|
Panel 5 - Methods for Selecting Alternative Cosmologies
[previous page] . . . . . . . .
. . This is Page 5 . . . . . . . . . .
[next page]
| Authors |
Affiliation |
Title |
Abstract |
|
Farzad Mahootian & Timothy E. Eastman |
Arizona State U., Tempe AZ, USA |
The Observational-Inductive Framework and Implications
for Cosmology |
The observational-inductive framework is inspired by
revolutionary advances in computers and knowledge
discovery systems. The earlier hypothetico-deductive
framework is often used to distinguish “real science”
from “pseudo-science.” As used in cosmology, this
framework is sometimes deployed as an arbiter of
“acceptable” data; e.g., effectively shielding the Big
Bang from falsification. In contrast, we conclude that
both frameworks are needed and are complementary and
synergistic. |
|
David Dilworth |
|
Cosmological Physics Ground Rules & How to Evaluate
Cosmologies |
When we evaluate cosmological theories which fundamental
physics laws are in control? How can you determine when
a hypothesis meets the minimum for a scientific claim;
if evidence is observed, calculated or theorized; if a
claim is quantitative or dimensionless? Which definition
of space does a theory use? Who bears the burden of
proof for theories and challenges? |
|
D.F. Roscoe |
School of Mathematics,
Sheffield University, U.K. |
The conflict between realism and the scalar potential in
electrodynamics |
There is substantial evidence to support the idea of the
infinite equilibrium universe. Conversely, against the
idea is the lack of any viable mechanism which produces
cosmological redshifting without scattering. We revisit
the foundations of classical electrodynamics to find,
eventually a natural resolution of the problem. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 
