However, there appears to be a bit of a row going on in the astrophysics community, at the moment, underplayed as it is, to the point nobody really much knows or cares abuot it, DESPITE it being kind of the make-or-break issue of astrophysics.

The issue is REDSHIFT. The big-bang model was created out of a notion that redshift is a semi-absolute indicator of acceleration, thereby distance, mass, and a bunch of other tertiary things.

However, recent research is pointing toward objects of INTRINSIC redshift. IE, they're not red because they're far away and moving fater and faster. They're red, because, well, they're actually RED. So, rather than assuming they're far away and ultra-luminous, which leads to all sorts of bizarre implications like black holes, neutron stars, quasars, etc. etc., if they're 'INTRINSIC'ally redshifted they may in fact be close, small and not very luminous redshifted bodies. That, however would throw just about hte entire universe (from our perspective) into chaos. If the redshift-as-distance relationship isn't rock solid, it may mean a COMPLETE rethink of how the universe is arranged, and thus how it works. IE, if the stars don't have to be as massive to put out as much luminosity or PERCEIVED radiation, magetism, then that throws off all of our mass calculations, which throws off all of our modelling of how things interact, and things get weird. Which may be a reason to shove our heads further into the sand. But that might be counter-productive. Kind oif like ignoring Alfven's admonition that he was wrong when he said that magnetic fields can be "frozen in" to plasma. Simply not true. Ya' need current to maintain the magnetic fields. That means flowing electrons, etc. But that's a different argument.

Anyway, read a couple abstracts, and the full articles if they have them...

(A criticism of big bang cosmological models based on interpretation of the red shift)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1988LPB.....6..453K&db_key=AST&data_type=HTML&format=&high=44fdafdf2521972

(Redshifts of New Galaxies)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1999IAUS..194..347A&db_key=AST&data_type=HTML&format=&high=44fdafdf2521972

(Plasma Redshift and the Cosmological Redshift)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2005APS..APR.C9008B&db_key=PHY&data_type=HTML&format=&high=44fdafdf2521972

Long and short of it, if objects have intrinsic (non-doppeler) redshift, then our notions of the universe may, in many instances, be skewed. To quote, and slightly edit the prior post...

"... nothing short of a revolution in our understanding of fundamental physics will be required to achieve a full understanding of the cosmic acceleration. For these reasons, the nature of [intrinsic redshift] ranks among the very most compelling of all outstanding problems in physical science. These circumstances demand an ambitious observational program to determine the [intrinsic redshift] properties as well as possible."

That will be all, go back about your lives.