The Universe - print version

The ancient thinkers already had the concept of a dynamic world:
Heraclitus (approx. 544-483):
"The given nice order of all things, the same in all,
has not been made by any god or man, but it always has been, is,
and will be an ever-living fire,
kindling itself by regular measures and going out by [the same] regular measures."

Already earlier Anaximander from Milet (approx. 611-545) had taught:
"The primary cause of all things being is the unlimited.
Because everything arises from it and everything elapses to it.
That is why also unlimitedly many worlds are produced
and elapse to that from which they arise."

is the headline of an article in the "Physik Journal" of March 2015 on the occasion of the 100 year anniversary of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (all quotations are from this article). The essay is about his freely invented "cosmological constant" which supposed to guarantee that the "universe" maintains its size constant. Already Newton was concerned about a stable universe, which did not ensue from his equation of gravitation. However, he calmed down himself that, in case of emergency, God would take action in order to avoid the world from falling apart. Einstein wanted to achieve this with his cosmological term. "At his big surprise, Einstein encountered a fundamental difficulty with his approach, which has already been known by earlier generations within the framework of the Newtonian Theory: His field equations did not allow a static universe; it either had to collapse or to expand." It is supported by the fact that already "as from the year 1912 the American astronomer Vesto Slipher had observed the red shift of galaxies" and thus laid an important basis for the concept of an expanding universe. The red shift of light known as Doppler's principle means that the light-emitting source and the observer move away from each other, which results in the lengthening of light waves into the right spectrum. The author of this article, Prof. Norbert Straumann, asks "Why was Einstein so keen on constructing a static model?" My answer: for autistics, incomprehensible changes are sort of threatening. Although there was no objective reason for it, there was a general belief in a static universe at his time until the Belgium priest and professor of physics Abbé Georges Lemaître appeared in 1927. However, Lemaître concluded from the expansion the "Big Bang" as God's creative act, which was very much liked by the Catholic Church. Cosmologists simply cannot do without God. In "recent times", moreover, "the accelerated expansion of the universe has been discovered", which Einstein "firmly refused". Due to the now assured red shift of the light of galaxies, Einstein gave up the cosmological term "and remained so for the rest of his life" wisely realizing that he had failed with his (autistic) wishful thinking. Einstein's followers, by contrast less wise and understanding " have again kindled the discussion about his cosmological constant, which has developed into the problem of "Dark Energy" (as cause for acceleration)" in order to still endorse Einstein, although he had the intention to explain a static universe with this Dark Energy. However, brave followers of Einstein are not disturbed by such difference, if perhaps, at least, his concept can be saved, although Einstein had named it "my greatest folly".

In connection with Newton's gravitational equation and the law of conservation of energy as rational basis and with the destinction between universe and cosmos and the insight that the world has to be emerged from a Big Bang*, we have already all elements for the dynamic of the cosmos which we can observe; a cosmos which presumably is one of many in the universe, emerging from converging matter. The German term "Urknall (Big 'Bang)" would thus only be the Big Bang of our cosmos, from which emerged a new whole, organized by the Big Bang, while the universe itself is timeless and boundless.
During the Big Bang all related matter gained two impulses:
1. the cosmic centrifugal force away from the place of the Big Bang,
2. the opposite force of attraction of all matter to all other affected matter due to its entanglement caused by the Big Bang; that's why it is constantly gravitating towards each other.
The cosmos which can be observed by us is the result of these two antagonistic elemental forces and their true image and thus the biggest proof ever possible for a thesis. As much as the gravity of all cosmic matter cannot be lost, its centrifugal force and impulse remain by and large, whereas galaxies and planetary systems are held together by the balance of both elemental forces while they "move away from each other" together.

The gravity effect between all parts had been biggest immediately after the Big Bang, however not big enough to hold the parts together, while, with increasing distance between each other, this gravity effect becomes attenuated according to Newton's equation of motion with the square of distance. This means that the cosmic centrifugal force increasingly prevails especially in the intergalactic space so that we are not only concerned with an expanding cosmos but also with a cosmos which inevitably expands increasingly faster. In addition, the range of the gravitational field of an object is limited by the Planck's constant, which means that a field cannot be attenuated arbitrarily, so that acceleration is also increased by this. The assumption of Dark Energy to explain the expansion is futile! In this way, we are dealing with a world view of great simplicity, clarity and beauty, which in my opinion cannot be exceeded. The distinction between cosmos and universe is decisive for my view of the universe, and the insight that gravity is a consequence of the entanglement of all matter involved (in our cosmos) due to the Big Bang. These arguments are unheard of any other author.
*for only the Big Bang explains the existence of the gigantic centrifugal forces ruling the cosmos. The red shift of the light of the galaxies is in this case only an additional argument and of rather subordinate significance. However, I have not heard this from any other author.