Comments on lack of Lightcurve Evidence?

Hello all,

I started this topic in sci.physics and it was mentioned that
sci.astro would be good place to ask for comments on the following
paper. Any thoughts? What reasons are left to support the big bang's
favour amongst the available cosmological models?

(Mike Helland) wrote in message . com...
Here's a new paper:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0404/0404207.pdf
quote
Supernovae Ia (SNe Ia) light curves have been used to prove the
universe is expanding. As standard candles, SNe Ia appear to indicate
the rate of expansion has increased in the past and is now decreasing.
This independent evaluation of SNe Ia light curves demonstrates a
Malmquist Type II bias exists in the body of supernova data. If this
bias is properly addressed, there is very little budget for time
dilation in the light curves of supernova.
snip
For most of the 20th century astronomical observations such as
galactic evolution, heavy metal abundance, supernovae light curves and
the cosmic microwave background have fallen within the constraints of
the Einstein - de Sitter Big Bang model. In the last two decades these
relationships have become severely strained. The universe is too big
and too old; the magnitudes of supernovae are dimming too fast. There
are too many radio point sources. The far infrared continuum emissions
imply a dusty past that is completely at odds with multi-colored
supernovae and quasar spectrums. There is too little anisotropy in the
cosmic microwave background to support the observed galaxy
super-cluster structure. Heavy metal ratios equal to solar
concentrations have been quantified in the most redshifted objects we
observe. Something is wrong with this mature theory: It has failed in
too many predictions.
/quote

(Eric Gisse) wrote in message . com...

Before I can understand this paper, I really need two things. 1)
Sleep, and 2) An explanation of what exactly "type II" Malmquist bias
is when compared against regular Malmquist bias. I was not aware there
were types of Malmquist bias...

The reference given is the following paper:
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level..._contents.html

And here's the information you need in a nutshell:
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level...ikorpi3_1.html

It doesn't mean a whole lot to me. Unless you've got the expertise,
we'll see if Jensen's paper has any critical flaws pointed out by
experts.

I cross-posted this to sci.astro, so for context here is the paper
we're discussing:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0404/0404207.pdf

--
Mike Helland
http://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm