See
externally linked topics on "Grounded
Theory" that summarizes its purpose of theory
construction, a subtopic on "The
benefits of using grounded theory" that elaborates on the merits
with the inquiry method of grounded theory, a paper on "Visual
Grounded Theory" that elaborates on conducting research with
visual data. See also a Facebook wall on "Draw
Your Thoughts" on the outreaching for its
hardcopy book that elaborates on its visual analytic research methodology.
The
methodology
of this UVS grounded theory with its
philosophy of science, methodically induces the resolutions
for the actualities of the vortically demonstrated natural phenomena,
and thus could elucidate their naturally negated
empirical observations. This is by elucidating
their observational delusions,
which are being subliminally
rendered in a typical obfuscated manner by the
paradoxical effect of the cosmos.
“By
realizing the paradoxical effect of the cosmos, it enlightens on how natural
phenomena
could be negated to render their delusions in a typical obfuscated manner.”
- UVS inspired -
In
its epistemological
paradigm shift, the research based on the UVS model for developing
its hypotheses,
is collectively grounded on its
epistemic process and methodology to induce the resolution on
the
actualities of
the
natural phenomena, which are enigmatically demonstrating the nested
hyperspherical variants of the structurally transformed torus
and their unisonal vortex characteristics.
Note:
The animation on right illustrates how a torus
could transform. It shows as the distance to the axis of revolution
decreases, the ring torus becomes a horn torus, then a spindle torus,
and when the distance approaches zero, the torus will resemble a
sphere.
|

A
transforming
torus structure. |
This
epistemic
process is grounded for the hypothetical constructs of the natural
phenomena, construed with their systematically explicated
underlying structures and mechanisms that are coherently established
with the UVS
model, which depicts different forms of nested unisonal
vortices manifested in the various forms of nested torus structure.
See
the UVS topics on "The
structure of the observable universe" that illustrates
a postulated vortical paradigm for the macrocosms and the microcosms
of the observable universe, and “The
inspirations of Universal Vortical Singularity” for
the excerpts of some all-encompassing sculptural ideas that were
inspired in the UVS research.
|
|
An
illustration of
a unisonal vortex. |
|

A nested solid
torus structure. |
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 on the conceptual framework of
UVS, it could methodically resolve the
cognitive paradoxes
that are
being naturally presented in the subliminally negated
observations of the natural phenomena.
Every
visual inductive resolution of the UVS research for the apparently observed natural
phenomenon that enigmatically demonstrates vortical characteristics, is
implicitly
or explicitly
explicated with its five
Ws on how it subliminally manifests its delusional
observation. It
explicates on who (the natural phenomenon) and to whom
it 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
vortical structures for perceiving enigmatic natural phenomena with
their UVS hypothetical constructs, and then by invoking their transcendental
perceptions in the conceptual framework of UVS to intuitively elucidate
on the actualities by realizing their subliminally negated circumstances,
this epistemic process could resolve the natural cognitive paradoxes of
their delusional observations by abductive
reasoning.
With
the resolved cognitive paradoxes, this epistemic process thus reveals
how such delusional observations of the natural phenomena, are being paradoxically
rendered in all possible manners of their 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 their
predications
from the UVS perspective, and thus explicates to theorize on the actualities
of the paradoxically rendered natural phenomena.
These
UVS predications
construed
with
elucidated delusions and resolved cognitive paradoxes, are the a
priori propositions that were developed
with coherence
theory of truth
in the UVS worldview
to explicate on how the natural phenomena actually work in reality.
And with empirical
evidence to substantiate the predications in their correspondence
theory of truth, these propositions could be conclusively proven.
In
a nutshell, with these epistemic
theories of truth applied in the UVS research, they are the primary
methodology to qualitatively evaluate the vortically demonstrated natural
phenomena of the entire observable universe throughout the macrocosms
and the microcosms.
To
appraise the efficacy of the UVS research methodology, sample these quite
straightforward case
studies: "Dual-core
craters", "Dust
devil", "Tropical
cyclone", "Polar
jet stream", "The
Antarctica Ozone Hole", "The
axial precession of the Earth", "The
vortices of Jupiter", "Planetary
rings", "Globular
cluster", and "The
CMB dipole".
Remarks:
Despite these natural phenomena have anomalies
or unsolved
problems in physics, the UVS research qualitatively resolved the physical
paradoxes of their conventional wisdom with its visual inductive resolutions
on their actualities, and they are substantiated with proofs or compelling
evidence.
The
visual inductive resolutions of the UVS research that invoke their transcendental
perceptions with the underlying structures and mechanisms postulated for
the vortically demonstrated natural phenomena, enlightens
extensively. The resolving power for its resolutions on the actualities
of those paradoxically rendered natural phenomena, resolves explicitly.
The explanatory
power with its hypothetical constructs construed from the perspective
of the UVS conceptual framework, is downright groundbreaking.
And the predictive
power for its qualitative
predictions explicated with the UVS predications on the actualities
of the natural phenomena, is outright revolutionary.
“By
visualizing the underlying vortical structures and mechanisms, it intuitively
reveals the actualities of the mysteriously rendered natural phenomena.”
- UVS inspired -
The
scale
invariance of UVS coherently pans out extensively with numerous empirical
observations of natural phenomena at many 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
synthesizes these hypotheses to augment
in a nested 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 macrocosm
and microcosm 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
hyperspherical pushed-in gravity" that unifies the gravity phenomenon
in macrocosms and microcosms, and "Unisonal
evolution mechanism" that elaborates on vortical evolution for
how it begets existences from the macrocosms to the microcosms.
.
.gif)
In
a nutshell, the following epistemic processes constitute as the
epistemic process and methodology of the UVS research that augments
with its nested positive feedback loop:
- The
epistemic process for developing the hypothetical constructs
of natural phenomena, is based on coherence
theory of truth for its visual grounded theory to
postulate the underlying structures and mechanisms of
the empirical observations. These hypothetical constructs
are developed with the reality paradigm shift of the UVS
model for their analyses in the perspectivalism of the
UVS worldview. This process coherently conceives the UVS
hypothetical constructs to invoke their transcendental
perspectives in the conceptual framework of UVS, and thus
methodically resolves the cognitive paradoxes of the natural
phenomena with the elucidations of their observational
delusions.
- The
epistemic process for developing the predications of UVS
in its worldview, is based on correspondence
theory of truth for its visual grounded theory to
qualify these postulated predications. These predications
with the epistemological paradigm shift of the UVS research,
explicate the actualities of the empirical observed natural
phenomena with a priori reasoning from
the UVS perspective.
This process with the gathering of empirical evidence
to prove the UVS predications, verifies the postulations
in a positive feedback loop to validate, reject, or refine
the predicated actualities.
- The
epistemic process for developing the UVS treatise as a
theory of everything in physical cosmology, is based on
epistemic
theories of truth for its visual grounded theory to systematically
synthesize the evidently qualified UVS hypotheses. This
process collectively synthesizes the UVS hypotheses to
augment in an overall positive feedback loop, and thus
coherently develops its theory of everything by extending
the UVS worldview.
|
See
the UVS topics on "The
criteria of truth for the UVS research" that elaborates
on a qualitatively refined scientific method, and "The
afterword of UVS" that elaborates on the inception of
the UVS research.
|
.
The
significance of the UVS research
1. |
|
It
methodically resolved cognitive paradoxes with its visual grounded
theory research for numerous paradoxically rendered natural phenomena.
 |
|
|
|
2. |
|
It
unequivocally offered the visual inductive resolutions for the actualities
of empirically observed natural phenomena throughout the macrocosms
and the microcosms.  |
|
|
|
3. |
|
It
heuristically propositioned a concept of celestial mechanism that
is consistent as well as universally coherent.
|
|
|
|
4. |
|
It
critically falsified the Big Bang theory on its propositions for the
metric expansion of space and also the cosmic inflation.  |
|
|
|
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 thus in its reality and epistemological
paradigm shifts, 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 the gravity phenomenon 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 macrocosm and microcosm as a single system.  |
.
The
scientific revolution of the UVS research
The
scientific
revolution of
the UVS research
with
its elucidated
delusions of
the
paradoxically rendered
natural
phenomena,
emphasizes on the resolutions
for the
actualities
of
their
empirical observations.
Extensively,
the visual inductive resolutions of the research have had resolved numerous natural cognitive
paradoxes
of the paradoxically rendered natural phenomena, and thus had elucidated
their observational delusions. These
elucidations can be applied to re-evaluate
those mainstream scientific
theories of the physical
science that
are explicating on such natural phenomena with all kinds of
physical
paradoxes.
The
resolved natural cognitive paradoxes
can be efficaciously used to critically review
these scientific theories from their
first
principles,
and thus could elucidate the science delusions in their spurious
propositions that predicate
what are going on in the empirically observed natural phenomena.
With the elucidated science delusions, these can resolve the misconceptions
of those fallacious mainstream scientific
theories
that insidiously
mislead with the artificial cognitive paradoxes created in their scientific
constructs.
In
independent qualitative evaluations to review the criteria
of truth construed in the theories
of justification for these scientific theories that suffered science
delusions, their artificial
cognitive paradoxes
were thus meticulously resolved.
Intrinsically,
the artificial cognitive paradoxes of these fundamentally incorrect
scientific theories, rendered
their physical paradoxes with their fallaciously contrived posits,
which have had resulted in all forms of science delusion.
The
cognitive paradox fallacies in the fallaciously validated propositions
of these mainstream scientific theories, the informal
fallacies in their posits, and the formal
fallacies in their deductions, were thus addressed and resolved in
their reviews.
These
reviews also elucidate on how the fallacious mainstream scientific theories,
were all speciously
validated in their
follies with
the intrinsically flawed scientific
method.
.
Critique of the scientific method on its intrinsic flaws
In
a nutshell, with grounding in the discipline of epistemology,
this is a critique
of the contemporary scientific
method on its intrinsic flaws.
It
critically analyzed the intrinsic aspects of its foundational
crisis, its fallacious criteria
of truth, and the science delusions it entails with all kinds 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 a golden
age of physics,
and scientific
realism rules with impeccable
and unassailable
proofs.
It is asserted that all the scientifically established proofs with peer-review
for their empirical observations, were accomplished with the well-established
scientific method of modern
science; the claims of scientific proofs for empirical observations
were deemed to be rigorously tested and proven with their repeatable scientific
experiments. As such, any critical discrepancy in the validated scientific
theories
is deemed as must have had been eradicated.
Nonetheless,
if the basis of a scientific
theory was established in a state of delusion,
construed with a natural cognitive
paradox of its empirical observation, its first
principle is fundamentally incorrect. It therefore could be developed
based on its misconception in its paradoxically negated circumstances,
such as it was based on the fallacious posit
for Earth
is the center of the universe, which thus entails the science delusion
for all its propositions.
A
scientific theory that was misled by its natural cognitive paradox, could
be validated with its artificial cognitive paradox construed in the delusion
of its scientific construct.
This
is regardless of how developed, how profound, how logical, how coherent,
how consistent and precise the scientific theory is with its quantitative
analysis for its empirical observation, 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 contemporary scientific method, intrinsically
suffers its foundational crisis with its fallaciously endorsed posits
for developing scientific theories. In the delusions
of grandeur with its confirmation
bias for the empirical observations, its peer-review process for validation
has thus been construed with its fallacious criteria
of truth on
its outset. The general developments for such scientific theories of the
mainstream physical
science, are thus construed with the physical
paradoxes of their science delusions.
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.
“The 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 their theories
of justification were elucidated for numerous 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 contemporary
scientific method for pragmatic
theories of truth, literally ignored qualitative evaluations on the
posits of their hypothetical constructs. Such overemphasis on deductive
analyses with an extreme obsession on higher measurement precisions for
their quantitative predictions, would incognizantly entail all forms of
science delusions in mainstream physics
with their fallacies
of misplaced concreteness.
Any
law
of physics that suffers foundational crisis with its fallacious posit
for its empirical observation, 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 by begging
the question for its premises
in its science delusion, 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 of its empirical observation. As such, it
would have had been fallaciously established in the delusion of its subjective
reality,
and ignorantly refers to its delusionally perceived observation as the
actuality.
Such a misperception for the actuality
of its empirical observation,
was 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 the analytical proof for its
empirical observations,
it is not the proof for its postulated 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 its axiomatic
mathematical construct.
“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 its empirical observations, 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 observations. All such hypotheses asserted
with the contemporary scientific method, are merely the mathematical interpretations
of the empirical observations perceived in the realm of their postulated
subjective realities.
All
mathematical constructs of natural phenomena in theoretical physics, technically
are their hypotheses
established with the propositions 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,
the subjective reality of 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.
“Despite
mathematics can precisely describe empirically observed natural
phenomena with its validated hypothetical constructs, by itself
it is not the correct tool to accurately describe the actualities
of the natural phenomena.”
-
UVS inspired
- |
The
science
as defined in theoretical physics with the contemporary scientific method
to develop hypothetical constructs for emulating natural phenomena based
on its posits for objective
reality, is merely the doctrine for its a
posteriori methodologies and techniques of quantitative analysis,
which are 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, would inevitably result in its cognitive
paradox fallacy when construed with its fallacious posit for objective
reality.
See
an externally linked topic on "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, develops any scientific theory with the contemporary
scientific method, construed 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 for pragmatism
in its artificial cognitive paradox.
All
delusions of the a posteriori
propositions that render their illusions of knowledge, are paradoxically
stemmed from their fallacious posits.
See
the UVS topic on "Logic
and belief systems" that illustrates and elaborates on the causalities
for all forms of science delusion.
“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 for their empirical observations, is generally the correct
scientific method for the investigation of natural phenomena to make scientific
progress. Howsoever, the contemporary scientific method muddles preciseness
as accurateness,
and thus is merely a practice pushing for higher resolution measurements
that could be consistently measured in all kinds of observational delusions.
“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.
A
simple example to illustrate a cognitive paradox fallacy of an apparent
observation that was resolved, can be explicated with a fallacious perception
of the geocentrism. It was postulated that the Sun takes approximately
twenty-four hours to revolve around the Earth, and this could be empirically
observed and quantitatively verified. And since ancient times, the quantitative
prediction for this perception had been 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 officially
falsified since two centuries ago. And in hindsight, it is now completely
dismissed without the slightest doubt that this was stemmed from a false
fact. However, in the geocentric era, this false fact that was construed
with its physical paradox, and deduced in its delusion as a scientifically
proven knowledge with precise quantitative measurements, to a great extent
was undoubtedly, independently, and officially accepted for around two
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 the geocentric
model can work for quantitative predictions of natural events, such
as the earthly events of the
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
systems of epitrochoid
cycle based on the fallacious a priori proposition
that Earth
is the center of the universe, nevertheless could be successfully
used with the deferent
and epicycles of the Sun to make quite precise quantitative
predictions with geocentrism.
Unsustainably,
these workable quantitative analyses reckoned with
validated deductive proofs for substantiating the claim of fact
that it takes a period of approximately twenty-four hours for the
Sun to revolve around the Earth in a solar
day, is a known fallacy in modern science. A mathematical deduction
substantiated with successful quantitative predictions that were
fundamentally derived in the realm of its artificial cognitive paradox,
can analytically conclude a false fact to be valid with self-fulfilling
prophecy by self-reference.
These
cognitive paradox fallacies, were as the results of the natural
delusions that are being rendered in an apparent geocentric motion.
They were caused by the relative motion illusions with a subliminally
manifested natural negation to result in their fallacious empirical
observations of the natural phenomena.
Image
on right illustrates the basic elements of Ptolemaic
system for astronomy based on the geocentric model, showing
a planet (orange color object) on an epicycle (smaller dotted circle)
with a deferent (larger dotted circle) and an equant
(solid black dot •) directly opposite the Earth (purple and
white color object) from the center of the deferent (symbol x).
Watch a video clip on "Ptolemy's
geocentric universe" for further elaboration. |
|
The
apparent
retrograde motion of a planet can be solved mathematically with
the deferent and epicycle of the planet based on geocentrism. And
the mathematical construct of the epicycle system, developed based
on the apparent planetary motion as observed in the celestial
spheres, can provide workable solutions with its quite precise
quantitative predictions for describing this peculiar phenomenon
that recurs periodically.
The
empirically observed epicycles of planets were deemed as immutable
facts in the geocentric era.
|

Apparent
retrograde
motion of Mars.  |
Nonetheless,
it is now a falsified fact that the planet in its apparent retrograde
motion, is physically moving in the opposite diurnal
motion as it could be empirically observed from the Earth. The delusion
is caused by the cognitive paradox of its relative motion illusion, rendered
with its passive
transformation in the apparently observed
celestial coordinate system.
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 the 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 was apparently observed to be in their retrograde
motions, was thus officially rejected with the geocentric peer-review
deliberation.
“A
new idea must not be judged by its immediate results.”
- Nikola Tesla
The
mathematical construct of a hypothetical model that can consistently work
with its very precise quantitative predictions for describing an empirical
observation, 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
-
“What one has undoubtedly believed as an actuality is one thing,
what is its actuality 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 the subjective reality of its validated mathematical
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 successfully used for pragmatic
applications, such as for successful tracking of celestial objects with
its highly precise quantitative predictions as could be empirically observed,
it is not the proof
for the actuality on the know-what
of the observed phenomenon.
A
pragmatical know-how developed with the postulated concept
of its scientific model, is not by de-facto the proof
for the actuality of its empirical observation.
The successful predictions for natural phenomena with quantitative rigors
in the exact
sciences of geocentrism, are in fact not the
proofs for the first principles of the postulated geocentric models
of the 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 with
its know-how than those modern pieces of equipment that are heliocentric
based.
A
validated quantitative prediction, despite having true value for its pragmatism,
does not prove its postulated first principle.
In
epistemology, any validated pragmatic
theory of truth with what it postulates, cannot be substantiated as
its criteria
of truth. As valid as these theories could be, their 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 math 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 on 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 Aristotle's theory of gravity, which
falsely states that heavier object falls faster. It was believed that
Galileo proved this predication later by dropping two balls of different
mass from the Leaning Tower of Pisa, and the experiment demonstrated that
the time of the 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,
is 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.
Despite
Galileo believed mathematics is the language of the universe, he emphasized
it with the conviction of qualitative analyses.
In
an era where astronomy was based on the geocentric model of the
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 his 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,
then by abductive
reasoning
in
its transcendental perspective on
Venus
showed its phase and size variations with a peculiarity, which
can only happen if it was revolving around the Sun. Galileo thus
resolved the physical
paradox by elucidating its geocentric model delusion for the
orbiting path of Venus, and therefore proved 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 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
Not
even a single formula was involved for this visual inductive resolution
accomplished by Galileo, and the method had conclusively proven the a
priori proposition on Venus revolves around the Sun and not the
Earth; its resolution was gradually drawn out that eventually established
its qualitative proof with its corresponding theory of truth after the
extensive period of observation.
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 more correctly for developing
its a
posteriori
knowledge with quantitative
research. This thus could enable its further research to be accurate
on making the quantitative predictions for the location, phase, size,
and brightness of Venus for its time-based observations observed from
the postulated 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 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 stereotypings
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
predications.
Since
the transition to modern
physics, the essence of the original
scientific method practiced by Galileo, which was later advocated
by Francis
Bacon, has had been compromised.
See
an externally linked topic on "Baconian
method" that elaborates on the application of inductive reasoning
for making generalizations from observations.
“We
should remember that there was once a discipline called Natural
Philosophy. Unfortunately, this discipline seems
not to exist today. It has been renamed science, but the science
of today is in danger of losing much of the natural philosophy aspect.”
-
Hannes
Alfven, 1986. |
Specifically,
the exact
science as defined in the nowadays mainstream physics with the officially
endorsed fundamental theories for establishing pragmatic
theories of truth in their subjective realities that emulate the objective
reality, is very much constrained only in the development of the a
posteriori knowledge of measurements with mathematical formalizations.
And generally, it merely requires rigorously precise quantitative predictions
in experimental
physics for proving the testable propositions of the empirically observed
natural phenomena, construed in the realms of their models with the officially
endorsed posits.
Unsustainably,
the posits for such typical fundamental theories with the applications
of the contemporary scientific method, were being proven by self-referencing
with the a posteriori knowledge that were established
in their fallaciously endorsed subjective realities.
Critically,
there was no direct
proof that the electron vibration frequency of the caesium-133 atom
used in the 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 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 engineering
and 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 hard-core belief, which has had insidiously
corrupted all its perceptions in the realms of its scientific constructs
that were perceived in their observational delusions.
“One
can persistently fool himself in a delusion that paradoxically and consistently
asserts
his fallacious belief, and therefore persistently believes in 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,
the quantitative proof of a scientific theory, is not the proof
of the scientific theory.
This
is who, what, where, when, and why for how the contemporary scientific
method, has had taken the wrong path for establishing the current form
of modern physics with its fallacious posit for time, and thus has had
rendered its foundational crisis that had resulted in all forms of its
physical paradoxes.
“A tiny wrong assumption could 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
crises,
the mainstream physics
with its intrinsically flawed scientific
method on its criteria
of truth,
renders physical
paradoxes in its science delusions.
The empirical observations evaluated with the intrinsically flawed scientific
method, obliviously
suffered all kinds of natural cognitive paradox. With all types of fallaciously
assumed posits, their hypotheses
thus suffered all kinds of foundational crisis. The conclusions of their
experiments, therefore factitiously
suffered all types of reifications
rendered with their artificial cognitive paradoxes. And they were speciously
validated by self-referencing
with all kinds of circular
definitions, which were construed in the subjective realities of their
fallaciously postulated hypothetical
constructs. Consequently, these undertakings with all possible ways
of complex circular
reasoning, would inevitably entail all kinds of physical paradox.
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 the a priori proposition of its
empirical observation, is the foremost. Despite quantitative
research with true
value is an essential aspect for scientific works, its qualitative analysis must precede quantitative analysis.
Without
qualitative proof, it cannot be certain on the quantitative prediction
of any 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
'paradox' is only a conflict between reality
and your feeling of what reality 'ought to be.'”
-
Richard Feynman
“Science
is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” -
Richard Feynman
“I
have often made the hypothesis that ultimately physics will not require
a mathematical statement,
that in the end the machinery will be revealed and the laws will turn
out to be simple.” -
Richard Feynman
“Looking
back at the worst times, it always seems that they were times
in which there were people who believed with absolute faith and
absolute dogmatism in something. And they were so serious in this
matter that they insisted that the rest of the world agree with
them. And then they would do things that were directly inconsistent
with their own beliefs in order to maintain that what they said
was true.”
- Richard Feynman |
.
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
Solar System model with elliptical orbits, which are still being
disseminated in 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", "Heliosphere"
that elaborates on how are planetary orbits manifested in
their ring torus orbitals, "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.
Everything
in the Solar System, and that includes the Sun, in actual
fact is vortically revolving around the gravitational
singularity of the Milky Way in a nested helical motion.
It
could thus be perceived that 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 its vortically captured
nebulous material. This infers the motion of the Sun, is primarily
impelled by the vortical motion of its galaxy. And this thus
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 visual 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 the hyperspherical pushed-in gravity in
superior and inferior conjunction", and "Sunspot"
that elaborate on how some significant discoveries could
be asserted with this UVS perspective. |
|
Star
HL Tau and its
protoplanet HL Tau b |
|
Although
the proposition of heliocentrism
is valid on the Earth is not the center of the universe, its
posit
of a static Sun is the center of the universe with motionless
stars was falsified in the twentieth century astronomy. Notwithstandingly,
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
in the torus force fields of their nested vortical hyperspheres.” -
UVS inspired
-
The
orbit of a planet is manifested by the vortical motion that
has intrinsically transferred from the nested hypersphere
of the Solar System.
|
|
.
The cognitive paradox fallacy in Big Bang model on the 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 postulated that 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 postulates 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.
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".
“Time
and space are modes in which we think and not conditions in
which we live.”
-
Albert Einstein
In
the UVS worldview,
the observable
universe forms its
physical structures in the
paradigm of a vortical hypersphere.
See
the UVS topics on "The
apparently observed expanding universe", "Qualitative
evaluation on time dilation",
"Michelson-Morley
experiment reviewed with UVS",
"The
UVS reviews on the General Relativity concepts of gravity",
"The
causality of gravity", "The
cosmological model of UVS", and "The
formation of stars and galaxies" for further elaboration.
The observable universe is vortically formed in the torus transformed nested hypersphere that has had manifested the cosmos with its intrinsic two-axis spin.
|
|
.
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 the expansion
of space with the 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. |
|
Animated
raisin pudding model as the analogy of the Big Bang
expansion. |
|
Nonetheless,
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 relativistic
time frame negation effect.
Hence,
in circumstances of the 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 paradoxically appear to be receding at increasing
velocities than a distant galaxy at a nearer timeline of lesser
distant past.
This
would naturally render an optical illusion as a result of the
relativistic time frame negation effect, and thus renders the
apparent observation on distant galaxies are receding in acceleration
at rates proportional to their distance.
Its
cognitive paradox fallacy is as a result of its empirical observation
that was perceived in its composite optical illusion, which is
rendered by the composite effect of timeline and time dilation.
See
an externally linked topic on "Accelerating
expansion of the universe" that elaborates on how the
accelerated expansion of space were measured by two independent
projects.
The
proposition on the universe is expanding at an increasing rate
with proper distance at proper
time as observed, concluded with the cosmic
scale factor a(t) has a positive second
derivative, did not address or account for the relativistic
time frame negation effect; it merely creates a fallacious artificial
cognitive paradox with its mathematical
treatment that misleads people with a misconception to
believe its relativistic effects had been accounted.
Paradoxically,
a receding distant galaxy that was later observed to have a higher
velocity in different time frame, was actually its time dilated
image observed at a further timeline of its more distant past.
For instant, a receding distant galaxy observed in its time dilation
image one year later, is paradoxically its image of another one
more year older, which at then the image reaches the Earth from
a farther timeline.
The
mathematical treatment applied to illustrate that space accelerates
exponentially, asserted with the proposition of proper distance
for the calculation of the 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 relativistic time frame negation effect; the derivation of
velocities among the distant galaxies was apparently observed on
different timelines.
The
peer-reviewed conclusion of the revised Big Bang model with cosmic
inflation on exponentially expanding space, is a fallacy.
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
proposition for accelerated expansion of space, is a physical paradox
that was fallaciously asserted in its delusional observations, which
had thus entailed its science delusion in the fallacious subjective
reality of its hypothetical construct.
“Without
realizing the cognitive paradoxes that negate to cause delusions
in the observable universe,
the paradoxical effect of the cosmos 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 distant galaxies in the observable universe,
were extending in absolute space with the vortical chain
reaction of a
nested hypersphere system.
The
accelerated receding of distant galaxies is an optically negated
delusional observation, which is rendered by the
paradoxical effect of the cosmos in an obfuscated topsy-turvy
manner.
The distances between distant galaxies in the observable universe
were extending with a vortical chain reaction in absolute
space.
|
.
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. |
|
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 had 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 postulated 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,
the null hypothesis can never assert positively with its hypothetical
posit.
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
postulation 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.
“The
result of the hypothesis of a stationary ether is shown to
be incorrect,
and the necessary conclusion follows that the hypothesis is
erroneous.”
-
Lord Kelvin
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 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
“If
you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it
contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must
abandon
the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings.”
-
Leonardo da Vinci
“In
questions of science, the authority of a thousand
is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.”
-
Galileo Galilei
“Anti-social
behavior is a trait of intelligence in a world full of conformists.”
- Nikola Tesla
“It
is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities
are wrong.”
- Voltaire
“If
you are out to describe the truth, leave elegance to the tailor.”
-
Albert Einstein
“A
man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.”
-
Albert Einstein
“It
is the theory that decides what can be observed.”
-
Albert Einstein
“The
history of our study of our solar system shows us clearly that accepted
and
conventional ideas are often wrong, and that fundamental insights
can arise from the most unexpected sources.”
- Carl Sagan
“It
is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to
persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.”
- Carl Sagan
“False
facts are highly injurious to the progress of science, for they
often endure long;”
-
Charles Darwin
“A
truth that's told with bad intent beats all the lies you can invent.”
- William Blake
“You
never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change
something,
build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”
- R. Buckminster Fuller
“The
greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance,
it is the illusion of knowledge.” -
Daniel Joseph Boorstin
“The
entire observable universe is subliminally paradoxical.”
- UVS inspired
-
“A
paradoxical effect can consistently fool us with
its cognitive paradox in its state of delusion.”
-
UVS inspired -
“Ironically,
we must not be afraid of being fooled; we are fools fooling ourselves
by afraid of being fooled after we are being subliminally fooled.”
-
UVS inspired
-
“The
paradoxical effect of the cosmos causes cognitive paradoxes by
negating the observations of natural phenomena, and mysteriously
render
them in all possible manners of subliminally negated circumstances.”
- UVS inspired
-
“In
the paradoxes of universal delusions, advocating the subliminally
negated
actualities of natural phenomena, is inevitably a revolutionary
act.” -
UVS inspired-
|

A scientific revolution
|
By Vincent Wee-Foo
|
.
The
predications of the UVS research
In
a nutshell, with the visual grounded
theory research of the UVS treatise, these are the theorized actualities
of the empirically observed natural
phenomena.
The
predications
of the UVS research as listed below, are the meticulously established
a priori
propositions for the actualities of
the empirical observed natural
phenomena. They were
construed
by abductive
reasoning
with the hypothetical constructs of their empirical observations
that are based on the UVS
model,
and were analyzed in the conceptual
framework of UVS.
These
qualitative
predictions with the visual inductive resolutions
of their resolved cognitive paradoxes, are evidently substantiated
for their qualitative proofs.
The
predications
of the UVS research are always subjected to refinements in its
nested positive feedback loop, which strive on their accuracy
with their unfolding 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 verified predications were then augmented
into the UVS worldview,
while 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 case studies with their
visual 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 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 on their a priori knowledge for developing
their quantitative
research to accurately establish their a
posteriori
knowledge with quantitative precision.
See
a UVS paper on "The
UVS case study on the barycentric drivers of the solar cycle"
that elaborate on the ground breaking a posteriori analyses
of the UVS visual grounded theory research.
|
-
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:
An inviscid aetheric medium is all-pervasive throughout the entire observable
universe.
The observable universe is vortically formed in the torus transformed
nested hypersphere that has had manifested the cosmos with its intrinsic
two-axis spin.
-
The
distances between distant galaxies in the observable
universe were extending with a vortical chain reaction in absolute
space.
A supervoid is a vortically resonated toroidal vortex manifested in
the nested hypersphere of the cosmos.
-
The superclusters are held at the outer edges by the adjoining surfaces
of the supervoids.
-
A larger
galaxy cluster with hundreds of galaxy clusters is vortically held by
a nested toroidal vortex to vortically revolve around its center of
mass.
A galaxy cluster with thousands of galaxies are vortically held by a
nested toroidal vortex to vortically revolve around its center of mass.
-
The formation of stars in a cluster of galaxies is systematically caused
by the vortical motion of its nested intergalactic toroidal vortex.
With credit to Professor Christopher W. Hodshire from Western Michigan
University.
-
A galaxy cluster is
vortically manifested and impelled in its nested intergalactic toroidal
vortex in the nested hypersphere of the cosmos.
-
A local galaxy group with tens of galaxies are vortically held by a
nested toroidal vortex to
vortically revolve around its center
of mass.
-
A galaxy group is vortically formed, impelled, and encapsulated by an
optically invisible intergalactic
nested
vortical hypersphere.
-
A galaxy
is vortically formed and impelled by the galactic vortex pair manifested
in its nested vortical hypersphere.
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.
-
A supermassive black hole is a vortical void of luminiferous aether
displaced by the vortical gravitational singularity of its galaxy.
-
A satellite galaxy is induced by the satellite galactic vortex of a
main galactic vortex.
The ripping of a galaxy is caused by the cyclonic gravity field effect
from another larger galaxy system on near encounter.
A
globular cluster is formed in the wake of a dissipated satellite galactic
polar vortex pair that had intrinsically flattened the inner nested
vortical hypersphere.
An
elliptical galaxy is formed in the wake of a dissipated galactic vortex
pair that was flattening its inner nested galactic spheroidal vortex.
A 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.
The binary stars are revolving around each other in a common plasmatic
shell that has merged from the plasmatic shells of the two stars.
A star cluster is held together by the strong interactions from the
electromagnetic vortices of the stars in the weak vortical interactions
of their common galactic vortex.
A stellar black hole is a vortical void of luminiferous aether transformed
by a manifested vortical gravitational singularity of its star cluster
system.
heliosphere is intrinsically formed by its nested vortical
hypersphere of the Solar System.
An accretion disk is formed by the vortically flattened polar vortex
pair in the inner sections of a nested toroidal vortex.
The glow of a a star is vortically ignited by the dynamo effect of magnetohydrodynamics
manifested in a resonated harmonic of its vortical gravitational singularity.
A new star is evolved by vortically coalesced stellar cloud formed in
a nested bipolar stellar vortex pair.
With credits to Allen
Barrow.
A
protoplanet
is formed with interstellar clouds by
a resonated nested satellite vortex pair manifested in its planetary
system.
The Sun is impelled by its galactic vortex to rotate and revolve around
the Galactic Center in a perpetual vortical motion.
Star is impelled by its galactic vortex to vortically form with coalesced
nebulous material in a nested bipolar stellar vortex pair manifested
in its nested toroidal vortex.
A
black hole is a dual-core vortical void of luminiferous aether displaced
by a harmonic resonant of aether vortical motion.
A protoplanetary disk is a vortrex with glowing plasma and it is impelled
by the vortical column of its protostar.
A protostar is vortically spawned with the consolidated stellar clouds
resonated in its nested toroidal vortex.
Stellar nucleosynthesis is caused by hyperspherical vortex spin fusion
to assemble chemical elements with nuclear reactions occurring in the
cores of stars.
A star's nova outburst of x-ray and gamma ray is caused by a highly
energetic spinor field that underlies the star.
-
The brightness of star depends on electric current generated by dynamo
effect in magnetohydrodynamics of vortically consolidated plasma.
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.
-
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.
The thermal radiation from the interior of a planetary object is generated
by the vortical motion manifested in its nested layers of viscous matter
with its induced precession effect.
-
The stars are held apart in their clusters by the electrostatic
repulsion forces that have manifested vortically on their nested vortical
hypersphere.
-
A stellar jet is vortically formed in a polar vortex column with an
ionized jet of gas stream that has vortically culminated in its nested
toroidal vortex. With
credit to Anna
Lorrina Mitchell.
-
The debris disk of star is consolidated by a flattened nested stellar
polar vortex pair.
-
The glowing spokes on debris disk of a star are satellite
plasma vortices.
-
The Ring Center of a star is a polar vortex center of its planetary
system.
-
A
supernova is caused in an unwinding process of its aetheric vortex that
impels the star to violently spin in the opposed directions.
-
The red giant star is vortically unwound to expand and expel its materials.
With
credit to anonymous from Singapore.
-
A
planetary nebula is a consolidating diffused star wobbling in precession
with its nested and glowing plasma polar vortrex pairs.
A sunspot is a plasmatic unisonal vortex that has spawned in the photosphere
of the Sun.
-
The inert dark center of a sunspot is caused by the void
of vortex eye that limits convection.
The long-lived corona holes in the form of polar caps of the Sun, are
vortical voids in the polar vortex pair of the photosphere.
-
The solar jet stream pair is vortex substructures impelled by the polar
vortex pair of the photosphere.
-
The solar jet stream pair is manifested by the intense vortical interactions
of the BOTSS and the Sun by aligning with other major planetary barycenters.
-
A sunspot cluster is impelled by its solar jet stream and
this is impelled by its polar vortex in a unisonal vortical motion.
The
solar cycle is modulated by the barycenters of the major planets that
periodically align with the BOTSS and the Sun.
-
The eco-systems on Earth are extended far out into the Solar System
are significantly influenced by the oscillating BOTSS.
The grand solar minima are largely caused by the planetary barycentric
superior conjunctions when the Sun approaches nearest to the BOTSS during
the trough periods of the solar cycle.
-
The grand solar maxima are largely caused by the planetary
barycentric inferior conjunction when the Sun moves farthest away from
the BOTSS during the peak periods of the solar cycle.
-
The superior conjunction of Jupiter-Sun-Saturn would push Saturn to
a nearest point from the Sun with the effects of the hyperspherical
pushed-in gravity.
-
The inferior conjunction of Sun-Jupiter-Saturn would push Saturn to
a farthermost point from the Sun with the effects of the hyperspherical
pushed-in gravity.
The Sun is not the center of the Solar System.
-
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.
A sunspot pair is a dual-core unisonal vortex of the Sun's photosphere
and its dual-core is separated on its surface.
-
A corona mass ejection is caused by the conserved angular
momentum in the vortex column of a ruptured solar prominence.
-
The synchronized peaks for sunspot activities with climatic events on
Earth are primarily caused by aligned Sun, Jupiter, Saturn, and the
barycenter of the Solar System.
-
The comets in the Oort cloud revolve around the barycenter of the Solar
System in an uniformly spread out manner are vortically consolidated
in the two-axis spin of its nested vortical hypersphere.
The comet's huge nested atmosphere is vortically held by its underlying
spheroidal torus vortex.
The comet outburst events in the outer Solar System are triggered by
significant barycenter effects of celestial objects.
The cometary electric glow discharge of gas coma in the outer Solar
System is rendered by the manifested charge field of significant barycenter
effects.
The Lagrangian points in the macrocosms are harmonics of vortically
manifested accreting spinor fields rendered by vortical motion of interacting
celestial objects.
The 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.
The Lagrangian points could also be manifested from the spinor field
of a planetary barycenter that interacts with another Solar System objects.
The gas tail of comet is a glowing section of unisonal vortex manifested
in the coma.
The dust tail of the comet is formed by the vortrex of its gas tail
vortex.
-
The vacuum in the gas tail of comet is the void in the vortex column
of its coma.
The craters on a comet can be drilled and carved by the vortical culmination
of manifested unisonal vortices in the coma.
-
The splitting of comet can be caused by the cyclonic gravity field effect
from larger suspended spheroid on near encounter.

The gas tail of the comet points directly to the dual-core magnetic
Rring Center of the solar system. *falsified
The gas tail of the comet aligns with the magnetic spoke lines of the
Solar System while it revolved around the BOTSS.
Revamped.
The
planetary rings are the flattened nested polar vortex pair on the outer
atmospheric layers of a planet.
The
Great White Spot on Saturn is a vortex cluster rendered by the revolving
precession effect of Saturn with its axial tilt on a periodically intensified
jet stream.
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.
-
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.
-
The cloud bands on Jupiter are formed by its nested polar vortex pair
with their cascaded vortex columns opened to differentiated extents
on its nested atmosphere.
The jet streams on Jupiter are manifested by the vortrices of the nested
polar vortex pair of Jupiter.
The
ovals and storms on Jupiter are coalesced by satellite vortices manifested
and impelled by the nested polar vortex pair of Jupiter.
The Jupiter's retrograde cloud bands are formed by the differential
motions in the chains of merged cyclonic satellite vortex clusters.
-

The Great Red Spot of Jupiter is primarily impelled by the three
Galilean moons in Laplace resonance. *falsified
The Great Red Spot is a persistent atmospheric eddy of its anti-cyclonic
satellite vortex formed at a fixed spot.
Revamped.
-
The solar System objects were manifested by hyperspherical vortex spin
fusion of interstellar clouds in resonant frequencies of standing wave
and they are vortically propagating in longitudinal waves.
The Solar System is formed in a planetary vortical system that has manifested
in the galactic vortical system of the Milky Way.
The
orbitals of natural satellites were developed as a result of conserved
angular momentum are being transferred from their underlying nested
toroidal votices.
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.
-
The
rotation of Venus is cyclonically spinning in counter-clockwise direction
in its counter-clockwise revolving path. Inspired
in a
forum discussion with Graham Burnett.
The primeval Earth with its Moon is vortically coalesced
with nebulous matarial captured in their ring torus force fields.
-
The Moon will be at a farthermost away point from the Earth in the lunar
opposition during the perihelion of the Earth.
-
The Moon will be at a nearest point to the Earth in the lunar opposition
during the aphelion of the Earth.
-
The tidal force is
vortically caused by a universal hyperspherical pushed-in gravity with
the reactive push momentum in its barycenter motion.
A
focused torque-induced precession from the Solar System alignment effect
can manifest all sorts of significant natural events on Earth.
A polar aurora is induced to manifest by its intensified nested atmospheric
polar vortex.
The electromagnetic storm in the presence of an aurora is caused by
the intensified vortical effect of its underlying atmospheric vortex.
-
The
aurora glow is caused by the electric current generated by the dynamo
effect of the vortically consolidated plasma manifested in the ionosphere.
A clear air vortex is formed in an invisible atmospheric layer with
its resonated torque-free precession.
The
Antarctica Ozone Hole within the polar vortex wobbles and rotates in
synchronization with the Earth-Moon precession cycle.
The
Antarctica Ozone Hole is mechanically caused by the polar vortex that
displaces the ozone layer inside its vortex column.
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.
The Antarctica Ozone Hole can be significantly affected
by a focused torque-induced precession of the Solar System alignment
effect.
-
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.
A polar vortex is a nested atmospheric free vortex manifested on the
polar axis with the precession effect of the Earth.
A polar vortex could be significantly affected by the focused tidal
force from an alignment of the major Solar System objects.
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.
The
seasonal variation on Earth is rendered by the extent of how much the
nested polar vortex has opened up toward the equator.
-
The Antarctica polar vortex wobbles in synchronization
with the Earth-Moon precession cycle.
The Arctic polar vortex is
embedded to Earth's rotation by the dragging effects of landmass.
The polar jet stream with significant differences in temperature at
the boundaries of adjacent air masses is as a result of the sunken atmosphere
in the polar vortex column.
A polar jet stream is manifested in the ring torus structure that has
vortically formed in its nested atmospheric polar vortex.
The shifting of jet stream latitude is caused by the intensity variations
of its undulating polar vortex.
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.
The ice age is caused by a precession effect of the Solar
System.
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.
The Little Ice Age is as a result of the superior conjunctions of major
Solar System barycenters during a solar minimum.
The subtropical climate is primarily caused by the nested polar vortex
with its nested vortex column manifested within the boundary of the
subtropical jet stream.
The polar climate is caused by the vortically dispersed atmospheric
layers in the vortex column of a polar vortex that is filled with the
cold air from a higher atmospheric layer.
-
A tropical cyclone is formed by its underlying atmospheric clear air
vortex spawned in the troposphere.
-
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.
-
A storm surge could be caused by the vortrex of its atmospheric vortex
with its persistence angular momentum that vortically pushes water away
from its vortex column in shallow water.
A tornado of condensed funnel cloud is coalesced by an atmospheric
free vortex with its vortex eye opened.
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.
-
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.
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.
The phenomena of supercell, tropical storm, and thunderstorm
are modulated by their resonated atmospheric free vortices
An
atmospheric precipitation is caused by vortical compression of consolidated
clouds on the atmospheric surface they are levitated.
-
The collision of cold front and warm front is caused by the vortical
motion of two atmospheric layers impelled by a polar jet stream.
The low pressure in a storm is caused by the vortical motion of an atmospheric
vortex in its vortex column.
The showers of uniformly spread raindrops, snowflakes, or hails in homogenous
forms are rendered by the harmonic vortex cluster formed by torque-free
precession resonated in the atmospheric vortex.
A
dust devil
is formed by a nested clear air vortex with its angular momentum that
charges and levitates dust particles in its nested vortrex.
A
dust storm is formed by a huge cyclonic atmospheric free vortex that
vortically levitates the charged dust with its vortrex.
The subtropical desserts along subtropical ridge are caused by the vortical
motion of free vortices manifested in the troposphere.
-
The 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.
-
Downburst is vortically impelled by atmospheric vortex.
An
air-pocket commonly experienced by cruising aircraft is caused by the
vortex column of a clear air vortex where there is a void of the usual
atmospheric layer.
A
peculiar type of pit craters with dual-core markings were vortically
formed by the manifested dual-core unisonal vortices of liquefied soil
resonated on the Earth's crust.
An earthquake could be triggered by the forced vortices of the mantle
sphere with the precession effects of Solar System objects.
The
continental drift is caused by vortical motion manifested in the mantle
sphere with the motion of the Earth spirally moving in a gyrating Solar
System.
An intraplate earthquake is caused by seismic waves generated from a
forced vortex of the mantle sphere with resonated torque-free precession.
