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[w] of this UVS grounded theory with its philosophy of science[uvs], methodically induces the resolutions[g] for the actualities of the vortically demonstrated natural phenomena, and thus could elucidate[d] their naturally negated[d] empirical observations. This is by elucidating[d] their observational delusions[d], which are being subliminally[d] rendered in a typical obfuscated manner by the paradoxical effect of the cosmos[uvs].

“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[w] paradigm shift, the research based on the UVS model for developing its hypotheses[w], is collectively grounded on its epistemic process and methodology[uvs] to induce the resolution on the actualities of the natural phenomena. These phenomena could be perceived to be enigmatically demonstrating the nested hyperspherical variants of the structurally transformed torus[w] 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. [s]

This epistemic[d] process is grounded for the hypothetical constructs of the natural phenomena to ecludiate with their systematically explicated[d] underlying structures and mechanisms. And these constructs established for their visual inductive resolutions, are coherently grounded on the UVS model that depicts nested unisonal vortices[uvs] manifested in 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. [uvs]

A nested form of torus structure.

The inductive resolutions in the coherentism[w] of the UVS research, are for perceiving the actualities of natural phenomena in their subliminally negated observations. And with its transcendental perspectivalism[w] coherently grounded on the conceptual framework of UVS, it could methodically resolve the cognitive paradoxes[g] that are inherent 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[d] or explicitly[d] explicated with its five Ws[w] 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[w], through analyses by inductive reasoning[w] with the inferred vortical structures[uvs] for perceiving enigmatic natural phenomena with their UVS hypothetical constructs, and then by invoking their transcendental[d] 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[w].

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[uvs] with the elucidated delusions to substantiate its theories of justification[w], 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[g] that were developed with coherence theory of truth[w] in the UVS worldview to explicate on how the natural phenomena actually work in reality[w]. And with empirical evidence[w] to substantiate the predications in their correspondence theory of truth[w], these propositions[w] could be conclusively proven.

In a nutshell, with these epistemic theories of truth[w] 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[d] and the microcosms[d].

To appraise the efficacy[d] of this UVS research methodology, sample these quite straightforward case studies[w] that were construed with its visual inductive resolutions: "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.

These visual inductive resolutions of the UVS research that invoke their transcendental perceptions with the underlying structures and mechanisms postulated[g] for the vortically demonstrated natural phenomena, enlightens[d] extensively. The resolving power for its resolutions on the actualities of those paradoxically rendered natural phenomena, resolves explicitly. The explanatory power[w] with its hypothetical constructs construed from the perspective of the UVS conceptual framework, is downright groundbreaking[d]. And the predictive power[w] for its qualitative predictions[m] explicated with the UVS predications on the actualities of the natural phenomena, is outright revolutionary[d].

“By visualizing the underlying vortical structures and mechanisms, it intuitively
reveals the actualities of the mysteriously rendered natural phenomena.” - UVS inspired -

The scale invariance[w] of UVS coherently pans out extensively with numerous empirical observations of natural phenomena at many levels from the macrocosms to the microcosms. Henceforth, in the UVS worldview, with systemic syntheses[d] of the evidently qualified UVS hypotheses, the UVS research collectively synthesizes these hypotheses to augment[d] in a nested positive feedback loop for its development as a theory of everything[w].

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 throughout the macrocosms and the microcosms works unisonally 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.

.

.
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 throughout the macrocosms and the microcosms works unisonally as a single system.

.
The scientific revolution of the UVS research

The scientific revolution[w] of the UVS research with its elucidated[d] observational delusions[d] of the paradoxically rendered natural phenomena[w], emphasizes on the resolutions[g] for the actualities[d] of their empirical observations.

Extensively, the UVS visual inductive resolutions with their elucidated observational delusions, had resolved numerous natural cognitive paradoxes[g] of the paradoxically rendered natural phenomena. And the insights of these resolutions could be applied to re-evaluate those mainstream scientific theories[w] of the physical science[w] that are explicating on such natural phenomena with their physical paradoxes[w].

The resolved natural cognitive paradoxes can be efficaciously used to critically review these scientific theories from their first principles[w], and thus could elucidate the science delusions in their spurious[d] propositions[w] that predicate[d] 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[d] mislead with the artificial cognitive paradoxes created in their scientific constructs.

In the independent qualitative evaluations for reviewing the criteria of truth[w] on which these scientific theories are based upon, 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[g], which have had thus resulted in their science delusions.

The cognitive paradox fallacies[uvs] in the fallaciously validated propositions of these mainstream scientific theories, the informal fallacies[w] in their posits, and the formal fallacies[w] 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[d] validated in their follies with the intrinsically flawed scientific method[w].

.
Critical analysis of the scientific method on its intrinsic flaws

In a nutshell, with grounding in the discipline of epistemology[w], this is a critique[w] of the contemporary scientific method[w] on its intrinsic[d] flaws.

It critically analyzed the intrinsic aspects of its foundational crisis[w], its fallacious criteria of truth[w], and the science delusions[d] it entails with all its possible constructs of physical paradox[w].

It is generally believed that the prejudices[w] and discriminations[w] like those stemmed from geocentrism in its science delusion, were events of the past. Moreover, there is also a prevalent deep-rooted belief[w] that we are now in a golden age of physics[w], and scientific realism[w] rules with impeccable[d] and unassailable[d] proofs[w]. It is asserted that all the scientifically established proofs with the peer-reviews[w] for their empirical observations, were accomplished with the well-established scientific method of modern science[w]; 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[w] is deemed as must have had been eradicated.

Nonetheless, if the basis of a scientific theory[w] was established in a state of delusion[d], construed[d] with a natural cognitive paradox[g] of its empirical observation, its first principle[w] is fundamentally incorrect. It therefore is developed based on its misconception in its paradoxically negated circumstances, such as it was based on the fallacious posit[d] for Earth is the center of the universe[w], which thus entails the science delusion for all its propositions[w].

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

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. Such a scientific theory would render its physical paradox with its foundational crisis.

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[w], how pragmatic[w] it is in its applied science[w], and how broadly it has had been peer reviewed and accepted by so many experts[w] 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[d] with its confirmation bias[w] for the empirical observations, its peer-review process for validation[d] has thus been construed with its fallacious criteria of truth on its outset. The general developments for such mainstream scientific theories in physical science[w] for natural phenomena, are thus being construed with the physical paradoxes of their science delusions.

See an externally linked topic "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[uvs] for epistemic theories of truth[w] to evaluate the hallmark scientific theories, the science delusions in their theories of justification[w] were elucidated for numerous conventional wisdom[w], as on how they were fallaciously validated with their criteria of truth. The developments for the hypothetico-deductive models[w] of these scientific theories with the application of the contemporary scientific method for pragmatic theories of truth[w], 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[w] with their fallacies of misplaced concreteness[w].

Any law of physics[w] that suffers foundational crisis with its fallacious posit for its empirical observation, would paradoxically distort its perception of reality[w]. 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[w] for its premises[w] in its science delusion, it could paradoxically establish its deductive conclusions that would be fallaciously reckoned with scientific consensus[w] as scientifically established facts[w].

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[g], and ignorantly refers to its delusionally perceived observation as the actuality[d]. Such a misperception for the actuality of its empirical observation, was perceived with its artificial cognitive paradox in its subliminally[d] negated[d] circumstances.

Laws of mathematics with deductive reasoning[w] though are effective tools in applied science, and the propositional knowledge[w] of a theory established by deductive analysis, although can be made unassailably conclusive in its mathematical model[w] with the analytical proof for its empirical observations, it is not the proof for its postulated[d] 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[d] 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[w] solely deduced with quantitative rigors, although could have integrated its inference[w] of reality[w] with its empirical observations, in its abstract[w] with its a priori[g] assumption, it was based on its philosophy of science[w] 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[w] established with the propositions of their axioms[w]. And as much as almost all of the recognized experts in mainstream mathematical physics[w] believe math is the language of the universe[w], the subjective reality of any axiom that was validated with the a posteriori[d] conclusion in the mathematical construct of any natural phenomenon, is not conclusively proven at all when referred to reality.

The science[w] as defined in theoretical physics with the contemporary scientific method to develop hypothetical constructs for emulating natural phenomena based on its posits[g] for objective reality[m], is merely the doctrine for its a posteriori[d] 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[w] or axiom[w] for the a priori proposition[g] of an empirical observation that was claimed to have been conclusively proven by the quantitative rigors of its a posteriori knowledge[m], would inevitably result in its cognitive paradox fallacy[g] when construed with its fallacious posit for the objective reality.

Although mathematics are great tools for applied science, they are being abused in physics.

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[w]. And with its mathematically validated proof for the a priori proposition concluded with its a posteriori knowledge, the scientific theory justified[d] in such positivism[w] at its best can convincingly fool the mass majority of people with its illusion of knowledge, which was construed for pragmatism[w] with the artificial cognitive paradox attests in its subjective reality.

All delusions of the a posteriori propositions[g] 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[w] that with the approach of deductive analyses based on scientific models[w] for attaining highly precise and consistent quantitative predictions to rigorously develop scientific theories with mathematical proofs[w], and then test with repeatable physics experiments[w], is generally the correct scientific method for the investigation of natural phenomena to make scientific progress[w]. Howsoever, the contemporary scientific method muddles preciseness[d] as accurateness[d], and thus is merely a practice pushing for higher resolution measurements[w] that could be consistently measured in various forms 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[w], 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[w] can work for quantitative predictions of natural events, such as the earthly events of the precession[w] cycle, equinox[w], and solstice[w]. Nonetheless, these pragmatic quantitative analyses were fundamentally established on the fallacious a priori proposition of an Earth-centered universe.

The systems of epitrochoid[w] cycle based on the fallacious a priori proposition that Earth is the center of the universe[m], nevertheless could be successfully used with the deferent and epicycles[w] 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[w] by self-reference[w]. 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.

An animation to illustrate epitrochoid. [s] Ptolemaic elements in a geocentric model. [s]

The apparent retrograde motion[w] 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[w], 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. [s]

Nonetheless, it is now a falsified fact that the planet in its apparent retrograde motion, is physically moving in the opposite diurnal motion[w] 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[w] in the apparently observed celestial coordinate system[w].

Any validated theoretical physics model could flop when refers to reality if the posit for what it postulates is not qualitatively verified.

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[w] 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[w] 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[w] with circular definition[w]; 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[w] could be successfully used for pragmatic[w] 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[w] for the actuality on the know-what[d] 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[w] of geocentrism, are in fact not the proofs[w] for the first principles of the postulated geocentric models.

And as a matter of fact, although the equatorial mount[w], celestial sphere[w], and celestial coordinate system[w] 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 has true value for its pragmatism, it does not prove its postulated first principle.

In epistemology, any validated pragmatic theory of truth[w] with what it postulates, cannot be substantiated as its criteria of truth[w]. 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[w] 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[w]. 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 [s]

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[w] predicated[d] with his hypothesis by inductive reasoning[w] on the time of descent for free-falling objects, is independent of their mass. This was with qualitative rigor in the law of noncontradiction[w] 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[g], qualitatively concludes as the a priori knowledge[g] 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[m], all mainstream astronomers in that era believed that Venus[w] 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[w] 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[w]. And after an extensive period of telescopic observation, then by abductive reasoning[w] in its transcendental perspective on Venus showed its phase and size variations with a peculiarity[w], which can only happen if it was revolving around the Sun. Galileo thus resolved the physical paradox[w] 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 [s] The phase and size variations of Venus. [s]

The foundation for the a priori knowledge[m] 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 for its visualizations that eventually established its qualitative proof with its corresponding theory of truth after the extensive period of observation.

According to the discipline[w] of mainstream theoretical physics[w] 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[w] in its nowadays practice.

Nonetheless, this Galilean research is absolutely well-grounded[d] 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[w] in objective reality for the actuality of its empirical observations. From the first principle[w] of this a priori knowledge on Venus revolves around the Sun, it can then be grounded more correctly for developing its a posteriori knowledge[m] with quantitative research[w]. 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[w] 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[w] for physics[w] have had been discreetly prejudiced as scientism[w]. Consequently, under such dogmatic circumstances of the indoctrination[d], those who disagree would be politically pontificated[d] and vilified[d], and then ostracized[d] by all means with all sorts of stereotypings[w] for their marginalizations[d]. While those who endorse with confirmation bias[w], 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[d] predications.

Since the transition to modern physics[w], the essence of the original scientific method[w] practiced by Galileo, which was later advocated by Francis Bacon[w], 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.

Specifically, the exact science[w] as defined in the nowadays mainstream physics with the officially endorsed fundamental theories for establishing pragmatic theories of truth[w] 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[w] 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[w] that the electron vibration frequency of the caesium-133 atom used in the atomic clock[w], 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[w] 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[w]. This is as fallacious as the claims of proof for geocentrism with self-fulfilling prophecy[w] 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[w] 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 the possible constructs 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[d] definition for what is a scientific theory[w], and in self-justifications[w] with its speciously[d] validated propositional knowledge[w] that suffers foundational crises[w], the mainstream physics[w] with its intrinsically flawed scientific method[w] on its criteria of truth, renders all the possible physical paradoxes[w] in its science delusions.

The empirical observations evaluated with the intrinsically flawed scientific method, obliviously[d] suffered in all possible forms of natural cognitive paradox. With the fallaciously assumed posits[g], these hypotheses[w] thus suffered all possible kinds of foundational crisis. The conclusions of their experiments established with all possible forms of artificial cognitive paradox, could therefore be factitiously[d] concluded in all possible ways of reification[d]. Construed with the fallaciously postulated hypothetical constructs[w] that were conceived in all possible factitious forms of subjective reality, they could be speciously validated by self-referencing[w] with all possible means of circular definition[w]. Consequently, these undertakings with the sophistries of their circular reasonings[w], inevitably would entail all possible constructs of physical paradox.

To evaluate the actuality of any natural phenomenon with its scientific hypothesis[m] that refers to reality, the epistemic[w] process with qualitative rigor on correspondence theory of truth[w] for the a priori proposition of its empirical observation, is the foremost. Despite quantitative research[w] with true value[w] 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 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. [s] It is an immutable fact that all Solar System[w] objects including the Sun are moving in helical paths through space while revolving around the Galactic Center[w], and this could be visualized from an external reference frame[w] in their transcendental perspectives. For the revelation on this fact, one have to let go the Copernican heliocentrism[w] 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[w] 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[w] while the Sun moves. It is a scientific-fact[d] that the Sun spirals to revolve around the barycenter of the Solar System with its invariable plane[w] 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[w] 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[uvs] 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[w] 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[w], 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[w]. 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. [s] Although the proposition of heliocentrism[w] is valid on the Earth is not the center of the universe, its posit[d] of a static Sun is the center of the universe with motionless stars was falsified in the twentieth century astronomy. Notwithstandingly, the consilience[w] of Kepler's laws of planetary motion[w] and Newton's law of universal gravitation[w], 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[w] with further support from Newton's laws[m], 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[g] 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[uvs], 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 UVS research predicates 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[w] has expanded from an extremely dense and hot state, and continues to expand today in its metric expansion of space[w]. The model postulated[d] 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[w] 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[w], and it absolutely has flopped under the law of non-contradiction[w]. 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. [s] "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[w], although in its hypothetical construct it would be mathematically valid, and could be analytically understood, in its correspondence theory of truth[w], it was erroneous for its theory of justification[w]; 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[w] forms its physical structures[uvs] in the paradigm of a vortical hypersphere[uvs]. 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 UVS research predicates 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[w] with a runaway expansion of space answers the classic conundrum of the big Bang cosmology[w], 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[m] to explain the empirically observed phenomenon for the accelerated expansion of space with cosmic inflation. It is now postulated[d] in the Big Bang model that space is expanding exponentially. Animated raisin pudding model as the analogy of the Big Bang expansion. [s] Nonetheless, limited by the speed of light[w], the empirical observation of the observable universe on receding galaxies in their frame of reference[w], 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[w] as observed, concluded with the cosmic scale factor[w] a(t) has a positive second derivative[w], 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[g] 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[d] 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[uvs]. The accelerated receding of distant galaxies is an optically negated delusional observation, which is rendered by the paradoxical effect of the cosmos[uvs] in an obfuscated topsy-turvy[d] manner. The UVS research predicates 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. M-M experiment video simulation. [s] However, in all Michelson-Morley experiments, measurements of such expectations were not detected at all, it was thus concluded that the postulated[d] 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[w] does not exist, was based on a null hypothesis[w] with the null result[w] obtained by the Michelson-Morley experiment[w]. 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[d]. 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[w] of affirmative conclusion from a negative premise[w] in a hasty generalization[w] with its argument from ignorance[w]. “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[w]. 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[w], was concluded with its red herring[w] fallacy in its ignoratio elenchi[w]. With the assumption that luminiferous aether is a static medium, one could regressively maintain a fallacious self-referential cognitive paradox with strawman argument[w] to assert that aether was scientifically proven to be nonexistence with its bigotry argument from authority[w]. This is merely a formal fallacy of affirming the consequent[w] in the subjective reality[g] 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[w] by self-reference[w]; 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[w] 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. The UVS research predicates an inviscid aetheric medium is all-pervasive throughout the entire observable universe.

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

.
Main critical propositions of the UVS research

.
The predications of the UVS research

In a nutshell, with the visual grounded theory[w] research of the UVS treatise, the list herein are the predications[d] for the actualities[d] of the empirically observed natural phenomena[w].

They were construed[d] by abductive reasoning[w] 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 are the qualitative predictions[m] construed with the visual inductive resolutions[g] of their resolved cognitive paradoxes, and they are evidently substantiated for their qualitative proofs.

The predications of the UVS research are always subjected to refinements in its nested positive feedback loop[uvs], which strive on their accuracy with their unfolding empirical evidence[w] for the postulated[d] actualities of their empirical observations. Their propositions with rigorous verifications could thus be falsified or conclusively proven with their correspondence theory of truth[w]. The verified predications were then augmented[d] 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[uvs] in the UVS research are mostly in their qualitative forms, many of these evidently verified a priori propositions[g] by themselves as they are with their elucidated delusions and resolved cognitive paradoxes, have had eradicated the fallaciously justified true beliefs[m] of their conventional wisdom[w].

The methodically proven a priori propositions of the UVS visual inductive resolutions with their elucidated delusions, are therefore unequivocally the well-justified true beliefs that are free of paradoxes[g], and thus are the a priori knowledge[m] 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[w] to accurately establish their a posteriori knowledge[m] with quantitative precision.

See a UVS paper on "The UVS case study on the barycentric drivers of the solar cycle" that elaborates on one of 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:

1. An inviscid aetheric medium is all-pervasive throughout the entire observable universe.
2. The observable universe is vortically formed in the torus transformed nested hypersphere that has had manifested the cosmos with its intrinsic two-axis spin.
3. The distances between distant galaxies in the observable universe were extending with a vortical chain reaction in absolute space.
4. A supervoid is a vortically resonated toroidal vortex manifested in the nested hypersphere of the cosmos.
5. The superclusters are held at the outer edges by the adjoining surfaces of the supervoids.
6. 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.
7. A galaxy cluster with thousands of galaxies are vortically held by a nested toroidal vortex to vortically revolve around its center of mass.
8. 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.
9. A galaxy cluster is vortically manifested and impelled in its nested intergalactic toroidal vortex in the nested hypersphere of the cosmos.
10. A local galaxy group with tens of galaxies are vortically held by a nested toroidal vortex to vortically revolve around its center of mass.
11. A galaxy group is vortically formed, impelled, and encapsulated by an optically invisible intergalactic nested vortical hypersphere.
12. A galaxy is vortically formed and impelled by the galactic vortex pair manifested in its nested vortical hypersphere.
13. 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.
14. A supermassive black hole is a vortical void of luminiferous aether displaced by the vortical gravitational singularity of its galaxy.
15. A satellite galaxy is induced by the satellite galactic vortex of a main galactic vortex.
16. The ripping of a galaxy is caused by the cyclonic gravity field effect from another larger galaxy system on near encounter.
17. 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.
18. An elliptical galaxy is formed in the wake of a dissipated galactic vortex pair that was flattening its inner nested galactic spheroidal vortex.
19. 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.
20. The binary stars are revolving around each other in a common plasmatic shell that has merged from the plasmatic shells of the two stars.
21. 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.
22. A stellar black hole is a vortical void of luminiferous aether transformed by a manifested vortical gravitational singularity of its star cluster system.
23. heliosphere is intrinsically formed by its nested vortical hypersphere of the Solar System.
24. An accretion disk is formed by the vortically flattened polar vortex pair in the inner sections of a nested toroidal vortex.
25. 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.
26. A new star is evolved by vortically coalesced stellar cloud formed in a nested bipolar stellar vortex pair. With credits to Allen Barrow.
27. A protoplanet is formed with interstellar clouds by a resonated nested satellite vortex pair manifested in its planetary system.
28. The Sun is impelled by its galactic vortex to rotate and revolve around the Galactic Center in a perpetual vortical motion.
29. 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.
30. A black hole is a dual-core vortical void of luminiferous aether displaced by a harmonic resonant of aether vortical motion.
31. A protoplanetary disk is a vortrex with glowing plasma and it is impelled by the vortical column of its protostar.
32. A protostar is vortically spawned with the consolidated stellar clouds resonated in its nested toroidal vortex.
33. Stellar nucleosynthesis is caused by hyperspherical vortex spin fusion to assemble chemical elements with nuclear reactions occurring in the cores of stars.
34. A star's nova outburst of x-ray and gamma ray is caused by a highly energetic spinor field that underlies the star.
35. The brightness of star depends on electric current generated by dynamo effect in magnetohydrodynamics of vortically consolidated plasma.
36. 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.
37. 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.
38. 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.
39. The stars are held apart in their clusters by the electrostatic repulsion forces that have manifested vortically on their nested vortical hypersphere.
