Paradigm shift

Has science taken a wrong turn? If so, what corrections are needed? Chronicles of scientific misbehavior. The role of heretic-pioneers and forbidden questions in the sciences. Is peer review working? The perverse "consensus of leading scientists." Good public relations versus good science.
antosarai
Posts: 157
Joined: Sun May 18, 2014 3:41 pm

Paradigm shift

Unread post by antosarai » Mon Jul 12, 2021 9:12 am

Should the cosmological paradigm change from LCDM to EU/PC, have you considered what would be gained, what would be lost?

User avatar
paladin17
Posts: 417
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2014 2:47 pm
Contact:

Re: Paradigm shift

Unread post by paladin17 » Mon Jul 19, 2021 11:44 am

What exactly do you mean by "changing the cosmological paradigm from LCDM to EU/PC"? These are two paradigms, and one cannot change into another.

antosarai
Posts: 157
Joined: Sun May 18, 2014 3:41 pm

Re: Paradigm shift

Unread post by antosarai » Mon Jul 19, 2021 12:21 pm

Well, many people here and on other EU sites predict/hope LCDM will crumble for many different reasons and EU will be the 'natural' substitute. I wonder was it considered should such change come to be, from a scientific point of view what would be gained, what would be lost? Say, considering the mainstream and electric model of the sun, causes of redshift, and so on?

User avatar
paladin17
Posts: 417
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2014 2:47 pm
Contact:

Re: Paradigm shift

Unread post by paladin17 » Mon Jul 19, 2021 1:33 pm

antosarai wrote:
Mon Jul 19, 2021 12:21 pm
Well, many people here and on other EU sites predict/hope LCDM will crumble for many different reasons
Paradigm cannot crumble. It is just an idea, after all (or rather a set of ideas). In a way, it is immortal.
I guess what you mean by "crumbling" is that less people would by default appeal to this paradigm to describe the world. Then the statement makes sense. But I wouldn't rely on it, as there are simply no reasons for them to do so - at the moment.
antosarai wrote:
Mon Jul 19, 2021 12:21 pm
I wonder was it considered should such change come to be, from a scientific point of view what would be gained, what would be lost? Say, considering the mainstream and electric model of the sun, causes of redshift, and so on?
I believe, you're considering the process backwards. In reality one should first show how much more would be gained (in comparison to what would be lost) with the alternative paradigm for it to become popular (gain political resource) in the first place.
And currently, there isn't much. Aside from isolated works of people like Alfven, Peratt, Verschuur etc. the alternative paradigm is way under-developed.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest