>>>>>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?
>>>
>>>Some says it has. Jensen says it hasn't.
>>
>>Oh crap. Under these circumstances, it is difficult for us, mere mortals, to find out what is really going on.
>
>Quite right.
>
>The most unfortuate part, however, is that if Jensen's arguments turn out to be right the chances of us hearing about aren't that great. After all, there are huge predictive failures with the Big Bang theory already, yet its preached as "one of the best stories ever told" by scientists. And all along there have been other viable, less mystical (less dependent on "dark energy") models available yet they've been ignored.

Yes, I understand that the plausibility of a theory is not the only factor that leads to its wide acceptance. There may be strong interests involved. For example - and taking an example from astronomy - whether you believe in Velikovsky's theories or not, what established scientists did to quite his theories - just a few decades ago! - can only be adequately compared with the similar zeal shown by the Inquisition, to silence the truth.

>Einstein himself never put much stock in the Big Bang. I'm not entirely sure why aside from the fact that it conflicted with his view of a stable universe. I can only guess that he realized that to argue against the big bang would require arguing against the postulates of Special Relativity which is not something he would have likely done without tremendous evidence. Thats pure speculation on my behalf. Does anyone know more?

In my understanding, it is the General Theory of Relativity that leads to the result that the Universe can't stay stable for a while.

Since Einstein somehow disliked the idea of an expanding or contracting Universe (at that time, the expansion had not been discovered yet), he introduced a fictional something that he called a "cosmological constant", which would somehow offset the results of the calculations. Later, he called this the biggest blunder of his life. And yet, despite the fact that the Universe is, indeed, expanding (or so most scientists believe), this "biggest blunder" has been re-introduced into modern cosmology: the purported dark energy is basically the same as the "cosmological constant", except that doesn't have exactly the magnitude to maintain the Universe in equilibrium.