40. 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.
41. The debris disk of star is consolidated by a flattened nested stellar polar vortex pair.
42. The glowing spokes on debris disk of a star are satellite plasma vortices.
43. The Ring Center of a star is a polar vortex center of its planetary system.
44. A supernova is caused in an unwinding process of its aetheric vortex that impels the star to violently spin in the opposed directions.
45. The red giant star is vortically unwound to expand and expel its materials. With credit to anonymous from Singapore.
46. A planetary nebula is a consolidating diffused star wobbling in precession with its nested and glowing plasma polar vortrex pairs.
47. A sunspot is a plasmatic unisonal vortex that has spawned in the photosphere of the Sun.
48. The Sun and its planets were vortically coalesced from the molecular clouds of in a spiral arm of the Milky Way galaxy.
49. The inert dark center of a sunspot is caused by the void of vortex eye that limits convection.
50. 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.
51. The solar jet stream pair is vortex substructures impelled by the polar vortex pair of the photosphere.
52. 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.
53. A sunspot cluster is impelled by its solar jet stream and this is impelled by its polar vortex in a unisonal vortical motion.
54. The solar cycle is modulated by the barycenters of the major planets that periodically align with the BOTSS and the Sun.
55. The eco-systems on Earth are extended far out into the Solar System are significantly influenced by the oscillating BOTSS.
56. 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.
57. 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.
58. 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.
59. 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.
60. The Sun is not the center of the Solar System.
61. 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.
62. A sunspot pair is a dual-core unisonal vortex of the Sun's photosphere and its dual-core is separated on its surface.
63. A corona mass ejection is caused by the conserved angular momentum in the vortex column of a ruptured solar prominence.
64. 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.
65. 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.
66. The comet's huge nested atmosphere is vortically held by its underlying spheroidal torus vortex.
67. The comet outburst events in the outer Solar System are triggered by significant barycenter effects of celestial objects.
68. The cometary electric glow discharge of gas coma in the outer Solar System is rendered by the manifested charge field of significant barycenter effects.
69. The Lagrangian points in the macrocosms are harmonics of vortically manifested accreting spinor fields rendered by vortical motion of interacting celestial objects.
70. 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.
71. The Lagrangian points could also be manifested from the spinor field of a planetary barycenter that interacts with another Solar System objects.
72. The gas tail of comet is a glowing section of unisonal vortex manifested in the coma.
73. The dust tail of the comet is formed by the vortrex of its gas tail vortex.
74. The vacuum in the gas tail of comet is the void in the vortex column of its coma.
75. The craters on a comet can be drilled and carved by the vortical culmination of manifested unisonal vortices in the coma.
76. The splitting of comet can be caused by the cyclonic gravity field effect from larger suspended spheroid on near encounter.
77. 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.
78. The planetary rings are the flattened nested polar vortex pair on the outer atmospheric layers of a planet.
79. 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.
80. 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.
81. 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.
82. 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.
83. The jet streams on Jupiter are manifested by the vortrices of the nested polar vortex pair of Jupiter.
84. The ovals and storms on Jupiter are coalesced by satellite vortices manifested and impelled by the nested polar vortex pair of Jupiter.
85. The Jupiter's retrograde cloud bands are formed by the differential motions in the chains of merged cyclonic satellite vortex clusters.
86. 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.
87. 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.
88. The Solar System is formed in a planetary vortical system that has manifested in the galactic vortical system of the Milky Way.
89. The orbitals of natural satellites were developed as a result of conserved angular momentum are being transferred from their underlying nested toroidal votices.
90. 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.
91. 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.
92. The primeval Earth with its Moon is vortically coalesced with nebulous matarial captured in their ring torus force fields.
93. The Moon will be at a farthermost away point from the Earth in the lunar opposition during the perihelion of the Earth.
94. The Moon will be at a nearest point to the Earth in the lunar opposition during the aphelion of the Earth.
95. The tidal force is vortically caused by a universal hyperspherical pushed-in gravity with the reactive push momentum in its barycenter motion.
96. A focused torque-induced precession from the Solar System alignment effect can manifest all sorts of significant natural events on Earth.
97. A polar aurora is induced to manifest by its intensified nested atmospheric polar vortex.
98. The electromagnetic storm in the presence of an aurora is caused by the intensified vortical effect of its underlying atmospheric vortex.
99. The aurora glow is caused by the electric current generated by the dynamo effect of the vortically consolidated plasma manifested in the ionosphere.
