Through contemplation with the model of Universal Vortical Singularity (aka UVS model) and by knowing the paradoxical effect of nature for invoking transcendental views to understand the delusions for resolving the misconceptions of the observed natural phenomena, it meticulously resolves cognitive paradoxes that render their complexly inversed illusions.

“Through knowing the paradoxical effect of nature, it enlightens on
how nature does wonders in a complexly inverse manner.” - UVS inspired

The primary areas of focus for this research is on inferring the vortical singularities of unisonal vortex in natural phenomena observed in the physical universe, and on understanding the associated complexly inversed illusions that are caused by the paradoxical effect of nature, so as to conduct qualitative evaluation at fundamental level through inductive reasoning based on the UVS model. This process resolves cognitive paradoxes of natural phenomena and rationally establishes coherent and comprehensible qualitative predictions that are based on the UVS model. The qualitative predictive power of UVS is staggering and astounding.

Unisonal vortex in 2D animation

Through inductive reasoning based on the UVS model and contemplates on the paradoxical effect of nature to investigate for cognitive paradoxes, it had resolved numerous mysteries in those natural phenomena observed to be related to unisonal vortex mechanism by identifying its vortical singularities.

Based on the UVS model it thus rationally explains the enigmas in empirically observed phenomena of some known naturally occurred free vortices, it also coherently explains some free vortex related phenomena that were explained otherwise with conventional knowledge, and shows elements of unisonal vortex in other observed mysterious phenomena that were not clear or not known to be of vortical origin.

When dealing with any anomaly or mystery for any observed natural phenomenon, qualitative evaluation on fundamental of the empirical observation is the foremost. With circumspection it establishes hypothetical constructs in a paradigm shift that are based on the UVS model to qualitatively evaluate the observed natural phenomena. Primarily, the evaluation was focused on fundamentals and causalities for resolving the cognitive paradoxes, and in the process it resolves numerous misconceptions of conventional knowledge that were misled by nature in its complexly inversed illusions.

In the epistemology of logical empiricism through analysing with the UVS model for resolving cognitive paradoxes, it critically evaluates the foundation of knowledge for the established putative theories of mainstreams that could be explaining empirically observed natural phenomena with its foundational crisis; a wrong theory can paradoxically work and the paradox could be meticulously addressed with the UVS model.

With qualitative evaluation for the causalities of the observed natural phenomena, in the UVS worldview, it collectively elaborates with qualitative predictions for empirical observations of natural phenomena, on how the entire physical universe works in unison at all levels in macrocosm and microcosm as a single system.

See UVS topics on "Cosmic evolution of stars and galaxies based on UVS model" that illustrates on how celestial objects are vortically coalesced in the macrocosms, "The geometrical structure of an atom" that elaborates on vortical phenomena in the microcosms and "Unisonal evolution mechanism" that elaborates on vortical evolution in the observed natural phenomena from the macrocosms to the microcosms.

The significance of UVS

UVS explicitly posited invariant space and time in a scientific model on a neoclassical platform with a paradigm shift that eliminates the intuitively unthinkable abstractness in modern physics.

UVS heuristically propositioned a celestial mechanism that is universally consistent and this supercedes the Kepler's laws of planetary motion.

UVS conclusively falsified the Big Bang theory at fundamental levels.

UVS logically debunked the scientific consensus of Michelson-Morley experiment.

UVS consistently unified gravity from the macrocosms to the microcosms.

UVS meticulously resolved numerous mysterious natural phenomena of the physical universe.

UVS coherently explained cosmic evolution from cosmic levels to subatomic levels.

UVS qualitatively illustrated how the entire physical universe works in unison at all levels in macrocosm and microcosm as a single system.

UVS enlightenly offered epistemic truths that refer to reality of the physical universe.

Critiques of scientific method - The cognitive paradox fallacies

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

If the basis of a scientific theory was misled by illusions as a result of a cognitive paradox and therefore had developed based on misconceptions, such as it was based on the fallacious concept that world is flat or Earth is the center of the universe, henceforth, regardless of how developed, how profound, how coherent, how consistent, how accurate the scientific theory could predict quantitatively and how widely the established theory has been accepted by so many elites independently for a very long period of time, the basis is fundamentally incorrect. This is despite the so called proven scientific theory that was misled by its cognitive paradox could be mathematically validated in its delusion and it pragmatically works in applied science to a great extent.

