>Since the energy of a photon = h*f that means a decrease in energy results in a decrease in the frequency (E/h = f)
>
>Finally, since the speed of a photon = f * w (frequency times wavelength) a decrease in the frequency menas a decrease in the speed of a photon.
>
>The photons coming at us from halfway accross the observable Universe are actually moving slower than the photons coming from objects more in our neighborhood.
>
>In other words, instead of the distance of the photon's trip getting larger (Big Bang) I think that the distance stays the same and the time of the photon's trip gets larger because its running out of gas.

You have a [lot] more informed knowledge on this than I do - but I thought Plank predicts that the wavelenght of quanta will "get" longer as time passes. IOW, a hydrogen wavelent is xx meters today, and may be xx meters + y tomorrow. But maybe thats what you're indicating with the "tired light" analogy.

It's difficult to understand how a quanta gets tired because we're taught that the speed of light is constant and that to be "relativistic" requires infinite enegery (infinite mass). So if the fuel is "infinite", and the particle is tiny and hard to stop (like a nuetrino), it seems that a "tired light model" would contratict what I thought was the holy grail!:-)

And - you are correct about the "NO CENTER". But I am a Euclidean critter, and though I approach understanding the "no center" thing - it is difficult because I was also taught that the big bang "egg" was a dimensionless point at time=0 - and that we are somewhere in the ether between the center of the egg and it's shell. But we may be infinatily small. Will infinitly small guy1 be the same size as infinitly small guy2?:)

>
>This is known as the Tired-light model, or steady state cosmology, models which have been apparently "refuted" but I'm not convinced yet.
>
>>In an explosion, stuff on the outside speeds away more quickly than the stuff on the inside. More time to pick up speed through acceleration.
>>
>>In an implosion, stuff near the center would accelerate towards the center more quickly than the stuff on the outside, because the "suck" force would be more intense.
>>
>>In the universe, it would seem, motes towards the center, during a collapse, would be moving towards the center more quickly that those motes on the outside. So, the doppler shift would be red when we looked at the motes further from the center, because our mote would be accelerating away from them at a faster rate.
>
>
>The only problem with your line of thinking is that there is no "center."
>
>The Big Bang didn't happen at the center of the universe. The big bang happened everywhere. Including right here. Technically we, as every other position in space, is the center of the Universe, according to the Big Bang anyways.