore, in the course of the expansion it has given a very much strong dilution of the matter, so that the radiation is curved not much. If a light-ray however passes the proximity to a star, so it is only distracted about few bow-seconds, at the Sun for example about 1.7 bow-seconds. Consequently, one could think that the light of the stars virtually should be coming to us on straight-out ways. Currently, the theorists of Big Bang are certainly looking for a critical mass-density that could them enable to decide if it is enough to lead the universe to the tumble or if it will lead the universe into an eternity of the expanding. With it, the primitive idea has presupposed the falling down of the galaxy masses, because until today nobody knows anything more of complicated structures. Now the supernovae SN were measured and compared in approximately half the universe-removal, no matter what one today also might introduce with half space.

The results show that the galaxies are more distant than 15% as accepted today and as to substantiate the existing models. 15% under the assumption of the linear light ways decide quiet considerable over the assumed mass density of the universe. In accordance to the Big Bang theory, now the universe ought to expand eternally. And already every scientist is coming in and rhyming his scenario of the future macro-cosmos.

With that theory, short before the departure of the Big Bang theory at itself, the exponents of these understandings were successfully working at the biggest throwing into direction of nonsense.

Broadly everybody recognizes the philosophical principle:

The general state exists in the individuals. If it is called in an experience that didn't refute until now: Nothing takes an eternal duration! Why should then the space be a thing of eternity and give us the general model for it, if it doesn't come altogether?

1. The simplest answer, my United Field Theory, is giving. Therefore, the world is a matter oscillation of light (e.m.) and mass (g.m.). Each change opens a new era! At such an oscillation, no Big Bang is necessary. Rather the galaxies are installed. Certainly, then they are installed first of all to 15% more distance as the wrong theories were predicting (how I explain under 2.).

In opposition, TBA I shows at a strongly curved universe. Inside of it, the light ways don't move linearly, but on really curved bows. Does a light ray even overcome half of such a universe, so it has been going on something more as a hitherto existing quarter of a circle-scope, therefore on p d/ 4. The straight line that connects the quarter of the circle-bow is about 11% shorter! Consequently, the density of the matter is enough for a finally oscillating universe, if one takes the further assumptions that the IOT simply explains. For example: The masses don't exist if the universe has its least real diameter. They are set free little by little portion from so-called Protocosms. These are unstable Black-White Holes, practically giant and unstable particles, those are in decomposing. At the start, the small space reaches the highest density of its existence. Therefore, the mass of the universe is increasing until that maximum-diameters are reached. The density is decreasing on its minimum in the meantime. Is the amplitude of the universe timely passed, so the observed masses are decreasing again, because they vanish into the protocosms again. The diameter is getting smaller. From this, the density is increasing up to the final at which all masses are missing in the protocosms. This process consequently prevents the infinite density as hitherto existing assumption. Therefore, we have quiet different preconditions as criterions to the universe!

After all logic, it only can be one time at which this critical and observed mass exists in full amount after which the current science looks for: At the amplitude of the universe!

But we don't know, when and where that amplitude was or if it maybe still comes. Therefore, it is many more likely to accept that this overall mass could not be seen at all, especially as the light went long time-ways and so it chats from the past.

Protocosms are not visible. Therefore, we could remark to exist approximately 4% before or after passing the amplitude. This movement of all sizes of the universe are already enough to doubt, if such a primitive theory like the assumption of the only Big Bang is not essentially further from truth as the Bible taunted as primitive.

2. I read today at the 31st of May, 1999 in the magazine "picture of the science" (German: "Bild der Wissenschaft", June of 99, No. 6, page 56...) these theses of the eternally expansive space again. Item pens, absolutely convincing!

However, they do not yet know what lambda-parameter signifies. They don't know any United Field Theory. So they have wrong or incomplete premises to do their work. What for a conclusion should come out from this? Wrong preconditions lead often on wrong results, especially then, if one connects them conjunctionally.

Let's take my premise and explain why the galaxies are more distant as the model of Big Bang could explain with the escape of galaxies.

Exactly, if galaxies are more far away, the older is the universe respectively, the nearer we are to our own presence then. Everybody thinks: The expansion has even increased. These people have observed wonderfully! If they will however know my solutions!

Between point a and point b, a wound of logic is opening. Universe shows an increasing of red shift until its past that is an observation of Hubble. It was called Hubble-number. Red shift means an escape of galaxies and so an expansion of space. But in the proximity, red shift had decreased. Most near galaxies are falling to our galaxy, so we see a blue shift of spectrum (for example: Andromeda nebula and the Big Attractor in Virgo galaxies). One should conclude: The expansion is coming to its rest. Perhaps it even is already gone to contraction. If this was right, observed density had to be right. Just this is the problem. Distances of galaxies seem to increase currently. Although, our galaxies in the proximity had to be bend in an increasing speed of expansion again. But this is not observed. Only the observed relation of density, the distances of galaxies, give the reason for scientist's conclusion, expansion would increase. How do they want to solute this contradictions to agreement to the Big Bang theory?

Scientist had to curve the reality (red line) according to the observation. To save the situation you could turn the graph of this function to the direction a. Then it had been only given increased expansion in the middle. Later it was decreasing again.

You simply could doubt: Was there anyway an expansion below this contradictions? Is the expansion going yet? Or is everything gone even differently?

I tell you that there is no expansion! No escaping! Red shift mostly is generated gravitatinally by evaporating protocosms.

These are my sites

http://www.arcusuniverse.com of my theory about World Fomula named Ideal-Oscillator-Theory, just as a variant of the Unified Field Theory

http://www.eu-charta.com of my social critics at Germany and the European Union