100. A clear air vortex is formed in an invisible atmospheric layer with its resonated torque-free precession.
101. The Antarctica Ozone Hole within the polar vortex wobbles and rotates in synchronization with the Earth-Moon precession cycle.
102. The Antarctica Ozone Hole is mechanically caused by the polar vortex that displaces the ozone layer inside its vortex column.
103. 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.
104. The Antarctica Ozone Hole can be significantly affected by a focused torque-induced precession of the Solar System alignment effect.
105. 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.
106. A polar vortex is a nested atmospheric free vortex manifested on the polar axis with the precession effect of the Earth.
107. A polar vortex could be significantly affected by the focused tidal force from an alignment of the major Solar System objects.
108. 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.
109. The seasonal variation on Earth is rendered by the extent of how much the nested polar vortex has opened up toward the equator.
110. The Antarctica polar vortex wobbles in synchronization with the Earth-Moon precession cycle.
111. The Arctic polar vortex is embedded to Earth's rotation by the dragging effects of landmass.
112. 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.
113. A polar jet stream is manifested in the ring torus structure that has vortically formed in its nested atmospheric polar vortex.
114. The shifting of jet stream latitude is caused by the intensity variations of its undulating polar vortex.
115. 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.
116. The ice age is caused by a precession effect of the Solar System.
117. 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.
118. The Little Ice Age is as a result of the superior conjunctions of major Solar System barycenters during a solar minimum.
119. 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.
120. 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.
121. A tropical cyclone is formed by its underlying atmospheric clear air vortex spawned in the troposphere.
122. 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.
123. 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.
124. A tornado of condensed funnel cloud is coalesced by an atmospheric free vortex with its vortex eye opened.
125. 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.
126. 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.
127. 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.
128. The phenomena of supercell, tropical storm, and thunderstorm are modulated by their resonated atmospheric free vortices
129. An atmospheric precipitation is caused by vortical compression of consolidated clouds on the atmospheric surface they are levitated.
130. The collision of cold front and warm front is caused by the vortical motion of two atmospheric layers impelled by a polar jet stream.
131. The low pressure in a storm is caused by the vortical motion of an atmospheric vortex in its vortex column.
132. 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.
133. 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.
134. A dust storm is formed by a huge cyclonic atmospheric free vortex that vortically levitates the charged dust with its vortrex.
135. The subtropical desserts along subtropical ridge are caused by the vortical motion of free vortices manifested in the troposphere.
136. 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.
137. Downburst is vortically impelled by atmospheric vortex.
138. 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.
139. 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.
140. An earthquake could be triggered by the forced vortices of the mantle sphere with the precession effects of Solar System objects.
141. 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.
142. An intraplate earthquake is caused by seismic waves generated from a forced vortex of the mantle sphere with resonated torque-free precession.
143. A volcano eruption could be triggered by strong torque-induce precession of the Solar System alignment effect.
144. A huge clear air unisonal vortex resonated in a fixed region on Earth renders the mysterious circumstances of Bermuda Triangle.
145. A natural oceanic whirlpool is an oceanic free vortex spawned by a manifested oceanic torque-free precession.
146. A deep-ocean whirlpool cluster is triggered by a focused precession effect of a Solar System arrangement with its rendered torque-free precession.
147. An underwater spheroidal whirlpool is formed by a resonated toroidal vortex manifested in deep ocean.
148. The Gulf Stream is manifested by the oceanic jet stream of a nested oceanic free vortex.
149. 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.
150. A tidal bore is a traversing standing wave manifested by a resonated torque-free precession of a wobbling Earth.
151. A tidal bore could be manifested by the seismic waves transferred from a rumbling vortex of mantle sphere formed underneath the Earth's crust.
152. Gravity is vortically rendered by quantized electromagnetic vortices. With credits to James Aaron Nicholson.
153. 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.
154. 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.
155. The gravitational singularity of a supermassive black hole is collectively manifested with the vortical gravitational singularities of all planetary systems in the galaxy.
156. The magnetosphere is a nested vortical hypersphere of a torus transfomed structure.
157. A magnetic field line is a vortically coalesced aetheric jet stream of harmonic laminar flow in vortical harmonics of progressive angular phase.
158. The geomagnetic reversal of Earth is caused by the field effect of a prominent barycenter manifested in the Solar System.
159. Chemical elements are created by the hyperspherical vortex spin fusion of aether vortical motion.