-
A volcano eruption could be triggered by strong torque-induce precession
of the Solar System alignment effect.
-
A huge clear air unisonal vortex resonated in a fixed region on Earth
renders the mysterious circumstances of Bermuda Triangle.
-
A natural oceanic whirlpool is an oceanic free vortex spawned by a manifested
oceanic torque-free precession.
-
A deep-ocean whirlpool cluster is triggered by a focused precession
effect of a Solar System arrangement with its rendered torque-free precession.
-
An underwater spheroidal whirlpool is formed by a resonated toroidal
vortex manifested in deep ocean.
-
The Gulf Stream is manifested by the oceanic jet stream of a nested
oceanic free vortex.
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.
-
A tidal bore is a traversing standing wave manifested by a resonated
torque-free precession of a wobbling Earth.
-
A tidal bore could be manifested by the seismic waves transferred from
a rumbling vortex of mantle sphere formed underneath the Earth's crust.
-
Gravity is vortically rendered by quantized electromagnetic vortices.
With
credits to James
Aaron Nicholson.
-
Gravity is a manifestation of vortical core-seeking motion in a hypersphere
and it vortically pushes matters inward to the mass center.
Inspired by Tiny Bits
Part I on Gravity.
-
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.
-
The gravitational singularity of a supermassive black hole is collectively
manifested with the vortical gravitational singularities of all planetary
systems in the galaxy.
-
The magnetosphere is a nested vortical hypersphere of a torus transfomed
structure.
-
A magnetic field line is a vortically coalesced aetheric jet stream
of harmonic laminar flow in vortical harmonics of progressive angular
phase.
The geomagnetic reversal of Earth is caused by the field effect of a
prominent barycenter manifested in the Solar System.
-
Chemical elements are created by the hyperspherical vortex spin fusion
of aether vortical motion.
-
An atom is a cluster of vortically consolidated electromagnetic toroidal
vortices impelled by the vortical motion of the universe.
Lagrangian points in the microcosms are harmonics of vortically manifested
accreting spinor field rendered by vortical motion of interacting subatomic
particles.
An
electron is vortically resonated and the quantized accreting spinor
field spawned at the Lagrangian points in the dual-core nested electron
shells of an atom.
The subshells of 2s, 3s, 4s, and so forth, are the inner walls of the
torus transformed nested electron shells, and thus they are inversely
nearer to the nucleus than the 1s subshell.
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.
The nested dual-core electron shell of an atom is formed with the nested
hypersphere of a 3-sphere structure.
All
planetary orbitals are abscribing their primodial ring torus structures.
-
The Trojan asteroids are encapsulated in the force field of the torus
transformed vortical hypersphere of Jupiter at its L4 and L5 Lagrangian
points.
An electron has a vortical form with sub-orbitals. By
Allen
Barrow inspired with the UVS model.
An electron is a nested subatomic vortex impelled by its atomic vortex.
-
An 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.
The electron shells are pause layers of equipotential surfaces of a
nested electrostatic spheroid with different electrical energy levels.
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.
A positron
is a subatomic vortrex that vortically folds back to coalesce in the
hyperspherical vortex spin fusion of its electron vortex.
The electrons at opposite ends of their nucleus can interact instantaneously
is caused by the interconnectedness of their underlying atomic vortex.
The covalent bond of chemical elements is caused by the hyperspherical
vortex spin fusion of their electron shells.
Cohesion force of a molecule is a polarization charge effect caused
by the arrangement of its chemical elements with vortically merged electron
shells.
The spin frequency of an electron can be affected by gravitational potential
of Earth that has varying potential density at different altitude and
latitude.
Quark is a subatomic electromagnetic vortex of vortexes. By
Allen
Barrow inspired with the UVS model.
The quarks in an atomic nucleus are EM subatomic
toroidal votices spawned at the Lagrangian points of different angular
phases.
-
The strong nuclear force is rendered by the vortical repulsion force
vortically exerted by the toroidal vortex of hadron.
A meson is a hadronic subatomic particles formed by one quark and one
antiquark that had vortically coalesced at their Lagrangian points with
the strong nuclear force.
A proton is a vortical substructure of an inner
hypersphere that encapsulates two merged cyclonic spheroids and an anti-cyclonic
spheroid.
A neutron is a vortical substructure of an outer
hypersphere that encapsulates two merged anti-cyclonic spheroids and
a cyclonic spheroid.
The weak nuclear force is rendered by the distribution of vortical repulsion
force of spheroidal atomic unisonal vortex to accrete subatomic particles.
An atomic nucleus is
a hypersphere of a 3-sphere system with a Möbius
strip topology for its nested
vortical structure.
A
gluon has a vortical tubular Möbius
strip structure that carries nuclear strong force
to interact between quarks.
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.
A fermion is vortically formed with the
half-integral spins of its subatomic vortices in the material
phase with the condensed vortical fields of an
all-pervasive aether.
A lepton is vortically coalesced with the manifested Lagrangian points
of the antiquarks in its hypersphere of two-body system.
The hydrogen atoms in the universe are formed in the manifested vortical
gravitational singularities by coalescing protons as atomic nuclei with
their spawned electrons.
The stellar nucleosynthesis is caused by the hyperspherical vortex spin
fusion that assembles chemical elements with the nuclear reactions occurring
in the cores of stars.
The different types of atoms are resonated to coalesce at various periodic
cycles and angular phases with the vortical motion manifested a universal
spiral topology.
The structures for the electron shells and subshells of an atom are
vortically resonated with the aether vortical motion of the cosmos.
A photon is vortically emitted from its electron shell with vortically
manifested reactive torque-free precession.
The corpuscles of luminiferous aether are vortically evolved and coalesced
by a nested spheroidal torus vortex system of the universe.
-
A photon is vortically manifested on an inviscid quantized aether corpuscle
with motion induced to it and vortically transferred from it.
An aether corpuscle is intrinsically spiraling with superluminal vortical
motion at twice the speed of light in vacuum.
The supervoid winds with elementary particles are vortically spun out
by the vortical gravitational singularity of its supervoid with reactive
centrifugal force.
Galactic
winds with vortically coalesced particles are vortically spun out by
the vortical gravitational singularity of its galaxy with reactive centrifugal
force.
-
The solar winds with charged particles of protons and electrons are
vortically spun out from the photosphere with reactive centrifugal force.
The radiation
of electromagnetic
wave is caused by the effect of the vortically excited hyperspheres
of aether corpuscles.
-
The
thermodynamics
of the universe is caused by the aether vortical motion in the nested
hypersphere of the cosmos.
“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 Feynman
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
Feynman
.