“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

Laws of mathematics though are effective tools in applied science for deductive reasoning, and the propositions of a mathematical model can be indisputably conclusive through deductive reasoning in its evaluation to analytically prove its hypothesis for the natural phenomenon as it has been empirically observed, however, it must not be mistaken that the reality of a natural phenomenon could be absolutely proven by mathematical interpretation with validated and accurate quantitative predictions through the mathematical construct of its hypothesis. A mathematically proven conclusion of its hypothesis solely deduced through quantitative measurement according to its mathematical construct although could have integrated its inference of reality with the empirical observation, in abstractness it was based on a philosophy with varying degree of uncertainties in the interpretation of the numbers obtained from the observation; the assumptions for its philosophical identities are fundamentally based on faith in its belief system.

See external links on "Foundational crisis" that elaborates on the attempts to provide unassailable foundations for mathematics that were found to suffer from various paradoxes, and "Proof theory" that is syntactic in nature and its philosophical logic is based on syntactic entities whose properties may be studied without regard to any meaning they may be given.

“One reason why mathematics enjoys special esteem, above all other sciences, is that its propositions are
absolutely certain and indisputable, ... How can it be that mathematics, being after all a product of human
thought which is independent of experience, is so admirably appropriate to the objects of reality.” - Albert Einstein

“Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.” - Albert Einstein

Putting into perspective for epistemic theories of truth by resolving cognitive paradoxes, it could illustrate that the overemphasizing on deductive reasoning with extreme obsession for higher resolution of its quantitative prediction, and ignoring qualitative evaluation for its assumed philosophical identities, is a wrong path for mainstream physics on the fallacy of misplaced concreteness. The deep-rooted belief in the capability of mathematical principles for conducting evaluation to validate a scientific claim solely through deductive analysis, could lead to the illusion of knowing under the circumstances of a not known delusion. It is a myth that deductive inference through accurate quantitative prediction is the only correct scientific evaluation method, emphasized by reinforcing the validity of the hypothesis with refined equations for greater precision in rigorous experiments, and by producing consistence test results quantitatively that correlate with empirical data; this is merely pushing for higher resolution with the deep-rooted belief that could be perceived and interpreted in a delusion of its cognitive paradox.

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

A scientific theory in its mathematical construct that was proved to be analytically true could be unwarily misled by a cognitive paradox of nature, if so it would have been established on a fallacy in its delusion and ignorantly refers to its observed complexly inversed illusion of nature as its reality; this is an erroneous perception of the reality in its shadow of truth.

Any law of physics with foundational crisis for its posits would paradoxically distort the perception of reality by making deductive conclusions that are deemed as facts with validated quantitative predictions in the shadow of truth, which is a delusion that was fallaciously rendered by its cognitive paradox.

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

Any theory extrapolated from a foundation that was based on a false fact would be fallacious, this is despite it could paradoxically work.

See a UVS subtopic on "The interactions of isotropic push-in gravity in the superior and inferior conjunction of Sun, Jupiter and Saturn" that elaborates on a paradox of a universal law of physics.

See an excerpt from "Cargo Cult Science" by Richard Feynman relating to qualitative evaluation, and an external link on "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 is an inductive discipline first and a deductive discipline second. See also UVS topics on "Logic and belief systems", "A flat world event" and "Optical illusion".

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

An example for resolved cognitive paradox fallacy of nature, is the fallacious perception that it takes approximately twenty-four hours for the Sun to revolve around the Earth as it could be empirically observed, moreover, its quantitative prediction was further accurately measured by using clock with ongoing improvements for higher precision into split of a second. With modern knowledge, this millenniums-old knowledge was scientifically falsified since two centuries ago, and at hindsight it is now completely dismissed without a slightest doubt that this is a false fact. However, this false fact that was established on the cognitive paradox fallacy and deduced in its delusion as a scientifically proven knowledge with accurate quantitative measurement, was undoubtedly accepted independently for millenniums by the majority of people from all over the world in all walks of life.

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

In ancient Greek astronomy, mathematical constructs based on geocentric model works for quantitative predictions of natural events such as precession cycle, equinox and solstice. Although the system of epitrochoid cycles based on the assumption that Earth is the center of the universe was successfully used in deferent and epicycles of Sun to make accurate quantitative predictions for geocentric events, using these workable quantitative predictions as deductive proofs to substantiate the claim of fact that the Sun takes a period of twenty-four hours 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 derived on a wrong track can analytically conclude a false fact to be valid with self-fulfilling prophecy by self-reference. These cognitive paradox fallacies were as a result of natural delusions; natural cognitive paradoxes of relative motion illusions that are rendered with natural negations to cause their fallacious empirical observations of the natural phenomena. Image on right illustrates the basic elements of Ptolemaic astronomy in a 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).

Ptolemaic elements in a geocentric model.

