>Its actually alot simpler than that:
>
>
>Has the time dilation of distant source light curves predicted by the Big Bang been observed?
>
>This time dilation is a consequence of the standard interpretation of the redshift: a supernova that takes 20 days to decay will appear to take 40 days to decay when observed at redshift z=1. The time dilation has been observed, with 5 different published measurements of this effect in supernova light curves. These papers are:
>
> * Leibundgut etal, 1996, ApJL, 466, L21-L24
> * Goldhaber etal, in Thermonuclear Supernovae (NATO ASI), eds. R. Canal, P. Ruiz-LaPuente, and J. Isern.
> * Riess etal, 1997, AJ, 114, 722.
> * Perlmutter etal, 1998, Nature, 391, 51.
> * Goldhaber etal, ApJ in press.
>
>These observations contradict tired light models of the redshift.
>

OK, now I understand what is meant by "time dilation". I know what a redshift is, but I still have to investigate how it is defined (i.e. what the hell does "z=1" mean?). Anyway, I have the basic idea now.

>http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#TD
>
>Again, these papers purport to have observed the simple prediction (and the prediction is quite simple if you notice) but the interpretation of this data is now in question based on Jensen's claims that a "Malmquist Type II bias" exists in the data. I have no idea what a Malmquist Type II bias is.

So, if I understand correctly, the time dilation has, indeed, been observed?

I don't know about a "Malmquist Type II bias", either. And, quite frankly, I strongly suspect that this is getting into very theoretical details that are getting above my head.