160. An atom is a cluster of vortically consolidated electromagnetic toroidal vortices impelled by the vortical motion of the universe.
161. Lagrangian points in the microcosms are harmonics of vortically manifested accreting spinor field rendered by vortical motion of interacting subatomic particles.
162. 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. 
163. 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.
164. 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.
165. The nested dual-core electron shell of an atom is formed with the nested hypersphere of a 3-sphere structure.
166. All planetary orbitals are abscribing their primodial ring torus structures.
167. The Trojan asteroids are encapsulated in the force field of the torus transformed vortical hypersphere of Jupiter at its L4 and L5 Lagrangian points.
168. An electron has a vortical form with sub-orbitals. By Allen Barrow inspired with the UVS model.
169. An electron is a nested subatomic vortex impelled by its atomic vortex.
170. 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.
171. The electron shells are pause layers of equipotential surfaces of a nested electrostatic spheroid with different electrical energy levels.
172. 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.
173. A positron is a subatomic vortrex that vortically folds back to coalesce in the hyperspherical vortex spin fusion of its electron vortex.
174. The electrons at opposite ends of their nucleus can interact instantaneously is caused by the interconnectedness of their underlying atomic vortex.
175. The covalent bond of chemical elements is caused by the hyperspherical vortex spin fusion of their electron shells.
176. Cohesion force of a molecule is a polarization charge effect caused by the arrangement of its chemical elements with vortically merged electron shells.
177. The spin frequency of an electron can be affected by gravitational potential of Earth that has varying potential density at different altitude and latitude.
178. Quark is a subatomic electromagnetic vortex of vortexes. By Allen Barrow inspired with the UVS model.
179. The quarks in an atomic nucleus are EM subatomic toroidal votices spawned at the Lagrangian points of different angular phases.
180. The strong nuclear force is rendered by the vortical repulsion force vortically exerted by the toroidal vortex of hadron.
181. 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.
182. A proton is a vortical substructure of an inner hypersphere that encapsulates two merged cyclonic spheroids and an anti-cyclonic spheroid.
183. A neutron is a vortical substructure of an outer hypersphere that encapsulates two merged anti-cyclonic spheroids and a cyclonic spheroid.
184. The weak nuclear force is rendered by the distribution of vortical repulsion force of spheroidal atomic unisonal vortex to accrete subatomic particles.
185. An atomic nucleus is a hypersphere of a 3-sphere system with a Möbius strip topology for its nested vortical structure.
186. A gluon has a vortical tubular Möbius strip structure that carries nuclear strong force to interact between quarks.
187. 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.
188. 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.
189. A lepton is vortically coalesced with the manifested Lagrangian points of the antiquarks in its hypersphere of two-body system.
190. The hydrogen atoms in the universe are formed in the manifested vortical gravitational singularities by coalescing protons as atomic nuclei with their spawned electrons.
191. 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.
192. 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.
193. The structures for the electron shells and subshells of an atom are vortically resonated with the aether vortical motion of the cosmos.
194. A photon is vortically emitted from its electron shell with vortically manifested reactive torque-free precession.
195. The corpuscles of luminiferous aether are vortically evolved and coalesced by a nested spheroidal torus vortex system of the universe.
196. A photon is vortically manifested on an inviscid quantized aether corpuscle with motion induced to it and vortically transferred from it.
197. An aether corpuscle is intrinsically spiraling with superluminal vortical motion at twice the speed of light in vacuum.
198. The supervoid winds with elementary particles are vortically spun out by the vortical gravitational singularity of its supervoid with reactive centrifugal force.
199. Galactic winds with vortically coalesced particles are vortically spun out by the vortical gravitational singularity of its galaxy with reactive centrifugal force.
200. The solar winds with charged particles of protons and electrons are vortically spun out from the photosphere with reactive centrifugal force.
201. The radiation of electromagnetic wave is caused by the effect of the vortically excited hyperspheres of aether corpuscles.
202. 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

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
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
Belief - 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
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
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
History of tidal physics - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Qualitative predictions - By Joseph Rowlands
Cosmos - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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
An animated simulation for phases of Venus - Physics Flashlets by Michael Timmins
An animated simulation of Michelson-Morley experiment - Physics Flashlets; Michael Fowler
Animated raisin pudding model - Brad's Astro Pages; Western Washington University Planetarium
Video clip on "Ptolemy's geocentric universe" - You Tube; twistedlot
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

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.