It's Wank of Astronomical Porportions!
The Bad Astronomy Bulletin Board tends to be a bit wanky at the best of times - the general attitude over there is smug superiority about being smarter than all the cranks and conspiracy theorists who run around. Perhaps not entirely unjustified, but occasionally annoying, and I can't help thinking that someday the principles of physics really will get overturned, and then these guys will feel like idiots... but anyway.

Enter Jerry Jensen, self-proclaimed rocket scientist (literally - check out his profile there) and master of impenetrable technobabble, here to show us all how very wrong we are about... well, everything! Frankly, I don't think even he knows what he's talking about, but if anybody is actually able to out-smug-superiority the bad astronomers, it's the cranks themselves.

On why the big bang couldn't have happened: These are important questions because there are also disturbing indices in the galactic evolutionary trends. The quasar population appears to peak in a fairly local Copernican ring. The kinetic energies of ‘red’ to ‘blue’ galaxies found in galactic clusters appear to have been quite stable in the ‘early’ periods leading up to the current epoch, and then appear to have abruptly shifted.

On studying supernovae: I am somewhat in agreement with you. Their is also the possibility of sympathic detonation of a companion white dwarf that is near the critical Chandrasahker limit. The scatter of the data in the curve I presented is very wide (r^2=0.15) and I think only the broadest of statistical parameters can be applied to this data, and that is that the average light curve width, when corrected for time dilation, gets smaller with distance. This should not happen.

On the Doppler effect: The relationship breaks down though, when we try to identify where the Hubble flow creeps in. The first piece of evidence that the cosmic redshift is not Doppler is that the only way Cepheid and Tolman surface brightness distance measurements can be reconciliated is by plugging in magnitude evolution. This in turn, degrades relative to with Tully-Fisher estimates. None of this agrees with the observed local cause of magnitude variance, heavy metal distribution. This is reasonably good evidence for a null hypothesis: Assuming all redshift is Doppler forces the reconciliaton of distances measuring techniques outside of the predicted margin of error.

More on supernovae: Fourth, the critical data reductions of Permutter (the Stretch Factor) normalize at a midpoint z-shift of 0.48. A similar normalization is used by Humay in calculating the Delta(15)b value. In both cases, if there is a Malmquist bias in the collection of the data, this bias will run parallel with any time dilation trend, and therefore be interpreted as time dilation.

If you think maybe he's just talking about things that are beyond you anyway... well, (1) I'm an astrophysics major and he makes as much sense to me as he does to you, and (2), check this out: he's also in a thread about, of all things, ice.

There is a very reasonable and testible explanation: If you try to freeze water in a compressed situation, the molecular bonding necessary for crystal formation will not occur until the temperature has dropped further than the freezing point of water. The additional calories required to bend or break the compressing structure are exactly equal to the additional calories which must be removed to freeze the water. Once the bending or breakage occurs, the water immediately assume the relaxed crystal form and temperature increases dramatically - up to 0C.

Basically, what he's saying there is "pressure lowers the temperature at which water freezes".