See the UVS topics on "The structure of the observable universe" that illustrates a vortical paradigm for the macrocosms and the microcosms, and “The inspirations of Universal Vortical Singularity” for the excerpts of some all-encompassing sculptural ideas that were inspired in the UVS research. See also an externally linked subtopic on "The benefits of using grounded theory" that elaborates on the merits of grounded theory.

In the discipline of epistemology, the research based on the UVS model that depicts unisonal vortex for developing its hypotheses, is grounded on empiricism with its epistemic process and research methodology to elucidate on enigmatic natural phenomena for the intuitions on their actualities. The epistemic process is grounded for the hypothetical constructs of the natural phenomena, construed with their systematically explicated underlying vortical structures and mechanisms that are coherently based on the UVS model.

An illustration of unisonal vortex.

This grounded theory methodology of the UVS research with its philosophy of science, methodically induces the resolutions for the actualities of the enigmatic natural phenomena by elucidating their observational delusions, which are being subliminally rendered in a typical topsy-turvy manner by the paradoxical effect of nature.

As for example, sunrise is an observational delusion. And subliminally, it is being paradoxically rendered in a topsy-turvy manner under its naturally negated circumstances. See the UVS subtopic on "The vortically manifested planetary orbitals" that explicates on the vortical nature of the Solar System. “By knowing the paradoxical effect of nature, it enlightens on how nature renders delusions in a typical topsy-turvy manner.” - UVS inspired -

The sunrise delusion.

The inductive resolutions in the coherentism of the UVS research, are for perceiving the actualities of natural phenomena in their subliminally negated observations. And with its transcendental perspectivalism coherently grounded in the conceptual frameworks of UVS, it could methodically resolve the cognitive paradoxes that are naturally manifested in the subliminally negated observations of natural phenomena.

Every inductive resolution of the UVS research for the natural phenomenon that enigmatically demonstrates unisonal vortex characteristics in its apparent observation, is implicitly or explicitly explicated with its five Ws on how it subliminally manifests its delusional observation. It explicates on who (the natural phenomenon) demonstrates the delusional observation, what is the illusion, where does it negate, when does it occur, and why is it delusional.

Heuristically, through analyses by inductive reasoning with inferred unisonal vortices for perceiving enigmatic natural phenomena with their hypothetical constructs, and then by invoking their transcendental perceptions in the conceptual frameworks of UVS to intuitively elucidate the delusions of their apparent observations, this epistemic process could resolve the cognitive paradoxes of their delusional observations by abductive reasoning.

With the resolved cognitive paradoxes, this epistemic process thus reveals how such delusional observations of natural phenomena, are paradoxically rendered in all sorts of subliminally negated circumstances.

The epistemic process in its criteria of truth with the elucidated delusions to substantiate its theories of justification, methodically resolves cognitive paradoxes to develop the UVS predications for the actualities of the paradoxically rendered natural phenomena.

These UVS predications in their coherence theory of truth construed with elucidated delusions and resolved cognitive paradoxes, are the a priori propositions that explicate on how the natural phenomena actually work in reality. And with the gathered empirical evidence for their correspondence theory of truth, these propositions could be conclusively proven. The qualitatively proven propositions are thus qualified as well justified true beliefs, and unequivocally are the a priori knowledge on the actualities of the natural phenomena.

In a nutshell, with these epistemic theories of truth, this is the primary methodology of the UVS research for its qualitative evaluations on the vortically demonstrated natural phenomena of the entire observable universe throughout macrocosms and microcosms.

To appraise the efficacy of the UVS research methodology, arbitrarily explore these very straightforward inductive resolutions: "Dual-core craters", "Tropical cyclone", "Jet streams", "The Antarctica Ozone Hole", "The axial precession of the Earth", "The vortices of Jupiter", "Planetary rings", "Globular cluster", "The CMB dipole", and "The structure of atom". Despite these natural phenomena have anomalies or unsolved problems in physics, the UVS research qualitatively resolved the physical paradoxes of conventional wisdom with its inductive resolutions on their actualities, and they are substantiated with proofs or compelling evidence.

The inductive resolutions of the UVS research that invoke their transcendental perceptions with the underlying structures and mechanisms postulated for enigmatic natural phenomena, are extensively enlightening. The resolving power for cognitive paradoxes with the inductive resolutions, is unequivocally revealing. The explanatory power with the hypothetical constructs in the perspectivism of the UVS conceptual frameworks, is downright groundbreaking. And the predictive power in its qualitative predictions explicated with the UVS predications on the actualities of natural phenomena, is outright revolutionary.

“With the visualizations on the underlying structures and mechanisms of natural phenomena,
these intuitively induce the resolutions for the revelations on their actualities.” - UVS inspired -

The scale invariance of UVS coherently pans out with numerous empirical observations of natural phenomena at all levels from cosmic scale to subatomic scale. Henceforth, in the UVS worldview, with systemic syntheses of the evidently qualified UVS hypotheses, the UVS research collectively integrates in a systematical positive feedback loop for its development as a theory of everything.

And with loads of empirical evidence that coherently and systematically substantiate the propositional actualities of these natural phenomena, the UVS treatise cogently offers a unifying way for perceiving how the entire observable universe works unisonally throughout macrocosms and microcosms as a single system.

See the UVS topics on "The structure of atom" that elaborates on vortical phenomena in the microcosms for how they are vortically impelled by the macrocosms, "The formation of stars and galaxies" that illustrates on how all celestial objects are vortically coalesced in their macrocosms, "The spheroidal pushed-in gravity" that unifies the phenomena of gravity in macrocosms and microcosms, and "Unisonal evolution mechanism" that elaborates on vortical evolution for how it begets existences from the macrocosms to the microcosms.

.

.
The significance of the UVS research

1.		It unequivocally offered inductive resolutions throughout macrocosms and microcosms for the actualities of empirically observed natural phenomena.
2.		It methodically resolved cognitive paradoxes with its grounded theory research methodology for numerous paradoxically rendered natural phenomena.
3.		It heuristically propositioned a concept of celestial mechanism that is universally consistent, and this extends the concept for the planetary motions of the Copernican heliocentrism.
4.		It critically falsified the Big Bang theory on its proposition for metric expansion of space.
5.		It rigorously demonstrated that the posit for time in modern physics is fallacious.
6.		It explicitly posited invariant space and time with a scientific model on a neoclassical platform, and in its paradigm shift, it eliminates the intuitively unthinkable paradoxes in the abstracts of modern physics.
7.		It logically debunked the scientific consensus on the null hypothesis of the Michelson-Morley experiment.
8.		It qualitatively unified gravity with the three other fundamental interactions of nature.
9.		It coherently explicated cosmic evolution from the macrocosms to the microcosms.
10.		It cogently illustrated how the entire observable universe works unisonally throughout macrocosms and microcosms as a single system.

.
The scientific revolution of the UVS research

The scientific revolution of the UVS research that re-evaluates empirically observed natural phenomena in its epistemological paradigm shift, is established with qualitative rigor for immutable truths in the realism of objective reality. With its theory of knowledge, it critically explicate on the subliminal actualities of the paradoxically rendered natural phenomena.

With elucidated delusions and resolved natural cognitive paradoxes of the natural phenomena, the research can qualitatively review those mainstream scientific theories that perceptibly are explicating on these natural phenomena with all sorts of foundational crisis.

These reviews evaluate on fundamentals from the first principles of these scientific theories with their resolved natural cognitive paradoxes, could elucidate the science delusions in their spurious propositions that predicate what are going on in the empirically observed natural phenomena.

The inductive resolutions of these reviews perceived with the elucidated science delusions, can resolve the misconceptions of those fallacious mainstream scientific theories that insidiously mislead with the artificial cognitive paradoxes created in their scientific constructs.

With their science delusions elucidated in their independent qualitative evaluations for reviewing the criteria of truth in the theories of justification for such scientific theories, their artificial cognitive paradoxes were thus meticulously resolved.

Specifically, the artificial cognitive paradoxes of these fundamentally incorrect scientific theories, caused their physical paradoxes as a result of their fallaciously contrived a priori posits that render all sorts of science delusion.

The cognitive paradox fallacies in the fallaciously validated propositions of such mainstream scientific theories of physical science, and the formal fallacies in their a priori posits, were thus addressed and resolved with their inductive resolutions.

These inductive resolutions also elucidate on how these fallacious mainstream scientific theories, were all speciously validated in their follies with the intrinsically flawed scientific method.

.
Critiques of the scientific method

In a nutshell, with grounding in the discipline of epistemology, this is the critiques of the scientific method on its intrinsic foundational crisis, its fallacious criteria of truth, and the science delusions it entails with all sorts of physical paradox.

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself -
- and you are the easiest person to fool.” - Richard Feynman

It is generally believed that the prejudices and discriminations like those stemmed from geocentrism in its science delusion, were events of the past. Moreover, there is also a prevalent deep-rooted belief that we are now in the Golden age of physics, and scientific realism rules with impeccable and unassailable proofs. It is claimed that all the scientifically established proofs were rigorously proven with their scientific experiments, accomplished with the well-established scientific method of modern science, so any critical discrepancy in the validated scientific theories, would have had been eradicated.

Nonetheless, if the basis of a scientific theory was established in a state of delusion as a result of a natural cognitive paradox, its first principle is fundamentally incorrect. It therefore was developed based on its misconception in its paradoxically negated circumstances, such as it was based on the fallacious posit that Earth is the center of the universe, which thus entails its science delusion.

A scientific theory that was misled by its natural cognitive paradox, could be validated in the delusion of its scientific construct with its artificial cognitive paradox.

This is regardless of how developed, how profound, how coherent, how consistent and precise the scientific theory is with its quantitative analysis, how diversely it has had been independently and successfully tested with repeatable experiments, how pragmatic it is in its applied science, and how broadly it has had been peer reviewed and accepted by so many experts for a very long period of time.

Unsustainably, the general principle of the mainstream scientific method, intrinsically suffers foundational crisis with its fallaciously endorsed posits. In the delusions of grandeur with its confirmation bias, its peer review process on validity has thus been construed on its fallacious criteria of truth for its outset. The general developments for mainstream modern science, could thus be developed in the science delusions of their physical paradoxes.

See externally linked topics on "Criticism of science" that elaborates on the cognitive and publication biases within science, and "Foundational crisis" that elaborates on the attempts to provide unassailable foundations that were found to suffer from various paradoxes.

“A fallaciously endorsed posit of a scientific model,
is the mother of all its science delusions.” - UVS inspired -

With the resolved natural cognitive paradoxes for epistemic theories of truth to evaluate the hallmark scientific theories, the science delusions in the theories of justification were elucidated for many of such conventional wisdom, as on how they were fallaciously validated with their criteria of truth. The developments for the hypothetico-deductive models of these scientific theories with the application of the scientific method for pragmatic theories of truth, literally ignore qualitative evaluations on the posits of their hypothetical constructs. The overemphasizing on deductive analyses with extreme obsession on higher measurement precisions for their quantitative predictions, inevitably entails all sorts of science delusions in the mainstream physics with its fallacies of misplaced concreteness.

“Any fundamental laws of Nature are merely phenomenological generalizations.” - Nancy Cartwright's argument

Any law of physics that suffers foundational crisis with its fallacious posit, would paradoxically distort its perception of reality. This is despite its validated conclusions are analytically true, and can also pragmatically work. And with its validated quantitative analyses deduced in its science delusion by begging the question for its premises, it could paradoxically establish its deductive conclusions that would be fallaciously reckoned with scientific consensus as scientifically established facts.

Any scientific theory that was proved in its mathematical construct to be analytically true, could be unwarily misled by a natural cognitive paradox. As such, it would have been fallaciously established in its delusion, and ignorantly refers to its paradoxically perceived observation as the actuality with its subjective reality. This erroneous perception for the actuality of its empirical observation, is perceived with its artificial cognitive paradox in its subliminally negated circumstances.

Laws of mathematics with deductive reasoning though are effective tools in applied science, and the propositional knowledge of a theory established by deductive analysis, although can be made unassailably conclusive in its mathematical model with analytical proof for its empirical observations, it is not the proof for its actuality. It must not be mistaken that the actuality of any natural phenomenon, can be conclusively and absolutely proven by its mathematical interpretation with validated and precise quantitative predictions that are deduced with the mathematical construct of its theory.

“As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain,
and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.” - Albert Einstein

The deep-rooted belief in the capability of mathematical principles for conducting evaluation to validate a scientific claim solely through unassailable deductive analysis with quantitative rigors, could lead to the illusion of knowledge under the subliminally negated circumstances of its science delusion.

A mathematically proven conclusion of its mathematical construct in theoretical physics solely deduced with quantitative rigors, although could have integrated its inference of reality with the empirical observation, in its abstract with its a priori assumption, it was based on its philosophy of science with varying degrees of uncertainty for its interpretation of the numbers obtained from the observation.

All mathematical constructs of natural phenomena in theoretical physics, technically are their hypotheses established with the postulations of their axioms. And as much as almost all of the recognized experts in mainstream mathematical physics believe math is the language of the universe, any axiom that was validated with the a posteriori conclusion in the mathematical construct of any natural phenomenon, is not conclusively proven at all when referred to reality.

The science as defined in theoretical physics with the officially endorsed scientific method to develop hypothetical constructs for emulating natural phenomena based on its a priori posits for objective reality, is merely the doctrine for its a posteriori methodologies and techniques of quantitative analysis for explicating the empirically observed behaviors of physical objects in its postulated subjective reality.

Any physical law or axiom for the a priori proposition of an empirical observation that was claimed to have been conclusively proven by the quantitative rigors of its a posteriori knowledge, could cause its cognitive paradox fallacy construed with its fallacious posit for objective reality.

See an externally linked topic on "Critique of pure reasoning" that elaborates the notions on a priori and a posteriori, "Allegory of the Cave" that elaborates on obfuscated perceptions with an illustration of a reality that is being perceived with shadows.

“You can never solve a problem on the level on which it was created.” - Albert Einstein

Any person in all honesty developing any scientific theory with mathematical rigors in physics to establish the a posteriori knowledge of any empirically observed natural phenomenon, and thus asserts the axioms of its a priori proposition with its unassailable deductions, at best is an intelligent fool fooling himself in circular reasoning. And with its mathematically validated proof for the a priori proposition concluded with its a posteriori knowledge, the scientific theory justified in such positivism, at its best can convincingly fool the mass majority of people with its illusion of knowledge that was construed in its artificial cognitive paradox.

All delusions of the a posteriori propositions that render their illusions of knowledge, are paradoxically stemmed from their fallacious a priori posits.

“Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent.” - Cited by Albert Einstein

It is a myth that solely through deductive analyses based on scientific models for attaining highly precise and consistent quantitative predictions, and thus rigorously develops scientific theories with mathematical proofs for testing by repeatable physics experiments, is generally the correct scientific method for the investigation of natural phenomena to make scientific progress. Such methodology for pragmatism that muddles preciseness as accurateness, merely pushes for higher resolution measurements that could be consistently measured in all sorts of observational delusion.

“I don't believe in mathematics.” - Albert Einstein

See an excerpt from "Cargo Cult Science" by Richard Feynman relating to qualitative evaluation, externally linked topics on "A priori and a posteriori", "THE FOUNDATIONAL CRISIS OF MATHEMATICS", and "LINEAR MATHEMATICS IN INFINITE DIMENSIONS" that elaborates on induction is supposed to precede deduction, for without the first, one cannot be certain that one's statements are true; it emphasized that mathematics has to be inductive discipline first and a deductive discipline second.

See the UVS topic on "Logic and belief systems" that illustrates and elaborates on the causalities for all sorts of science delusions.

A simple example to illustrate a cognitive paradox fallacy of an apparent observation that was resolved, is the fallacious perception in geocentrism that it takes approximately twenty-four hours for the Sun to revolve around the Earth as it could be apparently and empirically observed. And since ancient times, the quantitative prediction for this perception was more precisely measured by using all sorts of clock with ongoing improvements for higher precision. In modern science, this few millennium old mainstream knowledge was qualitatively falsified since two centuries ago, and at hindsight it is now completely dismissed without a slightest doubt that this was stemmed from a false fact. However, in the geocentric era, this false fact that was established on its physical paradox, and deduced in its delusion as a scientifically proven knowledge with precise quantitative measurements, in different degrees was undoubtedly, independently, and officially accepted for millenniums by the majority of people from all over the world in all walks of life.

“Mathematics has the completely false reputation of yielding infallible conclusions.” - Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe

In ancient Greek astronomy, the mathematical constructs based on geocentric model can work for quantitative predictions of natural events, such as the earthly events of precession cycle, equinox, and solstice. Nonetheless, these pragmatic quantitative analyses were fundamentally established on the fallacious a priori proposition of an Earth-centered universe.

The apparent retrograde motion of a planet can be solved mathematically with the deferent and epicycle of the planet based on geocentrism. Although in the mathematical construct of epicycle system that was developed based on the apparent planetary motion as observed in the celestial spheres, can provide workable solutions with precise quantitative predictions for this peculiar phenomenon that recurs periodically, it is a falsified fact that the planet in its apparent retrograde motion, is physically moving in the opposite diurnal motion as it has been empirically observed from Earth; the delusion is caused by a cognitive paradox of relative motion illusion in its passive transformation of celestial coordinate system.

Apparent retrograde motion of Mars.

See an externally linked topic on "Copernican Revolution" that elaborates on the heliocentric paradigm shift.

The heliocentric postulation that all planets rotate and revolve around the Sun, is a rational proposition that can qualitatively explain the empirically observed apparent retrograde motions of planets. However, as compared with the quantitative predictions based on geocentric model that had been well established for over a millennium, Copernicus at then was not able to make more precise quantitative predictions for the empirically observed apparent retrograde motion of planets. His qualitatively correct heliocentric based proposition on planets were apparently observed to be in their retrograde motions, was thus officially rejected with the geocentric peer review deliberation.

The mathematical construct of a hypothetical model that can consistently work with more precise quantitative predictions, can fallaciously qualify the a priori proposition of its abstract by self-referencing with circular definition; the mathematical construct of a paradoxically wrong theory can pragmatically work with great precision.

“Knowing how to quantitatively predict a phenomenon would work with its model is one thing,
how does the phenomenon actually work in reality could be another thing.” - UVS inspired -

Without qualitative evaluation, a highly precise quantitative prediction for an observed phenomenon, is merely the a posteriori knowledge of measurement based on its validated theory, which was established in the abstract of its mathematically quantifiable realm. Although it can indisputably quantify how the observed phenomenon works in its mathematical construct, and its know-how could be used in some pragmatic applications, such as for successful tracking of celestial objects with its highly precise quantitative predictions as empirically observed, these are not tantamount to how the observed phenomenon is actually working in reality.

“What one has believed as an actuality is one thing,
what is its actuality could be another thing.” - UVS inspired -

A pragmatic know-how that is developed in the realm of its scientific model, is not by de-facto the proof for the know-what of its empirical observation. The successful predictions for natural phenomena with quantitative rigors in the exact sciences of geocentrism or heliocentrism, are not the proofs for the postulated first principle or axioms of their models in objective reality.

And as a matter of fact, although the equatorial mount, celestial sphere, and celestial coordinate system are geocentric based, in modern astronomy, they are still very successful, much simpler, and more cost effective than the heliocentric based equipments.

Many technological accomplishments, could not be possible without the know-how of mathematics; mathematics is absolutely an effective tool for pragmatic theory of truth. Nonetheless, in epistemology, the pragmatic theory of truth cannot be substantiated as the criteria of truth for whatever that were being postulated. As valid as they are, the postulations asserted with precise and absolute mathematical proofs for their pragmatic theories of truth, are not absolutely conclusive in objective reality. Thus, the propositional knowledge in maths when referred to reality for whatsoever that is being emulated, can never by itself be reckoned as the knowledge for the actuality of any empirical observation.

“Knowing how to make it work is one thing, how it actually works is another issue,
and what you think on how it fundamentally works could be another story.” - UVS inspired -

It is a cognitive paradox fallacy that Moon rises in the East and set in the West as it could be apparently observed from Earth in its localized reference frame. Nonetheless, with inductive reasoning based on the heliocentric model, by tracking the positions of the Moon on a daily basis at a specific time of the day for its celestial coordinates in the celestial sphere over a period of a few days, it could be empirically observed that the Moon actually revolves around the Earth from West to East; this qualitative analysis in its transcendental perspective can resolve this cognitive paradox of relative motion illusion that has paradoxically caused the cognitive paradox fallacy in its delusion.

The Moon

It was also a known optical motion illusion of a natural cognitive paradox that the Moon apparently appears to be simultaneously following every observer spontaneously, to wherever all these individual observers on Earth who are each moving independently to different directions. This is a very amazing natural cognitive paradox, and its discernible optical illusion can be easily resolved for elucidating its all applicable delusion of passive transformation in all its localized points of view.

“Truth is what stands the test of experience.”- Albert Einstein

Galileo predicated with his hypothesis by inductive reasoning that the time of descent for free falling objects, is independent of their mass. This was with qualitative rigor in the law of noncontradiction for the analysis of its a priori assumption, and the insight of this Galileo's hypothesis had thus addressed the cognitive paradox fallacy in the Aristotle's theory of gravity, which falsely states that heavier object falls faster. Galileo proved this predication by dropping two balls of different mass from the Leaning Tower of Pisa, and the experiment demonstrated that the time of descent of the balls is independent of their mass. The experimental proof for the predicated a priori proposition, qualitatively concludes as the a priori knowledge for free falling objects on their time taken for their descents, are independent of their mass.

See externally linked topics on "Galileo's Leaning Tower of Pisa experiment" that elaborates the Galileo's hypothesis for free falling objects, "Two New Sciences" by Galileo that elaborates on the law of falling bodies, and "Logical reasoning" that elaborates on inductive reasoning and abductive reasoning.

In an era where astronomy was based on the geocentric model of Aristotelian universe, all mainstream astronomers in that era believed that Venus revolves around Earth like the Moon. At then the extreme crescent phase of Venus had been observed with naked eye observations, and it was also known that Moon and Venus shine by reflecting the light of the Sun. Although Galileo through observations with telescope, had observed Venus did simultaneously exhibited phases similar to that of the Moon when they were in close proximity, he evaluated the actuality for the predicated orbiting path of Venus with circumspection based on the Copernican heliocentrism. And after an extensive period of telescopic observation, by abductive reasoning in its transcendental perspective on the spheroidal Venus showed its phase and size variations with a peculiarity, which can only happen if it revolved around the Sun. Galileo thus resolved the physical paradox by elucidating its geocentric model delusion for the orbiting path of Venus, and conclusively proved that Venus revolves around the Sun and not the Earth. See externally linked topics on "Phases of Venus", and "An animated simulation for phases of Venus" for further elaborations.

Venus orbit The phase and size variations of Venus

The foundation for the a priori knowledge on Venus revolves around the Sun, was first established by inductive reasoning based on the Copernican heliocentrism that intuitively invoked its transcendental perception. And then with abductive reasoning in its transcendental perspective for evaluating its observations, which was by synthetic judgment on the periodically observed phase and size variations of Venus as seen from a farther away Earth, it thus conclusively proved the heliocentric predication that asserts Venus revolves around the Sun.

“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand
is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.” - Galileo Galilei

According to the discipline of mainstream theoretical physics that is currently being reckoned by the vast majority of the experts, without any mathematical equation for its quantitative analysis, the research done by Galileo that thus had proven Venus revolves around the Sun, is not science in its nowadays practice.

Nonetheless, this Galilean research is absolutely well-grounded with the proven assertion that has precedential significant, and it refers to reality for how the observed phenomenon actually works; the proven predication that asserts Venus revolves around the Sun is indubitably an epistemic truth in objective reality for the actuality of its empirical observations. From the first principle of this a priori knowledge on Venus revolves around the Sun, it can then be grounded correctly for developing its a posteriori knowledge with quantitative research, and thus would be able to accurately and precisely predict the location, phase, size, and brightness of Venus for its time-based observations from the rotating Earth.

“It would be better for the true physics if there were no mathematicians on earth.” - Daniel Bernoulli

Ever since mathematical physics has dominated the mainstream theoretical physics with the a posteriori knowledge of measurements for describing natural phenomena, which are based on their a priori posits with scientific consensus, all other concepts of foundationalism for physics have had been discreetly prejudiced as scientism. Consequently, under such dogmatic circumstances of the indoctrination, those who disagree would be politically pontificated and vilified, and then ostracized by all means with all sorts of stereotyping for their marginalizations. While those who endorse with confirmation bias, could thus monopolize all perceivable privileges to autonomously serve the self-reinforcing cohort of its non-self-critical establishment to dominantly sprawl with its spurious belief system.

Specifically, the exact science as defined in the nowadays mainstream physics with the politically endorsed fundamental theories, which is for establishing pragmatic theory of truth in its subjective reality that emulates the objective reality, is very much constrained only in the development for the a posteriori knowledge of measurements with mathematical formalizations. And generally it merely requires rigorously precise quantitative predictions in experimental physics for proving the deduced propositions of the empirically observed natural phenomena in the realms of their models with the officially endorsed a priori posits.

Unsustainably, the a priori posits for such typical fundamental theories, were intrinsically proven by self-referencing with the a posteriori knowledge that were established in the their fallaciously endorsed subjective realities.

Critically, there was no direct proof that the electron vibration frequency of the caesium-133 atom used in atomic clock, would remain stable when it is subjected to different inertial accelerations. But assumed to be stable, and thus posited in the mathematical constructs of modern physics, thereon by self-referencing with its quantitative proofs that were boasted to have greater than ten-digit precision of a second, tested in collaboration with independent competing experiments, and asserted with its precise quantitative predictions that have been overwhelmingly successful for technological achievements, it was thus misleadingly used with such convictions to conclude that transformation of time occurs; the postulation for time is physically transformable as posited in modern physics was fallaciously proved with circular reasoning. This is as fallacious as the claims of proof for geocentrism with self-fulfilling prophecy by using its successful quantitative analyses that were validated by self-reference with its very own hardcore belief, which has had insidiously corrupted all its perceptions in the realms of its scientific constructs that were perceived in their topsy-turvy delusions.

“One can persistently fool himself in a delusion that can paradoxically but consistently asserts
his fallacious belief, and therefore becomes biased for believing what is not true.” - UVS inspired -

See the UVS topics on "Qualitative evaluation on time dilation" that elaborates on a crucial foundational crisis and its artificial cognitive paradoxes in modern physics, and "The structure of atom" that coherently explicates on how atoms with their specific resonant frequencies could be vortically manifested.

Intrinsically, a quantitative proof of a scientific theory, is not the proof for the scientific theory.

This is who, what, where, when and why for how the scientific method of mainstream modern science, has had taken the wrong path on establishing the current form of modern physics that suffers foundational crisis with its fallacious a priori posit.

“A tiny wrong assumption can lead to its huge misadventures.” - UVS inspired -

Without qualitative proof for the a priori assumption in its criteria of truth, all its validated a posteriori deductive proofs substantiated with precise and consistent quantitative predictions, are not conclusive at all when referred to reality.

With the adulterated definition for what is a scientific theory, and in self-justifications with its speciously validated propositional knowledge that suffers foundational crisis, the mainstream modern science with the intrinsically flawed scientific method, renders physical paradoxes in its science delusions.

To evaluate the actuality of any natural phenomenon with its scientific hypothesis that refers to reality, the epistemic process with qualitative rigor on correspondence theory of truth for its a priori proposition, is the foremost. Despite quantitative research with true value is an essential aspect for scientific works, qualitative analysis must precede quantitative analysis. Without qualitative proof, it cannot be certain that the quantitative proof of a scientific theory is true.

See the UVS topic on "The criteria of truth of the UVS research" that elaborates on checking the wholeness and integrity of knowledge.

.
The cognitive paradox fallacy in Copernican heliocentrism

"Within a planetary system; planets, dwarf planets, asteroids (a.k.a. minor planets), comets, and space debris orbit the central star in elliptical orbits." - Excerpt from Wikipedia in "Planetary orbits". See externally linked topics on "Solar System model", and "Orrery" that illustrates the relative positions for the motions of planets and Moon with Sun as the center of the Solar System. It is an immutable fact that all Solar System objects including the Sun are moving in helical paths through space while revolving around the Galactic Center, and this could be visualized from an external reference frame in their transcendental perspectives. For the revelation on this fact, one have to let go the Copernican heliocentrism and its improved mathematical constructs for the model of satellite orbital motions, which was disseminated and printed on all the school books for astronomy; this is merely a localized perception with incomplete view. And in its negation, it would not reflect the actual celestial mechanics of planetary motion. “The Sun is not the center of the Solar System.” - UVS inspired - See the UVS topics on "The structure of galaxy", "The vortically manifested planetary orbitals", "The axial precession of the Earth" that elaborates on an orbital forcing of the Earth, and "A comparative analysis of the Solar System with the UVS atomic model" that illustrates on the vortical orbitals of the Solar System and the UVS atomic model. See also a link on "The Universal Helicola" that presents an impeccable illustration for spiral motion of Earth's path in space on page 269 in figure 13.1, it was elaborated qualitatively, analytically and quantitatively. Watch video clips on "Earth Rotation & Revolution around a moving Sun" that illustrates with an external perception for the helical motion of Earth along a moving Sun, and "The solar system's motion thru space" for a conceptual illustration on the spiral motions of planets. Note: Qualitatively, these animated illustrations would be more accurate if the barycenter motion of a moving Sun that propagates in a composite helical path around the Galactic Center were shown, nonetheless, despite their flaws and technical errors, these were still excellent animated illustrations for the spiral motion of planets. “All celestial objects are externally impelled to rotate and revolve in vortical motion with resonated precession effects.” - UVS inspired - The Sun exchanges angular momentum primarily with Jupiter, and also with all other Sun's satellites and stuff in the heliosphere while the Sun moves. It is a scientific fact that the Sun spirals to revolve around the barycenter of the Solar System with its invariable plane tilted at around 60° in its path. And it is believed that the Sun revolves by spiraling around the dual-core Galactic Center of the Milky Way galaxy at the velocity of approximately 232 km/s, and it takes around 230 million years to make one revolving cycle. Any two celestial objects revolving around each other with their barycenter vortically moving through space, will spiral in helical motions with precession effects. In the external reference frame of the Milky Way galaxy, the Sun as a matter of fact is moving in a composite helical path around the Galactic Center. This infers the motion of the Sun is primarily impelled by the vortical motion of its galaxy. The motion of the Solar System is a vortical motion transferred from the vortical motion of the Milky Way galaxy, and the Solar System is being coalesced in a resonated vortical motion with stellar materials. This elucidates that the helical motions of Solar System objects, are manifested by the vortical motion of the Solar System. “Local physical laws are determined by the large-scale structure of the universe.” - Mach's principle The Newtonian kinetic energy of Earth according to Kepler's law of planetary motion, is ~2.687E33 kg.m²/s² (or joules); ½mv², where m is ~5.972E24 kg for the mass of Earth, v is ~30 km/s for the Earth's orbiting velocity. Nonetheless, Earth moving through space is impelled by the Milky Way galaxy that moves at the velocity of ~369 km/s against the CMB rest frame, therefore a primary kinetic energy of Earth in this rest frame should be ~4.07E35 joules instead. The average kinetic energy of the Earth from this transcendental perspective in the CMB rest frame, is a staggering 151 times of the quantitatively predicted kinetic energy of the Earth that was based on a static Sun, which is way far out of reality, and this has significant induced precession effects on a vortically spiraling Earth. With the resolved cognitive paradoxes, thus render the revelation on celestial objects are rotating and revolving in spiral motions, these inductive resolutions have significant implications for advancing the knowledge of an underlying celestial mechanism that hitherto has been overlooked with conventional wisdom. The image to the right is an observation of a newly formed star HL Tau with its protoplanet that was coalescing in a womb of gas. In the UVS worldview, the star HL Tau still at infancy stage of a star birth, is coalescing in vortical motion with its protoplanet HL Tau b (small circular bright image at slightly after one o'clock position) also in the process of forming as a gaseous planet in its resonance of vortical motion. See the UVS topics on "The interactions of spheroidal pushed-in gravity in superior and inferior conjunction", "Sunspot", "Solar System alignment effect" that elaborates on how some significant discoveries could be asserted with this revelation. Star HL Tau and its protoplanet HL Tau b Although the proposition of heliocentrism is valid for planets are revolving around the Sun in the Solar System in its inertial frame of reference, its posit of a static Sun is the center of its static universe model with motionless stars was falsified in the twentieth century astronomy; the consilience of Kepler's laws of planetary motion and Newton's law of universal gravitation were based on this incorrect a priori assumption that causes the cognitive paradox fallacy in their mathematical constructs. “A paradoxical effect can consistently fool us with its cognitive paradox in its state of delusion.” - UVS inspired - By asserting that Kepler's laws of planetary motion were based on scientifically proven facts, and these laws have had achieved scientific consensus with further support from Newton's laws, in its artificial cognitive paradox of a static Sun with its putative laws of physics, one could maintain its propositions are proven; this is a negated perception of the natural phenomenon that was perceived in the subjective reality of its model with a static Sun. This is how the putative laws of physics could lie with the deductive inference in the mathematical construct for its empirical observation when it gets to reality; in its concept from its localized perception it negates the reality. And in its delusion, it results in its illusion of knowledge with its a posteriori deductive proof. “The illusion of knowing in a delusion, is apparently real in its cognitive paradox.” - UVS inspired - From the UVS perspective, the barycenter of the Solar System, is the center of the Solar System. The Sun and its planets in their resonated precession cycles, are perpetually spiraling toward the barycenter of the Solar System that is perpetually moving away with vortical motion in its helical path in the galactic reference frame; this renders the phenomenon of planetary orbits with elliptical and apsidal motions that are precessing in the localized reference frame of a static Sun. Note: The vortical motion in spiral paths of planets were independently visualized with the UVS model in the UVS topic on "The structure of galaxy" without any prior reference. Other similar concepts were later found through the Internet on further inquiry, such as "Spiral Forms in Space" as illustrated by Dr. Wilhelm Reich (MD) in the web site of Dr. James DeMeo, Ph.D., "Universal Helicola" as illustrated by Dr. Vladimir Ginzburg, and "The solar system's motion thru space" as illustrated by Nassim Haramein. Nonetheless, among these similar illustrations, UVS uniquely illustrated with empirical evidence for how the Sun and its planets were vortically formed, why they propagate in spiral motions through space, and how they are vortically impelled to move in spiral motion. “All orbits are manifested with the vortical motion resonants of their nested spheroidal unisonal vortices.” - UVS inspired - The orbitals of natural satellites are developed with the conserved angular momentum transferred from a nested bipolar vortex pair.

.
The cognitive paradox fallacy in Big Bang model on metric expansion of space

According to the Big Bang model, the universe has expanded from an extremely dense and hot state, and continues to expand today in its metric expansion of space. The model suggests in the expansion of space, every celestial object in approximately 13.8 billion years has reached its current time-dilated spatial location in a timeline according to the trajectory of the celestial object in its expanded space. "WMAP definitively determined the age of the universe to be 13.77 billion years old to within 1% (0.12 billion years) -as recognized in the Guinness Book of World Records!" - excerpt from "Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe". See an externally linked topic on "The Distance Scale of the Universe" that elaborates on all types of distance measures, see also a software tool for calculating distance measures. Note: All figures herein are in approximation to three significant digit. The Big Bang model propositioned that the boundary of the observable universe in every direction, is a view at ~13.8 billion years ago when the universe was in its primordial stage. Paradoxically, this is absolutely contradicting in its three main fundamental aspects to all extents. It paradoxically suggests that at the initial stage of the Big Bang within its first second, the extremely small, dense and hot state of the nascent universe, is currently being empirically observed in its time dilation image at ~13.8 billion years ago to be a spheroidal structure with an extremely large radius of ~13.8 Gly in an extremely sparse and cooled state. Unsustainably, the Big Bang model is incontrovertibly a physical paradox, and it absolutely has flopped under the law of non-contradiction. The Big Bang model is a self-referenced mathematical construct that creates an artificial cognitive paradox of the most extreme physical extents that are fallacious in its contradicting mathematical realm. With this artificial cognitive paradox critically resolved, the Big Bang model is so busted; the Big Bang is a myth. The universe's timeline, from inflation to the WMAP. "According to the Big Bang model, the universe expanded from an extremely dense and hot state and continues to expand today. A common analogy explains that space itself is expanding, carrying galaxies with it, like raisins in a rising loaf of bread. The graphic scheme above is an artist concept illustrating the expansion of a portion of a flat universe." - Excerpt from Wikipedia on Big Bang. The proposition of expanding space in the Big Bang model is inconsistence in its own conceptual framework, although in its hypothetical construct it would be mathematically valid, and could be analytically understood, in its correspondence theory of truth, it was erroneous for its theory of justification; the Big Bang model is a paradoxical construct. The above animation is for illustrating the distance between the two receding objects in relativistic time, implied to be indifferent despite they had physically receded from each other in the metric expansion of space, is merely an artificial cognitive paradox fallaciously rendered in the hypothesized subjective reality of the Big Bang model. The farthest observed galaxy Abell 1835 IR1916 in the constellation of Virgo (located at northern celestial hemisphere), has been observed to be near the boundary of the observable universe. This is believed to be a sight when the universe was merely ~500 million years young with a redshift factor of z = ~10.0, and it has an angular diameter distance of ~2.86 billion light year (Gly) when the galaxy emitted its light; this is an empirical evidence that at ~13.2 billion years ago that farthest galaxy was already at that spatial location and it had developed to a galaxy of significant size. Put on a logic thinking cap and ask the question on how could the time-dilated image with an approximately 500 million years young scenario of that primordial galaxy appear at the ~13.2 billion year timeline in a Big Bang expansion; rationally it is impossible. If the expansion of space had brought that galaxy there in ~500 million years with the Big Bang expansion, the observed time-dilated image of the primordial galaxy at ~500 million years young would not be able to appear at that spatial location in that ~13.2 billion year timeline; the Big Bang model that suggests the observable universe was created in a runaway swell of space from within a small hot ball suffers a physical paradox and therefore is logically fallacious. It could be abstractly postulated that the universe is an open system in the Big Bang model with mathematical proof such that it would take only ~500 million years for that distant galaxy in the expansion of space to have relatively moved at superluminal speed to be at the angular diameter distance of ~2.86 Gly. Although this could be analytically understood that it did not violate Einstein's theory of special relativity on nothing can move faster than light through space in the metric expansion of space, it was still not coherent to what has been empirically observed; it violates the Einstein's theory of special relativity for the galaxy to be observable at all in such runaway expansion of space at superluminal speed. The abstract moot reasoning deduced to be valid with such mathematical construct is not substantiatable at all in empiricism when it is referred to reality; this is merely a baloney of a mathematical realm. “Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself anymore.” - Albert Einstein As an analogy, it is like the theorists of geocentrism postulated that the Sun is revolving around the Earth with its precession of orbital inclination. This means everyday the Sun rises from the horizon with a little shift to the left or to the right as empirically observed, are depended on the phases of this geocentric precession. With the apparently observed precession effect that was analytically consistent and precise with the quantitative predictions based on this perceived precession of the Sun's orbital inclination, it was thus claimed that this validated geocentric precession effect, is a scientific proof for the geocentric model that posits the Sun is revolving around the Earth. This is merely a red herring fallacy stemmed from its delusional observation, fallaciously proven in its cognitive paradox fallacy with self-referencing and circular reasoning by affirming the consequent. Note: The farthest observed galaxy cluster JKCS041 is located on the southern celestial hemisphere (this is opposite to the northern celestial hemisphere where Abell 1835 IR1916 is located), and measured to be at the ~10.2 billion light-year timeline in the constellation of Cetus, would also render the Big Bang model to be fallacious from another logical aspect. This suggests stars were formed in every direction at the suggested timelines of more than 13 billion years ago in a background temperature of 2.7K. This suggests that the primordial observable universe was spanning for at least billions of light-years across, and it was as evenly cold as it is now being observed across the timeline. By this analysis itself, it elucidates that the conclusion of the Big Bang model on the universe has expanded from a small ball in extremely dense and hot state, is fallacious. See "Big Bang Theory Busted By 33 Top Scientists" for An Open Letter to the Scientific Community, see also the video clips on "Cosmology Quest - Debunking Quackademic Cosmology" in Part 1 of 4, Part 2 of 4, Part 3 of 4, and Part 4 of 4 that illustrate with numerous empirical observations on the fallacy of the cosmological redshift, and a thesis on "Anomalous Redshift Data and the Myth of Cosmological Distance". Qualitatively, the concept-based expansion of space in the Big Bang theory was an erroneous a priori assumption at the fundamental level, and in its slippery slope fallacy, its propositions are therefore fallacious. The assumption that space can expand is absurd, but it is amazing for how such fundamental of the natural phenomenon can be overlooked. The majority of experts in cosmology are obliviously holding a dogmatic belief that modern physics is an abstract study with rigor in quantitative measurements using mathematical equations; a hardcore belief in empirically observed natural phenomena could only be evaluated and validated with measurements in mathematical constructs based on the concept of elastic space that had achieved scientific consensus in modern physics. In the Big Bang model, the three-dimensional space is variant, therefore it is indifferent for length and distance in an elastic space. With this ambiguity, it therefore creates the paradoxical effect with its artificial cognitive paradox in its mathematical construct, and therefore leads to its validated mathematically deduced conclusions that are inherently fallacious. “Time and space are modes in which we think and not conditions in which we live.” - Albert Einstein An a priori assumption of a hypothetical model that is not proven in qualitative evaluation (such as in geocentric model, the Sun takes approximately twenty-four hours to revolve around the Earth), could be used to mathematically deduce the hypothetical model to be valid. A deductive mathematical proof that can quantitatively predict the observation successfully, is not the proof for its a priori assumption. “I don't believe in mathematics.” - Albert Einstein From the UVS perspective, it is only logical and rational to think that at the suggested ~13.2 billion timeline, that distant galaxy Abell 1835 IR1916 in three-dimensional Euclidean space, was already vortically formed there at that spatial location as a usual size typical galaxy. Its time dilation image in a relativistic Doppler effect thus takes ~13.2 Gly to reach the observer on Earth, and in absolute space and time (one temporal dimension of time and three-dimensional Euclidean space), the galaxy would have had traveled to a further spatial location to the comoving distance of ~31.5 Gly according to its trajectory. The apparently observed phenomenon of receding galaxies that infers the universe is expanding with the Big Bang theory, is indubitably not as a result of the metric expansion of space, or is the universe expanding at all as postulated. See the UVS topics on "The apparently observed expanding universe", "Qualitative evaluation on time dilation", "Michelson-Morley experiment reviewed with UVS", "UVS reviews the GR concepts of gravity", "The causality of gravity", and "The formation of stars and galaxies" for further elaboration. The observable universe is a steady-state torus-shaped bipolar vortical system precessing in perpetual motion and primarily wobbles in its two-axis rotation.

.
The cognitive paradox fallacy in cosmic inflation on accelerated expansion of space

After distant galaxies in all directions were empirically observed to be receding in acceleration at rates proportional to their distance, the Big Bang model that describes expansion of space with deceleration, had then fallen apart. Cosmic inflation with a runaway expansion of space answers the classic conundrum of the big Bang cosmology, it is thus now considered as part of the standard hot Big Bang cosmology. In place of an expanding balloon, the explanation with the Big Bang model, now adopts the analogy of a raisin pudding model to explain the empirically observed phenomenon for the accelerated expansion of space with cosmic inflation. It is now postulated in the Big Bang model that space is expanding exponentially. See an externally linked topic on "Accelerating expansion of the universe" that elaborates on the accelerated expansion of space. Animated raisin pudding model as the analogy of the Big Bang expansion. Paradoxically, limited by the speed of light, the empirical observation of the observable universe on receding galaxies in their frame of reference, would be apparently affected by timeline and time dilation effect; this is the composition of a time frame negation effect. Hence, in circumstances of decelerated recession of the galaxies in the observable universe, those distant galaxies that are apparently observed in their further timelines of more distant past from Earth, would therefore paradoxically appear to be receding at increasing velocities than a galaxy at a nearer timeline of lesser distant past. This would naturally render an optical illusion as a result of the negating effects of timeline and time dilation in its cognitive paradox, thus renders the apparent observation on distant galaxies are receding in acceleration at rates proportional to their distance. This natural cognitive paradox fallacy is caused by the time frame negation effect of timeline and time dilation that renders its composite optical illusion. If the observable universe is expanding in acceleration as it was propositioned in cosmic inflation, the effects of timeline and time dilation would paradoxically render the observation of the observable universe to be apparently expanding in deceleration instead. The observation that the universe appears to be expanding at an increasing rate with proper distance at proper time, which had concluded with the cosmic scale factor a(t) has a positive second derivative, did not address or account for the time frame negation effect; it merely creates a fallacious cognitive paradox with its mathematical treatment that misleads people with a misconception to believe it had accounted for the time frame negation effect. The mathematical treatment applied to illustrate that space accelerates exponentially with the proposition of proper distance for the calculation of optically observed deep space objects that were moving in a frame of reference on different timelines, will not correct it from its natural cognitive paradox rendered by the time frame negation effect; the derivation of velocities among the distant galaxies was apparently observed on different timelines. The conclusion of the revised Big Bang model with cosmic inflation on exponentially expanding space is thus fallacious. This is simply because its mathematical construct with its postulated metric expansion of space, was stemmed from the natural cognitive paradox in a composite optical illusion, which is caused by optical negation rendered by the limited speed of light from distant galaxies receding on different timelines. The propositions for accelerated expansion of space as inferred with its apparent observations, is merely an optical effect of a natural cognitive paradox that is asserted with its posit of a transformable space in its artificial cognitive paradox. Space is not expanding, and the galaxies are not receding from each other in acceleration as apparently observed. Consequently, any theory extrapolated from this foundation that was based on the false fact, would thus be fallacious at its best. “Without realizing the cognitive paradoxes that negate to cause delusions in the observable universe, the paradoxical effect of nature has had fooled even the very intelligent people.” - UVS inspired - In the UVS worldview with the natural cognitive paradox resolved and its posit for absolute space, it predicates that the distances between most galaxies in the observable universe, were vortically extending in deceleration. The accelerated receding of distant galaxies is an optically rendered delusively inversed illusion, which is rendered by the paradoxical effect of nature in a topsy-turvy manner. The distances between most galaxies in the observable universe were vortically extending with deceleration in its vortical chain reaction.

.
The cognitive paradox fallacy in Michelson-Morley experiment

"Many astronomers believe the Milky Way is moving at approximately 600 km/s relative to the observed locations of other nearby galaxies. Another reference frame is provided by the Cosmic microwave background. This frame of reference indicates that The Milky Way is moving at around 552 km/s." - Excerpt from Wikipedia on motion (physics). In a nutshell, with the deduction that a celestial object moving in a static medium of luminiferous aether would experience a drag, an aether wind should be detectable. This is because Earth revolves at approximately 30 km/s around Sun, the Sun revolves at approximately 232 km/s around the Galactic Center of Milky Way, therefore Earth moving in this static medium should show a significant aether wind, and more significantly if the movement of Milky Way in space relative to Cosmic microwave background at approximately 552 km/s is considered. If there is such an aether wind at all, it should be easily detected with the interferometer. M-M experiment video simulation However, in all Michelson-Morley experiments, measurements of such expectations were not detected at all, it was thus concluded that the postulated static luminiferous aether does not exist; the postulated static luminiferous aether would have been detected by the Michelson-Morley experiments if it exists at all. Watch a video clip on simulating Michelson-Morley experiment in aether wind, and also see an animated simulation of Michelson-Morley experiment that its aether wind speed can be varied. “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” - Carl Sagan The scientific consensus on luminiferous aether does not exist, was based on a null hypothesis with the null result obtained by the Michelson-Morley experiment. Notwithstandingly, this conclusion is logically fallacious. It had only concluded that the quantitatively predicted aether wind was not found with the a priori assumption that luminiferous aether is a static medium. Neither Albert Michelson nor Edward Morley had ever considered that their experiment had disproved the aether hypothesis; it merely had proven that the postulated static aether does not exist. Critically, a null hypothesis cannot assert positively with its hypothetical a priori posit, and therefore does not prove at all. The experimental conclusion for the a priori proposition that postulates a static medium of luminiferous aether is proven to be inexistent, is not the proof for the a priori posit that luminiferous aether is a static medium. The scientific consensus with the null hypothesis, thus is simply a formal fallacy of affirmative conclusion from a negative premise in a hasty generalization with its argument from ignorance. “Any scientific fact must leave no room for any rational doubt.” - UVS inspired - As an analogy for the null hypothesis with null result, it would be similar to setting up an experiment to measure electrical power with the assumption that the electrical energy of a running system is operated by direct current. And after the direct current meter measured nothing, with the null result it concludes that there is no electrical current in the running system. This logical fallacy can also be rhetorically addressed as its evidence of absence, was concluded with its red herring fallacy in its ignoratio elenchi. With the assumption that luminiferous aether is a static medium, one could regressively maintain a fallacious self-referential cognitive paradox with strawman argument to assert that aether was scientifically proven to be nonexistence with its bigotry argument from authority. This is merely a formal fallacy of affirming the consequent in the subjective reality of its hypothetical construct. “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” - Richard Feynman All the conclusions for aether does not exist in the abstract mathematical constructs based on the absurd assumptions of transformable space or reified time, were deduced with self-fulfilling prophecies by self-reference; such artificial cognitive paradox fallacies were rendered by their philosophies of science that do not require aether to exist in their mathematical constructs. It is merely the dogma in the belief system of mathematical physics that asserts aether does not exist with its argument from authority. “By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox.” - Galileo Galilei See the UVS topics on "Four-dimensional spacetime continuum in a hypothetical construct for sound wave in a vector space void of medium" that illustrates a hatch job that could do away with the existence of air for sound wave to propagate in a hypothetical realm, and "Michelson-Morley experiment reviewed with UVS" for further elaboration. An inviscid aetheric medium is all-pervasive throughout the entire observable universe.

“We make our world significant by the courage of our questions
and by the depth of our answers.” - Carl Sagan

.
Main critical propositions of the UVS research

.
The predications of the UVS research

The predications of the UVS research as listed below, are the meticulously established a priori propositions of empirical observed natural phenomena based on the UVS model. They were construed by abductive reasoning with the hypothetical constructs of their empirical observations in the conceptual frameworks of UVS, and these predications with the inductive resolutions of their resolved cognitive paradoxes, are evidently substantiated.

These predications are always subjected to refinements in positive feedback loops, which strive on their accuracy with their empirical evidence for the postulated actualities of their empirical observations. Their propositions with rigorous verifications could thus be falsified, or conclusively proven with their correspondence theory of truth. The falsified predications were then revamped, or rejected.

Remarks: Galileo Galilei based his hypothesis on heliocentrism had qualitatively predicted that ocean tides are caused by the Earth’s rotation and its orbit around the Sun. He reasoned that as the Earth moves, the oceans sloshed around thus resulting in tides. This predication was falsified in modern astronomy with the empirical observations of the daily two tides on Earth are primarily caused by the gravitational force of the Moon, which thus proved the predication made by Johannes Kepler on ocean tide. Nevertheless, Galileo's predication on Venus revolves around the Sun and not the Earth, was indubitably justified with qualitative proof for its actuality.

Despite the inductive resolutions of natural phenomena in the UVS research are mostly in their qualitative forms, many of these evidently verified a priori propositions by themselves as they are with their elucidated delusions and resolved cognitive paradoxes, have had eradicated the fallaciously justified true beliefs of their knowledge in conventional wisdom.

The methodically proven a priori propositions of UVS, are therefore unequivocally the well justified true beliefs that are free of paradoxically fallacious Gettier problems, and thus by themselves are the a priori knowledge for the actualities of the qualitatively evaluated natural phenomena.

The proven predications can then be accurately developed further, which is by extending their a priori knowledge with their quantitative research to accurately establish their a posteriori knowledge with quantitative precision.

See the UVS subtopic on "Cometary outburst" that elaborates on a ground breaking a posteriori analysis of UVS, which its case studies are illustrated with quantitative analyses.

- With circumstantial evidence

- With direct evidence

- With strong evidence

- With qualitative proof

- Falsified

Note: Click on any of the symbolic buttons below next to its predication for accessing the relevant UVS research on that particular natural phenomenon.

List of the UVS predications:

1. An inviscid aetheric medium is all-pervasive throughout the entire observable universe.
2. The observable universe was formed in a torus-shaped vortical system and it is primarily precessing in its two-axis rotation.
3. The observable universe is in a perpetual vortical motion and was vortically emerged from the vortical motion of an all-pervasive inviscid medium.
4. The observable universe is formed in a paradigm of unisonal vortices in a vortical universe.
5. The distances between most galaxies in the observable universe were vortically extending with deceleration in its vortical chain reaction.
6. A supervoid is a vortically resonated spheroidal unisonal vortex.
7. Superclusters are held at the outer edges on adjoining surfaces of the supervoids.
8. A larger galaxy cluster with hundreds of galaxy clusters is vortically held by a nested spheroidal vortex to vortically revolve around its center of mass.
9. A galaxy cluster with thousands of galaxies are vortically held by a nested spheroidal vortex to vortically revolve around its center of mass.
10. The formation of stars in a cluster of galaxies is systematically caused by the vortical motion of its nested intergalactic spheroidal vortex. With credit to Professor Christopher W. Hodshire from Western Michigan University.
11. A galaxy cluster is vortically manifested and impelled in its nested intergalactic spheroidal vortex
12. A local galaxy group with tens of galaxies are vortically held by a nested spheroidal vortex to vortically revolve around its center of mass.
13. A galaxy group is vortically formed, impelled, and encapsulated by an optically invisible nested intergalactic spheroidal unisonal vortex.
14. A galaxy is vortically formed and impelled by the galactic vortex pair manifested in its galactic spheroidal unisonal vortex.
15. The gravitational singularity of a supermassive black hole is collectively manifested with the vortical gravitational singularities of all other star systems in the same galaxy.
16. A supermassive black hole is a vortical void of luminiferous aether displaced by the vortical gravitational singularity of its galaxy.
17. Satellite galaxy is induced by satellite galactic vortex of a main galactic vortex.
18. The ripping of a galaxy is caused by the cyclonic gravity field effect from another larger galaxy system on near encounter.
19. A globular cluster is formed in the wake of a dissipated satellite galactic polar vortex pair, which was flattening its satellite galactic spheroid.
20. Elliptical galaxy is formed in the wake of a dissipated galactic vortex pair, which was flattening its inner nested galactic spheroid vortex
21. Quasar is a resonated satellite galaxy impelled by a significant harmonic of its encapsulating nested galactic spheroid. Inspired in a forum discussion with Allen Barrow.
22. Binary stars are revolving around each other in a common plasmatic shell that was merged from the plasmatic shells of the two stars.
23. Star cluster is held together by strong interactions from electromagnetic vortices of stars in the weak vortical interactions of their common galactic vortex.
24. A stellar black hole is a vortical void of luminiferous aether transformed by a manifested vortical gravitational singularity of its star cluster system.
25. Heliosphere is formed by its nested spheroidal unisonal vortex of the Solar System and it is vortically impelled by its galactic vortex.
26. Accretion disk is formed by vortically flattened polar vortex pair in the inner sections of a nested spheroidal unisonal vortex.
27. Star is vortically ignited to glow by the dynamo effect of magnetohydrodynamics in a resonated harmonic of vortical gravitational singularity.
28. A new star is evolved by vortically coalesced stellar cloud formed in a nested bipolar stellar vortex pair. With credits to Allen Barrow.
29. Protoplanet is formed in vortically scattered stellar clouds in a nested satellite vortex pair on a plane of flattened nested stellar polar vortex pair of its parent star.
30. Sun is impelled by its galactic vortex to rotate and revolve around the Galactic Center in a perpetual vortical motion.
31. Star is impelled by its galactic vortex to vortically form with coalesced stellar materials in a nested bipolar stellar vortex pair manifested in its nested spheroidal unisonal vortex.
32. A black hole is a dual-core vortical void of luminiferous aether displaced by a harmonic resonant of aether vortical motion.
33. Protoplanetary disk is a vortrex with glowing plasma and it is impelled by the vortical column of its protostar.
34. Protostar is vortically spawned with consolidated stellar clouds resonated in its spheroidal unisonal vortex.
35. Stellar nucleosynthesis can be caused by vortical spin fusion to assemble chemical elements with nuclear reactions occurring in the cores of stars.
36. A star's nova outburst of x-ray and gamma ray is caused by a highly energetic spinor field that underlies the star.
37. The brightness of star depends on electric current generated by dynamo effect in magnetohydrodynamics of vortically consolidated plasma.
38. The immense heat in corona of the Sun is produced by vortical motion of plasma jet streams with high speed spin by converting kinetic energy into heat.
39. A brown dwarf is a failed star that has not acquired enough vortical momentum to excite its hydrogen atoms to glow like a typical star.
40. Thermal radiation from the interior of a planet and its satellites is generated by vortical motion in nested layers of viscous matter with precession effect.
41. Stars are held apart in their clusters by electrostatic repulsion of electric force between charges from their nested spheroidal unisonal vortices.
42. Stellar jet is vortically formed in a polar vortex column with an ionized jet of gas stream vortically culminated in its nested spheroidal unisonal vortex. With credit to Anna Lorrina Mitchell.
43. The debris disk of star is consolidated by a flattened nested stellar polar vortex pair.
44. The glowing spokes on debris disk of a star are satellite plasma vortices.
45. The Ring Center of a star is the polar vortex center of its planetary system.
46. Supernova is caused in an unwinding process with a harmonic aetheric vortex to impel the star to violently spin in opposed directions.
47. Red giant star is vortically unwound to expand and expel its materials. With credit to anonymous from Singapore.
48. Planetary nebula is a consolidating diffused star wobbling in precession with nested and glowing plasma vortex pairs.
49. A sunspot is a unisonal vortex that has spawned in the photosphere of the Sun.
50. The long-lived corona holes in the form of polar caps of the Sun, are vortical voids in the polar vortex pair of photosphere.
51. The inert dark center of a sunspot is caused by the void of vortex column that limits convection.
52. The solar jet stream pair are vortex substructures impelled by the polar vortex pair of photosphere.
53. The solar jet stream pair are manifested by the intense vortical interactions of the BOTSS and the Sun.
54. Sunspot cluster is impelled by its solar jet stream and this is impelled by its polar vortex in a unisonal vortical motion.
55. The solar cycle is driven by the periodical oscillations of a significant planetary barycenter aligning with the reactively moving Sun and the BOTSS.
56. Solar minimum is rendered by the alignment of the Sun and the BOTSS with relatively lower angular speed is being aligned by the barycenter of the gas giants.
57. Solar maximum is rendered by the alignment of the Sun and the BOTSS with relatively higher angular speed is aligning with the barycenter of the gas giants.
58. Solar variation of the Sun's radiation is proportionally caused by the varying velocity of the Sun oscillating around the BOTSS.
59. The eco-systems on Earth are extended far out into the Solar System are significantly influenced by the oscillating BOTSS.
60. Grand solar minima are caused by the Jupiter-Sun-Saturn superior conjunction with all other planets to pushed-in the Sun nearest to the BOTSS.
61. Grand solar maxima are caused by the Sun-Jupiter-Saturn inferior conjunction with all other planets to push-out the Sun farthermost from the BOTSS.
62. The superior conjunction of Jupiter-Sun-Saturn would push Saturn to a nearest point from the Sun with the effects of spheroidal pushed-in gravity.
63. The inferior conjunction of Sun-Jupiter-Saturn would push Saturn to a farthermost point from the Sun with the effects of spheroidal pushed-in gravity.
64. The Sun is not the center of the Solar System.
65. The penumbra of a sunspot is a chain of satellite vortices manifested in a ring torus structure and it forms around the vortically manifested sunspot.
66. A sunspot pair is a dual-core unisonal vortex of the Sun's photosphere and its dual-core is separated on the surface of photosphere.
67. Corona mass ejection is caused by the conserved angular momentum in the vortex column of a ruptured solar prominence.
68. The synchronized peaks for sunspot activities with climatic events on Earth are caused by aligned Sun, Jupiter, Saturn and the BOTSS.
69. Comets in Oort cloud revolving around Sun in uniformly spread out manner are vortically consolidated in harmonics of unisonal vortex.
70. The comet's huge nested atmosphere is vortically held by its underlying spheroidal unisonal vortex.
71. The comet outburst events in the outer Solar System are triggered by significant barycenter effects of celestial objects.
72. The cometary electric glow discharge of gas coma in the outer Solar System is rendered by the manifested charge field of significant barycenter effects.
73. Lagrangian points in the macrocosms are harmonics of vortically manifested accreting spinor fields rendered by vortical motion of interacting celestial objects.
74. Cometary x-ray is caused by a highly energetic spinor field that underlies and resonates with the coma intensively to vortically impel its electrostatically encapsulated ions.
75. Lagrangian points can be manifested from the spinor field of a planetary barycenter that interacts with another Solar System objects.
76. The gas tail of comet is a glowing section of unisonal vortex manifested in the coma.
77. The dust tail of the comet is formed by the vortrex of its gas tail vortex.
78. The vacuum in the gas tail of comet is the void in the vortex column of its coma.
79. The craters on a comet can be drilled and carved by the vortical culmination of manifested unisonal vortices in the coma.
80. The splitting of comet can be caused by the cyclonic gravity field effect from larger suspended spheroid on near encounter.
81. The gas tail of the comet points directly to the dual-core barycenter of the solar system.
    The gas tail of the comet is always aligned with vortically counteracted magnetic spoke lines of the Solar System while it moves around the Sun. Revamped.
82. Planetary rings are flattened polar vortex pairs of the outer atmospheric layers of a planet.
83. The Great White Spot on Saturn is a vortex cluster spawned by the revolving precession effect of Saturn with an intensified jet stream periodically manifested by its axial tilt.
84. The ring system of a celestial object are vortically formed by resonated motion of the nested celestial object with its flattened nested polar vortex pair.
85. The hexagonal structure on the polar vortex of Saturn is caused by a triple precession cycle with six conjunctions of Sun, Jupiter and Saturn. With credits to Graham Burnett.
86. The cloud bands on Jupiter are formed by the nested polar vortex pair of Jupiter with their cascaded vortex columns opened to different extents on its nested atmosphere.
87. The jet streams on Jupiter are manifested by the vortrices of the nested polar vortex pair of Jupiter.
88. The ovals and storms on Jupiter are coalesced by satellite vortices manifested and impelled by the nested polar vortex pair of Jupiter.
89. The Jupiter's retrograde cloud bands are formed by the differential motions in the chains of merged cyclonic satellite vortex clusters.
90. The Great Red Spot of Jupiter is primarily impelled by the three Galilean moons in Laplace resonance.
    The Great Red Spot is a persistent atmospheric eddy of its anti-cyclonic satellite vortex formed at a fixed spot. Revamped.
91. Solar System objects were manifested by vortical spin fusion of interstellar clouds in resonant frequencies of standing wave and they are vortically propagating in longitudinal waves.
92. The Solar System is formed in a planetary vortical system that has manifested in the galactic vortical system of the Milky Way.
93. The orbitals of natural satellites were developed as a result of conserved angular momentum are being transferred from their underlying nested spheroidal vortices.
94. The elliptical orbit of a planet with apsidal precession is rendered by its vortical interactions of its star and the barycenter of its planetary system.
95. Venus is cyclonically rotating in counter-clockwise direction in its counter-clockwise revolving path around the Sun. Inspired in a forum discussion with Graham Burnett.
96. The primeval Earth with its Moon is vortically coalesced from a nested torus-shaped vortical ring of stellar materials formed around the Sun.
97. The Moon will be at a farthermost away point from the Earth in the lunar opposition during the perihelion of the Earth.
98. The Moon will be at a nearest point to the Earth in the lunar opposition during the aphelion of the Earth.
99. Tidal force is vortically caused by a universal spheroidal pushed-in gravity with the reactive push momentum in its barycenter motion.
100. The tidal bulge of the rotating Earth is pushed ahead of its alignment with the Moon in a vortical motion drag of its underlying aetheric vortex.
101. A focused torque-induced precession from the Solar System alignment effect can manifest all sorts of significant natural event on Earth.
102. A polar aurora is induced to manifest by its intensified nested atmospheric polar vortex.
103. The electromagnetic storm in the presence of an aurora is caused by the intensified vortical effect of its underlying atmospheric vortex.
104. Aurora glow is caused by the electric current generated by the dynamo effect in magnetohydrodynamics of vortically consolidated plasma.
105. A clear air vortex is formed in an invisible atmospheric layer with its resonated torque-free precession.
106. The Antarctica Ozone Hole within the polar vortex wobbles with retrograde motion in synchronization with the Earth-Moon precession cycle.
107. The Antarctica Ozone Hole is mechanically caused by the polar vortex that displaces the ozone layer inside its vortex column.
108. The Antarctica Ozone Hole with significant difference in temperature at adjacent air masses is caused by vortically sank nested atmosphere in the polar vortex column.
109. The Antarctica Ozone Hole can be significantly affected by a focused torque-induced precession of the Solar System alignment effect.
110. The ozone hole at North Pole could not form is as a result of the dragging effects of landmass has weakened the intensity of the Arctic Polar Vortex.
111. A polar vortex is a nested atmospheric free vortex manifested on the polar axis with the precession effect of the Earth.
112. Polar vortex can be significantly affected by the focused tidal force of significant Solar System objects in an alignment.
113. A lower latitude atmospheric vortex is drawn towards its polar region by its polar forced vortex with a potentially concaved surface manifested on the atmospheric layer.
114. The seasonal variation on Earth is rendered by the extend of how much the nested polar vortex has opened up toward the equator.
115. The Antarctica polar vortex wobbles in synchronization with the Earth-Moon precession cycle.
116. The Arctic polar vortex is embedded to Earth's rotation by the dragging effects of landmass.
117. Jet stream with significant differences in temperature at the boundaries of adjacent air masses is as a result of sunken atmosphere in the vortex column.
118. A jet stream is formed with a vortrex manifested at the bottom section of its atmospheric polar vortex to flow in closed streamlines of a ring torus structure.
119. The shifting of jet stream latitude is caused by the intensity variations of its undulating polar vortex.
120. The ~100,000-year precession cycle of ecliptic plane relative to the invariable plane is caused by the orbital motion of the Solar System in its star system.
121. The ice age is caused by a precession effect of the Solar System.
122. The axial precession of the Earth is mainly due to the two-body barycentric motion of the Solar System and the Sirius binary star system. With credit to Frank Grime.
123. Little Ice Age events are as a result of the superior conjunctions of major Solar System objects with Earth and Moon also aligned during the winters.
124. Subtropical climate is primarily caused by the nested polar vortex with its nested vortex column manifested within the boundary of the subtropical jet stream.
125. Polar climates is significantly caused by vortically dispersed atmospheric layers in the vortex column of a polar vortex.
126. Tropical cyclone is formed by its underlying atmospheric clear air vortex spawned in the troposphere.
127. The warm core of a tropical cyclone is as a result of a relatively warmer air layer in the stratosphere has filled the vortex column in the cooler cloud level.
128. Storm surge is caused by the vortrex of its atmospheric vortex with persistence angular momentum that vortically pushes out water away from its vortex column.
129. A tornado of condensed funnel cloud is coalesced by an atmospheric free vortex with its vortex eye opened.
130. The cold core of a tornado is as a result of cooler air in the upper troposphere has sunk to fill the vortex column of its atmospheric free vortex.
131. A tornado coalesced by its atmospheric vortex is impelled by an intensive jet stream of a large atmospheric vortex formed on higher altitude in troposphere.
132. The upward spiraling jet of air stream of a tornado is formed by vortical reactions of a clear air vortex with a vortical momentum that has bounced off the ground.
133. Supercell, tropical storm, and thunderstorm are induced by atmospheric free vortex.
134. Precipitation is caused by vortical compression of consolidated clouds on the atmospheric surface they are levitated.
135. Mammatus clouds are formed by vortically coalesced clouds in the atmosphere with manifested precession effects.
136. The collision of cold front and warm front is caused by the vortical motion of two atmospheric layers impelled by a polar jet stream.
137. The low pressure in a storm is caused by the vortical motion of an atmospheric vortex in its vortex column.
138. The showers of uniformly spread raindrops, snowflakes or hails in homogenous forms are caused by manifested harmonic vortices with torque-free precession.
139. Dust devil is formed by vortical reactions of a nested clear air vortex with its angular momentum deflected off the ground to levitate dust particles in its nested vortrex.
140. There are more than three thermoclines in the troposphere.
141. Dust storm is formed by a huge cyclonic atmospheric free vortex to vortically levitate charged dust with its vortrex.
142. The subtropical desserts along subtropical ridge are caused by the vortical motion of free vortices manifested in the troposphere.
143. Hadley cells that form subtropical ridge are impelled by the subtropical jet stream of its stratosphere polar vortex to form the pressure belt in troposphere.
144. Clouds are vortically levitated on electrostatically charged surfaces of a nested atmospheric spheroidal unisonal vortex with electrostatic repulsion.
145. Downburst is vortically impelled by atmospheric vortex.
146. Air-pocket commonly experienced by cruising aircraft is the vortex column of a clear air vortex where there is a void of the usual atmospheric layer.
147. A peculiar type of pit craters with dual-core markings were vortically formed by the manifested dual-core unisonal vortices of liquefied crust resonated on the Earth's crust.
148. A vortex of liquefied crust can be spawn on the Earth's crust as a result of precession effects caused by the alignments of Solar System objects.
149. Earthquakes can be triggered by the forced vortices of the mantle sphere with the precession effects of Solar System objects.
150. Continental drift is caused by vortical motion manifested in the mantle sphere with the motion of Earth spirally moving in a gyrating Solar System.
151. An intraplate earthquake is caused by seismic waves generated from a forced vortex of the mantle sphere with resonated torque-free precession.
152. Some volcano eruptions were triggered by strong torque-induce precession of the Solar System alignment effect.
153. A huge clear air unisonal vortex resonated in a fixed region on Earth renders the mysterious circumstances of Bermuda Triangle.
154. A natural oceanic whirlpool is an oceanic free vortex spawned by a manifested oceanic torque-free precession.
155. A deep-ocean whirlpool cluster is triggered by a focused precession effect of a Solar System arrangement with its rendered torque-free precession.
156. An underwater spheroidal whirlpool is formed by a resonated spheroidal unisonal vortex manifested in deep ocean.
157. The Gulf Stream is manifested by the oceanic jet stream of a nested oceanic free vortex.
158. Tidal bore is a traversing standing wave manifested by a resonated torque-free precession of an intensively wobbling Earth.
159. A tidal bore on Earth can be triggered seasonally with a focused precession effect of Sun, Earth and Moon manifested at a focal point in the open water.
160. Tidal bore can be manifested by seismic waves transferred from a rumbling vortex of mantle sphere formed underneath the Earth's crust.
161. The geometric gravitational force for all celestial objects in the universe is caused by the potential density of an aetheric medium with its volumetric pressure.
162. Gravity is vortically rendered by quantized electromagnetic vortices. With credits to James Aaron Nicholson.
163. Gravity is a manifestation of vortical core-seeking motion and it vortically pushes matters inward to the mass center. Inspired by Tiny Bits Part I on Gravity.
164. Gravity is manifested by electrostatic pressure repelling inside nested spheroidal unisonal vortex to push-in matters vortically toward the core.
165. The gravitational singularity of a black hole emerges vortically from a single point of zero volume as the barycenter in a resonant of aether vortical motion.
166. The gravitational singularity of a supermassive black hole is collectively manifested with the vortical gravitational singularities of all planetary systems in the galaxy.
167. Magnetosphere is a nested spheroidal unisonal vortex with a torus-shaped structure.
168. A magnetic field line is a vortically coalesced aetheric jet stream of harmonic laminar flow in vortical harmonics of progressive angular phase.
169. The geomagnetic reversal of Earth is caused by the field effect of a prominent barycenter manifested in the Solar System.
170. Chemical elements are created by the vortical spin fusion of aether vortical motion.
171. An atom is a cluster of vortically consolidated electromagnetic spheroidal unisonal vortices impelled by the vortical motion of the universe.
172. Lagrangian points in the microcosms are harmonics of vortically manifested accreting spinor field rendered by vortical motion of interacting subatomic particles.
173. Electrons are vortically resonated and quantized accreting spinor fields spawned at the Lagrangian points in the dual-core nested electron shells of an atom.
174. The subshells of 2s, 3s, 4s, and so forth, are the inner walls of the torus-shaped nested electron shells, and thus they are inversely nearer to the nucleus than the 1s subshell.
175. All naturally manifested chirality pair structures formed in Möbius strip topology are formed by the vortical motion of their nested dual-core 3-sphere hyperspheres.
176. The nested dual-core electron shell of an atom is formed with the nested hypersphere of a 3-sphere structure.
177. The Trojan asteroids are encapsulated in the torus-shaped spheroidal unisonal vortex of of Jupiter at its L4 and L5 Lagrangian points with electrostatic repulsion force.
178. Electron has a vortex form with sub-orbitals in a subatomic particle scenario. By Allen Barrow with UVS model.
179. Electron is a nested subatomic vortex impelled by its atomic vortex.
180. Electron is vortically impelled on accretion disk by its atomic vortex to intrinsically spin with apsidal precession around its precessing nucleus in its atomic orbital.
181. Electron shells are pause layers of equipotential surfaces of a nested electrostatic spheroid with different electrical energy levels.
182. The elementary negative charge of an electron in an atom is rendered by its differential rotation to counter charge its proton with the cyclonic motion of its neutron.
183. Positron is a subatomic vortrex that vortically folds back on its electron vortex.
184. Electrons at opposite ends of their nucleus can interact instantaneously is caused by the interconnectedness of their underlying atomic vortex.
185. Covalent bond of chemical elements is caused by the vortical spin fusion of their electron shells.
186. Cohesion force of a molecule is a polarization charge effect caused by the arrangement of its chemical elements with vortically merged electron shells.
187. The spin frequency of an electron can be affected by gravitational potential of Earth that has varying potential density at different altitude and latitude.
188. Quark is a subatomic electromagnetic vortex of vortexes. By Allen Barrow with UVS model.
189. Quarks in an atomic nucleus are EM subatomic spheroidal vortices spawned at Lagrangian points in different angular phases.
190. Strong nuclear force is rendered by the vortical repulsion force vortically exerted by the spheroidal unisonal vortex of hadron.
191. Meson is a hadronic subatomic particles formed by one quark and one antiquark vortically coalesced at their Lagrangian points with the strong nuclear force.
192. Proton is a vortical substructure of an inner hypersphere that encapsulates two merged cyclonic spheroids and an anti-cyclonic spheroid.
193. Neutron is a vortical substructure of an outer hypersphere that encapsulates two merged anti-cyclonic spheroids and a cyclonic spheroid.
194. Weak nuclear force is rendered by the distribution of vortical repulsion force of spheroidal atomic unisonal vortex to accrete subatomic particles.
195. Atomic nucleus is a hypersphere of a 3-sphere system with a Möbius strip topology for its nested vortical structure.
196. Gluon has a vortical tubular Möbius strip structure that carries nuclear strong force to interact between quarks.
197. The invariant mass of matters is transferred from the half-integral spin of aether corpuscle in the material phase with condensed vortical fields of an all-pervasive aether.
198. Fermions are vortically formed with the half-integral spins of their subatomic vortices in the material phase with condensed vortical fields of an all-pervasive aether.
199. Leptons are vortically coalesced with their manifested Lagrangian points of antiquarks in their hyperspheres of two-body system.
200. Bosons are vortically coalesced structures of hypersphere that are resonated with the full integral spins of condensed aether corpuscles.
201. Hydrogen atoms in the universe are formed in manifested vortical gravitational singularities by coalescing protons as atomic nuclei with their spawned electrons.
202. Nucleosynthesis in the universe is caused by vortical spin fusion of atoms in manifested vortical gravitational singularities with resonated aether vortical motion.
203. All types of atom are resonated to coalesce at various periodical cycles and angular phases by vortical motion in a universal spiral topology.
204. The structures for the subshells and electron shells of an atom in microcosms are impelled and formed by the aether vortical motion of the universe.
205. A photon is vortically emitted from its electron shell with it vortically manifested reactive torque-free precession.
206. The corpuscles of luminiferous aether are vortically evolved and coalesced by a nested spheroidal unisonal vortex system of the universe.
207. A photon is vortically manifested on an inviscid quantized aether corpuscle with motion induced to it and vortically transferred from it.
208. An aether corpuscle is intrinsically spiraling with superluminal vortical motion at twice the speed of light.
209. Supervoid winds with elementary particles are vortically spun out by the vortical gravitational singularity of its supervoid with reactive centrifugal force.
210. Galactic winds with vortically coalesced particles are vortically spun out by the vortical gravitational singularity of its galaxy with reactive centrifugal force.
211. Solar winds with charged particles of protons and electrons are vortically spun out from the photosphere with reactive centrifugal force.
212. Electromagnetic radiation is the vortical interaction in the vortrex phase driven by its underlying aetheric unisonal vortex.
213. Thermodynamics of the universe is caused by its aether vortical motion.

“All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them.” - Galileo Galilei

.

An excerpt from "Cargo Cult Science", by Richard Feynman.

“I love only nature, and I hate mathematicians” - Richard Fenyman

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself -- and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you've not fooled yourself, it's easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that.

I would like to add something that's not essential to the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the layman when you're talking as a scientist. I am not trying to tell you what to do about cheating on your wife, or fooling your girlfriend, or something like that, when you're not trying to be a scientist, but just trying to be an ordinary human being. We'll leave those problems up to you and your rabbi. I'm talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you're maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen.

For example, I was a little surprised when I was talking to a friend who was going to go on the radio. He does work on cosmology and astronomy, and he wondered how he would explain what the applications of his work were. "Well", I said, "there aren't any". He said, "Yes, but then we won't get support for more research of this kind". I think that's kind of dishonest. If you're representing yourself as a scientist, then you should explain to the layman what you're doing -- and if they don't support you under those circumstances, then that's their decision.

One example of the principle is this: If you've made up your mind to test a theory, or you want to explain some idea, you should always decide to publish it whichever way it comes out. If we only publish results of a certain kind, we can make the argument look good. We must publish BOTH kinds of results.

I say that's also important in giving certain types of government advice. Supposing a senator asked you for advice about whether drilling a hole should be done in his state; and you decide it would be better in some other state. If you don't publish such a result, it seems to me you're not giving scientific advice. You're being used. If your answer happens to come out in the direction the government or the politicians like, they can use it as an argument in their favor; if it comes out the other way, they don't publish at all. That's not giving scientific advice.

Other kinds of errors are more characteristic of poor science. When I was at Cornell, I often talked to the people in the psychology department. One of the students told me she wanted to do an experiment that went something like this -- it had been found by others that under certain circumstances, X, rats did something, A. She was curious as to whether, if she changed the circumstances to Y, they would still do A. So her proposal was to do the experiment under circumstances Y and see if they still did A.

I explained to her that it was necessary first to repeat in her laboratory the experiment of the other person -- to do it under condition X to see if she could also get result A, and then change to Y and see if A changed. Then she would know the real difference was the thing she thought she had under control.

She was very delighted with this new idea, and went to her professor. And his reply was, no, you cannot do that, because the experiment has already been done and you would be wasting time. This was in about 1947 or so, and it seems to have been the general policy then to not try to repeat psychological experiments, but only to change the conditions and see what happened.

Nowadays, there's a certain danger of the same thing happening, even in the famous field of physics. I was shocked to hear of an experiment being done at the big accelerator at the National Accelerator Laboratory, where a person used deuterium. In order to compare his heavy hydrogen results to what might happen with light hydrogen, he had to use data from someone else's experiment on light hydrogen, which was done on a different apparatus. When asked why, he said it was because he couldn't get time on the program (because there's so little time and it's such expensive apparatus) to do the experiment with light hydrogen on this apparatus because there wouldn't be any new result. And so the men in charge of programs at NAL are so anxious for new results, in order to get more money to keep the thing going for public relations purposes, they are destroying -- possibly -- the value of the experiments themselves, which is the whole purpose of the thing. It is often hard for the experimenters there to complete their work as their scientific integrity demands.

All experiments in psychology are not of this type, however. For example, there have been many experiments running rats through all kinds of mazes, and so on -- with little clear result. But in 1937 a man named Young did a very interesting one. He had a long corridor with doors all along one side where the rats came in, and doors along the other side where the food was. He wanted to see if he could train the rats to go in at the third door down from wherever he started them off. No. The rats went immediately to the door where the food had been the time before.

The question was, how did the rats know, because the corridor was so beautifully built and so uniform, that this was the same door as before? Obviously there was something about the door that was different from the other doors. So he painted the doors very carefully, arranging the textures on the faces of the doors exactly the same. Still the rats could tell. Then he thought maybe the rats were smelling the food, so he used chemicals to change the smell after each run. Still the rats could tell. Then he realized the rats might be able to tell by seeing the lights and the arrangement in the laboratory like any commonsense person. So he covered the corridor, and still the rats could tell.

He finally found that they could tell by the way the floor sounded when they ran over it. And he could only fix that by putting his corridor in sand. So he covered one after another of all possible clues and finally was able to fool the rats so that they had to learn to go in the third door. If he relaxed any of his conditions, the rats could tell.

Now, from a scientific standpoint, that is an A-number-one experiment. That is the experiment that makes rat-running experiments sensible, because it uncovers that clues that the rat is really using -- not what you think it's using. And that is the experiment that tells exactly what conditions you have to use in order to be careful and control everything in an experiment with rat-running.

I looked up the subsequent history of this research. The next experiment, and the one after that, never referred to Mr. Young. They never used any of his criteria of putting the corridor on sand, or being very careful. They just went right on running the rats in the same old way, and paid no attention to the great discoveries of Mr. Young, and his papers are not referred to, because he didn't discover anything about the rats. In fact, he discovered all the things you have to do to discover something about rats. But not paying attention to experiments like that is a characteristic example of cargo cult science.

“And it's this type of integrity, this kind of care not to fool yourself,
that is missing to a large extent in much of the research in cargo cult science.” - Richard Fenyman

Some resonated remarks for the UVS research::

“I found your web page very interesting” (30th Nov 2017) / “Your work is really amazing.” (18th Dec 2017)
- Dr. Rosa Hilda Compagnucci, a climatologist accredited to the Nobel Peace Prize bestowed on the IPCC in 2007, PhD degree in Meteorological Sciences, University of Buenos Aires; UBA · Department of Atmospheric and Ocean Sciences. Co-authored paper on "Dynamical characterization of the last prolonged solar minima", which elaborates with quantitative analysis on an imminent Grand Minimum.

“Well done, Vincent.” (18th August 2014)
- Dr. Richard Miles, Ph.D in Physics and Chemistry (Bristol); British Astronomical Association. This was a comment on an analysis of UVS for a cometary outburst event.

“Being an exit scientist and now am industrial physicist, I admire your insight and works highly.” (7th July 2014)
- Dr. Winston Cheng Wen-Hao, Ph.D. in particle beam physics and accelerator theory, Post Doc: high energy particle collider design in Lawrence Berkeley Lab.

