Science Philosophy

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2020 4:53 pm

Re: Science Philosophy

Post by Paradigmer »

uwot wrote: Fri Jul 26, 2019 6:37 am Tell you what chaps, if you could just do me the courtesy of reading the article I wrote, you should get a pretty good idea of what I think about quackery and telos. If having read it you still have questions, by all means ask them in that context. ... _Millennia
Hi, skimmed through this thread and found the interesting read with the link, which makes sense.
With which of these three propositions do you most agree? A scientific theory must be:
(1) A logically coherent explanation.
(2) Supported by evidence.
(3) Useful.
This was what Galileo had practiced, and also later advocated by Francis Bacon with the scientific method he established.

I would like to present a scientific revolution of a planetary model with a case study that I believe has largely met the conditions of the above three propositions.

Despite it was founded on the basis of a non-standard cosmological model, and developed with its atypical ground theory method for qualitative analyses, apart from being logically coherent and supported by evidence, it most importantly had demonstrated its usefulness by being able to heuristically resolve the mystery of the ~11 year solar cycle, the ~22 year magnetic cycle, and the longer period Hallstatt cycles of solar activities.

The case study (draft) invoked the paradigm shift of a planetary barycentrism hypothesis to evaluate the solar cycles:

UVS case study on the barycenter drivers of the solar cycle

It posits the barycenter of the Solar System as the the center of the Solar System, and postulated the solar cycles are modulated by the barycenter of the gas giants for its outset, and the Solar System is fundamentally a hyperspherical vortex system.

The much detailed analyses for this case study can be found in this non-standard cosmological model subtopic on "The barycenter drivers of the solar cycle"

Much works are still required, but as it is the case study has had unequivocally showed that the period of the 11-year cycle is merely a putative figure; it was averaged from the 24 solar cycles with periods that range from 9 year to 13.6 year.

And it largely shows that the alignments of the planetary barycenters are modulating the solar cycles with the occasional barycentric negations in the barycentric Solar System model.

Without understanding the negations rendered by the non-material barycenters, and misled by the myths of the solar cycle is ~11-year and the Sun is the center of the Solar System, there has been no way this mystery could be resolved with the standard planetarium model.

IMO, Thomas Kuhn has great insights on how science should be done.
Post Reply