Glossary:
actuality |
- |
The
quality or state of being actual or real. |
a
priori
|
- |
From
first principles, before experience; from what comes before. Involving
logical reasoning from a general principle to a necessary effect;
valid independently of observation. |
a
priori
assumption |
- |
A
postulation; to assume or assert the truth or necessity of, especially
as a basis of an argument. n. An unproved assertion or assumption,
especially a statement offered as the basis of a theory. |
a
priori knowledge |
- |
Knowledge
that is independent of all particular experiences, as opposed to a
posteriori knowledge, which derives from experience. |
a
priori proposition
|
- |
An
a
priori offering
or suggesting something to be considered, accepted, adopted, or done.
|
a
posteriori |
- |
From
what comes later; after experience. From particular effects to a general
principle; based upon actual observation or upon experimental data:
an a posteriori argument that derives the theory from the evidence. |
a
posteriori knowledge |
- |
Knowledge that derived from experience. |
a
posteriori proposition
|
- |
An
a
posteriori offering or suggesting something
to be considered, accepted, adopted, or done. |
cognition
|
- |
The
act or process of knowing; perception. The product of such a process;
something thus known, perceived, etc. |
cognitive
paradox |
- |
A
contradicting perception in the cognition for its perceived actuality. |
cognitive
paradox fallacy |
- |
The
formal logical fallacy of a cognitive paradox. |
delusion |
- |
A
false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur. |
empirical |
- |
Derived
from or guided by experience or experiment; provable or verifiable
by experience or experiment. |
enigma |
- |
Something
that baffles understanding and cannot be explained. |
enlighten |
- |
Give
greater knowledge and understanding about a subject or situation. |
epistemic |
- |
The
conditions for acquiring knowledge. |
first
principle |
- |
The
first basis from which a thing is known. |
vortical hypersphere |
- |
A
hypersphere formed with intrinsic vortical motion. |
hypothesis |
- |
A
proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for
the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted
merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working
hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established
facts. |
inductive
analysis |
- |
A
form of analysis based on inductive reasoning; a researcher using
inductive analysis starts with answers, but forms questions throughout
the research process. |
inversed
illusion |
- |
A
peculiar type of illusion that paradoxically appears in an inverse
manner. |
inviscid |
- |
Having
no viscosity. |
macrocosm |
- |
The
great world or universe; the universe considered as a whole (opposed
to microcosm ). A representation of a smaller unit or entity by a
larger one, presumably of a similar structure. |
microcosm |
- |
A
little world; a world in miniature (opposed to macrocosm ). |
natural
phenomenon |
- |
A
natural phenomenon is a non-artificial event in the physical sense,
and therefore not produced by humans, although it may affect humans.
|
nothingness |
- |
A
state of existence beyond perceivable bandwidth therefore renders
as nothing in the perceived state; the state of being nothing. |
observable
universe |
- |
The
observable
segment of the universe. |
paradigm |
- |
A
set of forms all of which contain a particular element, esp. the set
of all inflected forms based on a single stem or theme. |
paradox |
- |
Any
thing, or situation exhibiting an apparently contradictory nature
with false proposition. |
paradoxical
effect |
- |
The
effects of a cognitive paradox that is rendered in its state of delusion
to persistently fool us in a perception with its cognitive fallacy. |
posit |
- |
To
put forward as the factual basis for an argument; a fundamental setting
or basis of its hypothesis or theory. |
postulate |
- |
To
assume the truth, reality, or necessity of, as a basis of an argument. |
postulation |
- |
A
principle proposition assumed or perceived to be true for its hypothesis
or theory; an axiom. |
revelation |
- |
Something
revealed or disclosed, especially a striking disclosure, as of something
not before realized. |
resolution |
- |
The
act of analyzing a complex notion into simpler ones; the point in
a literary work at which the complication is worked out. |
science |
- |
Knowledge,
as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study. |
scientific
theory |
- |
A
theory that has achieved scientific consensus that its accepted explanation
through a scientific model is based on observation, experimentation,
and reasoning. |
spheroid |
- |
A
geometrical figure similar in shape to a sphere, such as an ellipsoid. |
subliminal |
- |
Existing
or functioning below the threshold of consciousness or perception. |
theory |
- |
A
coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation
for a class of phenomena. |
transcendental |
- |
Being
beyond ordinary or common experience, thought, or belief. |
unison |
- |
A
process in which all elements behave in the same way at the same time;
simultaneous or synchronous parallel action. |
universe |
- |
The
totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space;
the cosmos; macrocosm. It is beyond the defined observed universe. |
validate |
- |
To give official sanction, confirmation, or approval to, as elected
officials, election procedures, documents, etc. |
viscous |
- |
Having
the property of viscosity; sticky. |
vortical
singularity |
- |
A four-dimensional spheroidal culmination of aether with vortical motion that unisonally spawns its resonated and nested satellite vortical fractals in its vortical paradigm. |
Some
resonated remarks for the UVS research:
“I
know eventually, many will come to see and appreciate, the value of your
work.”
(16th
Aug 2020) / “Love
your work, it has been inspirational as well as foundational to me.”
(26th
Sep 2020)
-
Gordon
Rutherford, research in
extending Milankovitch cycles studies and working on his PhD thesis,
whom had developed a software magnetometer analytical tool composed of
some 11 to 14 million formulas to analyse and predict geology events on
Earth in the field of astro-seismology.
“Although
his
(UVS)
model
is lacking quantitative method, yet he is able to predict solar cycle
fluctuations.”
(17th
Feb 2020)
-
Dr. Victor Christianto & Dr.
Florentin Smarandache, this was a comment on the UVS
case study on the barycenter drivers of the solar cycle, mentioned
in their paper "On
the Possibility of Binary Companion of the Sun".
“Vincent Wee developed an elegant periodic table presentation. Inspired by his
approach I am planning to utilize graph algorithms tools and recent advances
to attempt to expand the chemical science envelop.”
(20th
Dec 2019)
- Elgafi
Mohamed, author of "Phosphoric
Acid and Phosphate Fertilizers", referenced to the UVS periodic
table in charter
4 of this hardcoopy book, applied a
patent (patent number: 6391080) for a related invention of a new process
designed to produce Phosphorus
pentoxide (P2O5)
that is much less polluting and much more energy efficient.
“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 the qualitative prediction of 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
picture on some of these books.
'...
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); author of "NINE
ELEMENT TRINITY".
“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)
- Mr. Au Mun Chew, sidewalk astronomer, retired lecturer of the 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 visual inductive resolutions construed with the UVS research methodology
on numerous enigmatic natural phenomena. June 2009.
2008
References
and links:
Methodology
- From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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
Reality - 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
Toroidal vortex
- 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
Case
study - 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
Theory
of everything
-
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Macrocosm
and microcosm -
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
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
Heliocentrism
- 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
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
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
Engineering -
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Copernicus
- 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
Self-justification
- From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Exact science
- From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Baconian method
- From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Francis
Bacon
- From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Baconian
method
-
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
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
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
Quasar
- From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Catwheel galaxy
- From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Cosmology
- From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Comoving distance
-
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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
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
Animation
for fratals of unisonal vortex - Vincent Wee-Foo
Animated
transformation of torus - By Lucas Vieira; Wiki
Common
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
counter
was reset on 02/02/2010
Disclaimers:
The treatise of Universal Vortical Singularity (UVS) in its epistemological
paradigm shift, is fundamentally unconventional. Its hypotheses grounded
on a generally unheard-of UVS model, bound to have shortcomings, such
as loose ends, errors, and omissions errors. Many details and assumptions
in its propositions have yet to be further researched, probed, evaluated,
validated, or verified. Its implicit explanations are for casual understanding
of the UVS topics presented in the UVS worldview, so if any term or statement
is offensive in any manner from whatsoever perspectives, is most regretted.
Links to other sites do not imply endorsement of their contents; apply
appropriate discretion whenever necessary. Also, the content of the UVS
topics, from time to time could be arbitrarily modified without any notice.
Viewing
tips: Despite the presentations of the UVS web pages has went through
much accommodation for their viewings on smart phones, they are still
not entirely friendly to these mobile devices. For the best experiences,
use a MS Windows based PC or computer system with Java enabled browser
for running its interactive applets.
(Such as Java
Applet of Moiré pattern,
JPL
Small-Body Database Browser, and
Planet
Finder.)
Copyright
information: This UVS web site is for non-profit purposes and not for
commercial use. Wherever possible, direct credits to the origins of the
works or images were provided, be it on
fair
dealings, with explicit permission from
their owners, or the materials were believed to be from the public
domain. |