“With great admiration.” (3rd June 2014)
- Dr. Vuthipong Priebjrivat, B.S. in civil engineering from Massachusetts Institute of Technology, M.S. in environmental engineering from Stanford University, Ph.D. in economics and public management from the University of Chicago, metaphysicist, corporate leader, law maker, and author of several books such as "DRAW YOUR THOUGHTS" that elaborates and illustrates a peculiar type of analytical method, "DHARMODYNAMICS", "NEODHARMA", "DHARMOSCIENCE", "SANKHARA" that coherently elaborate with "draw your thoughts" on some intrinsic structures for nature of reality in its transcendental perspectivalism.

'... a brilliant treatise that credibly extends modern human scientific knowledge and awareness of "How The Universe And Everything In It Truly Works".' (Feb 2014)
- Dr. Wayne Nowland, physicist, researcher, philosopher and author, planned and launched Australia's first AUSSAT communications satellite system.

“Also loved reading your research again. It does make me rethink and in some cases, relearn my understanding of the cosmos.” (28th Aug 2012)
- Professor Christopher W. Hodshire from Western Michigan University.

“I fully subscribe to the vortex theory---it makes mechanical sense more than mathematical sense. It doesn't make any difference if you think the world is infinite---the vortex theory will work on its own merits.” (4th Jul 2011)
- Gerald (aka spacedout of TOEQuest Forum).

“The UNIVERSAL VORTICAL SINGULARITY is the best cosmological model available today to explain the Universe.” (23th March 2011)
- Pat Nolan, blog writer of “Holographic Superfluid Universe”.

“Appraising the proffered paradigm shifting, convention breaching, fractally engaged neoclassical approach to the immutable integration of pan-phenomena, ipso facto universal, into a cohesive conceptual entity without invoking inchoate verbiage and dissonant exploratory tendrils, leads me to this incontrovertible culmination: Exposition, analysis, synthesis and resolution, whether dialectically or pedagogically inclined, infer analogous identification of UVS with spherically expressed, macrobiotic composites, articulated as multi-layered organic constructs teleologically destined to entrain seminal manifestations.” ( 21st Sep 2010)
- Ophiolite of Naked Science Forum.

“I needed no convincing about your work because it overlaps my own thoughts for many years now....” (24th Mar 2010)
- Michael Henning, University of Cape Town 1977 BBSC.

“An intriguing website full of enlightening concepts and analyses!” (Dec 2009)
- Dr. Wayne Nowland, physicist, researcher, philosopher, and author, planned and launched Australia's first AUSSAT communications satellite system.

“Objectively speaking, even in its present mostly qualitative form, UVS makes a significant contribution to the discovery of spiral nature of the universe. No person holds a complete truth about the nature of the universe, and UVS brings attention of scientists to an interesting path of solving this very challenging problem.”, “With great respect, Vladimir.” (28th Jun 2009)
- Dr. Vladimir B. Ginzburg, mathematician, accomplished material scientist, author of "Prime Elements of Ordinary Matter, Dark Matter & Dark Energy", "Spiral Grain of the Universe" and several other renowned books such as "Metallurgical Design of Flat Rolled Steels" for applied science, and holds over fifty U.S. and foreign patents.

“UVS is the future of science.” (12th Dec 2008)
- Allen Barrow (aka PoPpAScience of TOEQuest Forum).

“Vincent’s model is valid for all atomic particles as long as one realizes they must be viewed as three dimensional vortices; that’s how they interact with the spatial Aether, but that’s another story.” (30th Dec 2008)
- David Levi Wing (aka dleviwing, moderator of TOEQuest forum; author of "TORONICS"- Interpretations of Physics, The Mystery of Mass, Wave Characteristics, The Standard Model).

“Vincent, I am convinced that UVS would give satisfactory answers to most of the mysteries...” (20th Sep 2008)
- Dipayan Kar (aka dipayankar of TOEQuest Forum).

“I totally agree with the science you present.” (18th Sep 2008)
- Dean Ward, a very knowledgeable researcher with in-depth knowledge in Tensegrity, Electric Universe and Aether Physics Model.

“Hi Vincent, I have been reading posts in forums like this one since forums began, and you are the first poster to spark my imagination again, and I like to thank you for this.” (31st Mar 2008)
- Allen Barrow (aka PoPpAScience of TOEQuest Forum).

“This (UVS) is coming in a big way.” (Oct 2007)
- Au Mun Chew, sidewalk astronomer, retired lecturer of National University of Singapore.

Author's note: When I was awakened to the idea of a vortical universe in May 2007 as a layperson, and subsequently have had developed the model of Universal Vortical Singularity (UVS model) by associating it with other academic studies for its formalization, I did not know at all that any of such vortex theory had ever existed. This was until Jim Mash (Author of "Fluid Energy theory") had first brought the Cartesian vortex cosmology by Rene Descartes to my attention in June 2008, and later was aware of Walter Russell Cosmogony after Dean Ward and Allen Barrow brought Walter Russell to my attention in Oct 2008. A modern era publication that had categorically summarized the numerous studies and researches for spirals of nature as recorded in various era, presented in "From cosmic whirl to vortices" by Vladimir B. Ginzburg, later came to my attention in June 2009. These were after the vortical universe concept for UVS was already quite developed with 138 UVS predications. Even then, UVS still has its uniqueness among these other vortex theories for its inductive resolutions on numerous enigmatic natural phenomena with the UVS research methodology. June 2009.

2008

References and links:
Qualitative research - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Natural phenomenon - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Grounded theory - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Physical science - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hypothetical construct - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Paradigm shift - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Observable universe - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Research - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Empiricism - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Epistemology - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hypothesis - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Transcendental perspectivalism - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Coherentism - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Five Ws - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Theory of justification - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Heuristic - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Inductive reasoning - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Abductive reasoning - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Coherence theory of truth - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Explanatory power - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Perspectivism - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Predictive power - From Research Methodology
Reality - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Empirical evidence - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Correspondence theory of truth - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Knowledge - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Justified true belief - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Gettier problem - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Epistemic theories of truth - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Methodology - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of unsolved problems in physics - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Scale invariance - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Immutable truths - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Proof (truth) - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Realism - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The objective reality - From Joan Caccaro of Griffith University
Philosophy of science - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Scientific revolution - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Universe - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Scientific theory - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Conceptual framework - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Foundational crisis - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
First principle - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Physical paradox - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Scientific theory - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Proof (truth) - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Criteria of truth - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Physics - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Formal fallacy - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Theory of everything - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Macrocosm and microcosm - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Physical law - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Begging the question - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Premises - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Slippery slope fallacy - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Experiment - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Scientific method - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Scientific model - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Earth as the center of the universe - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Know-how - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Applied science - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Peer review - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Expert - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Critique - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Paradoxes - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Scientific consensus - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Fact - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hypothetico-deductive model - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Fallacy of misplaced concreteness - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Propositional knowledge - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deductive reasoning - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mathematical model - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Theoretical physics - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Inference - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Abstract - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Philosophy of science - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Truth - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Allegory of the Cave - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Axiom - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hypothesis - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mathematical proof - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Physics experiments - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Scientific progress - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Measurement - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A priori and a posteriori - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
THE FOUNDATIONAL CRISIS OF MATHEMATICS - EVAN WARNER
LINEAR MATHEMATICS IN INFINITE DIMENSIONS - U. H. Gerlach
Geocentric model - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Golden age of physics - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Scientific realism - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Modern Science - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Precession - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Equinox - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Solstice - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Epitrochoids - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deferent and epicycle - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Self-fulfilling prophecy - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Self-reference - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ptolemaic elements - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Equant - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Apparent retrograde motion - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Celestial sphere - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Astrophysics - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Celestial spheres - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Diurnal motion - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Passive transformation - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Celestial coordinate system - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Copernicus - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Peer review - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Copernican Revolution - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Galileo - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nicolaus Copernicus heliocentrism - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Circular definition - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Equatorial mount - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Celestial sphere - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Celestial coordinate system - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mathematical paradox - By James Yolkowski
Pragmatic - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dichotomy - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Frame of reference - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Galileo's Leaning Tower of Pisa exoeriment - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Two New Sciences - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Law of noncontradiction - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mathematical object - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Aristotelian universe - Astronomy 161, Dept Physics & Astronomy, University of Tennessee
Venus - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Names of lunar phases - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Galileo's validity analysis on Venus - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Copernican heliocentrism - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Phases of Venus - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Discipline - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Science - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Foundationalism - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Scientism - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Stereotype - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Confirmation bias - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Validity - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Belief system - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Self-justification - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Exact science - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Pragmatic theory of truth - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Experimental physics - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Direct proof - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Atomic clock - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Circular reasoning - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Positivism - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Myth - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Prejudices - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Discriminations - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Scientific hypothesis - ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA
Quantitative research - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Truth value - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Planetary orbits - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Solar System model - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Orrery - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Galactic Center - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Solar System - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Milky Way - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Universal Helicola - By Dr. Vladimir Ginzburg
Invariable plane - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Newtonian kinetic energy - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
CMB rest frame - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Inertial frame of reference - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Kepler's laws of planetary motion - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Consilience - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Celestial mechanics - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Star HL Tau - National Geographic News
Heliocentrism - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Newton's law of universal gravitation - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Kepler's Laws and Newton's Laws - by Darby Dyar
Big Bang model - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Metric expansion of space - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Timeline - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedi
Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe - From NASA
Galaxy Abell 1835 IR1916 - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Redshift - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Angular diameter distance - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Physica paradox - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Distance Scale of the Universe - By Richard Powell
Distance measures - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A software tool for calculating distance measures - By Edward L. (Ned) Wright
Law of non-contradiction - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Superluminal - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Einstein's theory of special relativity - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quasar - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Catwheel galaxy - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Cosmology - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Three-dimensional space - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Euclidean space- From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Relativistic Doppler effect - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Absolute space and time - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Comoving distance - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Orbital inclination - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Galaxy cluster JKCS041 - From SPACE.com
Big Bang Theory Busted By 33 Top Scientists - Rense.com
Cosmic inflation - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Speed of light - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Accelerating universe - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Cosmic scale factor - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Proper time - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Second derivative - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Motion (physics) - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Michelson-Morley experiment - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Luminiferous aether - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Null hypothesis - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Null result - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Formal fallacy- From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hasty generalization - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Argument from ignorance - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Direct current - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Evidence of absence - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Red herring - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ignoratio elenchi - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Strawman argument - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Affirming the consequent - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Argument from authority - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mathematical physics - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Conventional wisdom - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Relativism - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Cargo cult science - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Classical physics - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Modern physics - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
From cosmic whirl to vortices - Prime Elements of Ordinary Matter, Dark Matter & Dark Energy By Vladimir B. Ginzburg, Tatyana V. Ginzburg
Raisin pudding model - Western Washington University Planetarium
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
History of tidal physics - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Qualitative predictions - By Joseph Rowlands
The flow chart for "The epistemic process and methodology of the UVS research" - Credit of Vincent Wee-Foo
Image of sunrise - Image credit of Vincent Wee-Foo
Image for Venus orbit - Nichalp
Image for phases of Venus - Statis Kalyvas
Image of Our Solar System - Free clip art by cksinfo.com
Image of star HL Tau - Credit: Greaves, Richards, Rice & Muxlow 2008
Animated epitrochoid - Sam Derbyshire at en.wikipedia
Video clip on "Ptolemy's geocentric universe" - You Tube; twistedlot
An animated simulation for phases of Venus - Physics Flashlets by Michael Timmins
Video clip on "Earth Rotation & Revolution around a moving Sun" - By Kurdistan Planetarium
Video clip "The solar system's motion thru space" - By The Resonance Project / Nassim Haramein.avi
A video clip on simulating Michelson-Morley experiment in aether wind - You Tube; pepenjuto
An animated simulation of Michelson-Morley experiment - Physics Flashlets; Michael Fowler
Animated artist impression of a spheroidal quantum vortex - Courtesy of Thomas Seifert by email