The big bluff: Or is the "big bang cosmology" going to collapse ? by Hans J.Fahr Professor at the Institute of Astrophysics at the University of Bonn Introduction to the cosmic crisis Edwin Hubble, seduced by the voices of his contemporary astronomical colleagues, in 1929 published his data on redshifts of nearby galaxies in a highly suggestive form, namely as saying the world would explode in a homologous manner yielding in all directions higher object escape velocities with larger distances. Though the huge mass of cosmology-relevant data collected in the times after Hubble's important message from 1929 in the majority of cases, honestly said, did not satisfactorily support his early prediction, astronomers already had started to faithfully live with his "celestial message" as with the holy mystery of our universe. This produced the era of the "big bang cosmology" lasting since then up to the present. All observational facts in astronomy since that time were turned such that they fitted into this cosmic ideology. Thus Alexandre Friedman different from Albert Einstein who first was proud to describe a static universe with his general field equations, tried to modify these equations untill they finally could describe an expanding universe. Then the cosmic background radiation at microwaves was detected and , inspired by the threatening views of atomic bomb explosions, was immediately celebrated as an echoe of the early hot phases of the exploding universe: Everything in astronomy thereafter appeared to be settled, solidified like the interior structure of a concrete building, comparable to times in physics before Max Planck detected that nature was discontinuous. For Max Planck it was the exploration of the natural quantum jumps which forced the era of classical physics applied to a nature with continuous action flows to make a break-down. For astronomy only very few people start recognizing now that the facts to bring the "big bang ideology" to a collapse are coming up already since the last decade: The cosmic background radiation should be isotropic with appreciable temperature fluctuations associated with nowadays cosmic structures, but in fact it has a dipolar character with nonidentifyable fluctuations. To make the dipolar character understandable requires a motion of our reference point in the universe with a velocity of 550 km/s relative to the standard of rest of this radiation, the expected reference of the Hubble flow. This indicates that neither the earth nor the centers of larger and larger hierarchical systems in the universe do care for the Hubble flow. In contrast to concepts of the conventional cosmology envisioning a homologous expansion of the joint cosmic substrate, normal radiating matter in space seems to do something very different from cosmic radiation. The real, luminous material in the universe astonioshing to explosion cosmologists does something completely different from what our present theories describe. Galaxies are not the slaves of the universal Hubble flow - and thus are not coming from a big-bang if traced back in time. Their redshifts are of a typological rather than of a cosmological nature and they are grouped in structural hierarchies, far from being homogeneously distributed in space as theorists up to now have taken for granted, when developing their cosmological models of the univers. If all of this is honestly taken into account, it must be clear that we cannot continue with an anachronistic ideologistic tradition in cosmology. A new cosmology has to be created by independent thinkers and researchers! There are now books available which do first steps towards the "new age cosmology" (E.Lerner, 1992, Arp et al., 1990, Breuer, 1993, Hoyle et al., 1993, Fahr, 1996)