Cosmological fireworks

Well, although it doesn’t concern me a great deal, not any more, it will be interesting to see what develops in cosmological circles as results from the newest space probes, Herschel and Hubble (refurbished) and Planck, are returned to Earth from later this year.
Their observations could at last provide and answer to the question as to whether the universe is expanding, static, pulsating or whatever. In other words, it may confirm or deny the Big Bang hypothesis which states that the universe began as a singularity and has been expanding ever since.
As the instruments gather radiation data from objects further away than ever before detected, they should reveal the long sought after evolutionary tendency in the development of galaxies if the Big Bang theory is correct.
The world around us exists as a consensus view defining our reality and, as such, is a subjective one peculiar to man. It would seem fallacious to assume that there are any truly objective methods which could be used to prove any theory as being universal.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the Big Bang theory is proved to be wrong, which means that the majority of scientific experts acknowledge any new findings as providing such proof, then the repercussions for science will be enormous. Due to fear and intolerance no other theory has been allowed to be adequately developed or tested. Many careers have been adversely influenced and even destroyed of those not conforming to the majority or consensus viewpoint. Many careers will be on the line if the vast edifice of the Big Bang religion collapses in a pile of dust, leaving its proponents, as well as many others in supporting disciplines, scattering in confusion in all directions.
Reason enough to uphold the Big Bang theory at all costs, as has recently been done by inventing new undiscovered physical entities to account for any “discrepancies”. Now we have, for example, dark matter and dark energy to help bolster its failure to account for some gravitational anomalies.
A scientific proof involves interpretation of observational data according to established scientific knowledge. Of course, it is always possible that this knowledge may be considered inadequate or incomplete if new observational data fails to support the theory concerned. In this situation one has no direct means to prove or disprove the theory until scientific knowledge is first expanded to incorporate the new data. Of course, the principle of Occam’s razor could also be applied which might lead to an adjusted or even a different theory. However, the latter doesn’t appear to play any roll in mainstream cosmological thinking which continues to support the status quo at all costs.
I have a feeling that 2009-2010 could be a time of revelation for cosmology.