>>>Pardon my ignorance, but isn't that the theory of cosmic inflation, not precisely the big bang theory?
>>
>>There are a few things at play here.
>>
>>1. There is the observation that the further away a galaxy is from us, the greater redshift of the light coming from it
>>2. The interpretation of this data is that the galaxies are moving away from ours; unless our galaxy is somehow unique this can only mean that the universe is expanding
>>3. The theory of the Big Bang is proposed as the beginning of an expanding universe.
>>
>>The paper I cited argues that the interpretation in 2 is incorrect as can be shown by the lack of time dialation in supernovae light curves. If 2 is out, then 3 must be out as well.
>
>I don't quite understand what they mean with the lack of "time dilation", in this context. How do you understand this?

If a Supernova occurs over a month or two, and if the supernova is accelerating away from us during that time the expansion interpretation says there will be an effect visible in the data of the lumonisity of the explosion over that amount of time. Based on the z of the redshift we should see it dip off in a certain way at a certain time. The paper is aruging that the data shows this is not that case, and that during a supernova those objects appear stationary.

This amounts to a failed prediction of a mature scientific theory (a theory that has already failed many predictions).