The apparent retrograde motion of a planet could be solved mathematically with the deferent and epicycle of the planet based on geocentrism. Although epicycle system in a mathematical construct developed through the observation of the apparent planetary motion in the celestial sphere could be fine-tuned to provide workable solutions with accurate quantitative predictions for this peculiar phenomenon that recurs periodically, it is a falsified fact in astrophysics that the planet in apparent retrograde motion is physically moving in the opposite diurnal motion as it has been empirically observed from Earth; the fallacy is caused by a cognitive paradox of relative motion illusion in a passive transformation of celestial coordinate system. The mathematical construct of a hypothetical model that could consistently work in applied science with accurate quantitative predictions cannot qualify its hypothetical assumption through circular definition by self-referencing; a wrong scientific theory can pragmatically work.

Apparent retrograde motion of Mars.

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

Without qualitative evaluation, a precise quantitative prediction for an observed phenomenon is merely a knowledge of measurement based on its hypothesis or theory. Although it can indisputably quantify how the observed phenomenon works and the knowledge could be used in some pragmatic applications such as for tracking celestial objects, it is not tantamount to how the observed phenomenon in reality is actually working.

“What one has believed as a truth of nature is one issue, what is the truth is another issue.” - UVS inspired

A self-reference mathematical construct would create a mathematical paradox with self-referential equations derived from a dichotomy (defined by the rule if ƒ(x) = y, then ƒ(y) = x) that are jointly exhaustive to infinitely regress in its manifold of mathematical logic. Consequently, in its paradox with circular logic, all the problems it attempts to solve as they are with the ambiguities that are interchangeable in its manifold of mathematically idealized objects, it therefore could be deduced to prove anything and infallibly makes conclusions within its mathematically defined realm that is based on its fundamental assumption. However, without qualitative proof for the assumption, its validated deductive proof substantiated with precise and consistent quantitative prediction could not be certainly conclusive in logical empiricism when it is referred to reality.

“Pure mathematics is, in its way, the poetry of logical ideas.” - Albert Einstein

It is a cognitive paradox fallacy that Moon rises in the East and set in the West as it could be optically observed from Earth in its localized reference frame. Nonetheless, with inductive reasoning based on heliocentric model, it could be empirically observed that Moon revolves around Earth from West to East 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; this qualitative analysis in a transcendental view can resolve this cognitive paradox of relative motion that has paradoxically caused the cognitive paradox fallacy in its delusion.

The Moon

In an era when astronomy was based on geocentric model of Aristotelian universe, all mainstream astronomers had believed that Venus revolves around Earth like the Moon, at then the extreme crescent phase of Venus had been observed with the naked eye. Although Galileo through observations with telescope had observed that Venus exhibited a full set of phases similar to that of the Moon, in his analysis he based on Copernicus's theory of heliocentrism for the qualitative prediction on the orbiting path of Venus, and after an extensive period of telescopic observation, through logical empiricism that was deliberated with inductive reasoning on Venus showed phases with a peculiarity it thus resovle the cognitive paradox, with positive assertion he proved the qualitative prediction that Venus revolves around the Sun and not the Earth.

Venus orbit.

See external links on "Phases of Venus" and "An animated simulation for phases of Venus".

Nonetheless, this qualitative proof by Galileo that Venus revolves around the Sun cannot substantiate as it is also the proof for heliocentrism. See a UVS topic on "Kepler's laws of planetary motion reviewed with UVS" that elaborates on why the validated Kepler's model is a self-referenced mathematical construct for its deduced conclusions and how it was based on an incorrect fundamental assumption.

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

According to the definition of mathematical physics that is currently held by the majority of elite in mainstream, without quantitative prediction, the research done by Galileo that had proven Venus revolves around the Sun is not science. Nonetheless, this is absolutely a research in the name of natural science with positive assertion that has precedential significant and it refers to reality for how the observed phenomenon qualitatively works; this is an epistemic truth of a natural phenomenon that refers to reality of the physical universe.

Ever since mathematical physics that bases on deductive analysis has been consensually adopted for the studies of quantitative measurement and has dominated as the mainstream, the theoretical physics for natural science that bases on inductive analysis for qualitative evaluation has been discreetly sidetracked.

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

Without qualitative proof, it cannot be certain that its quantitatively validated proofs are true.

The physics of natural science should be the qualitative study of natural phenomena as the primary discipline and then its quantitative study follows as the secondary discipline.

"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". "The orbit of every planet is an ellipse with the Sun at one of the two foci." - Kepler's first law of planetary motion. It is an immutable fact that all Solar System objects including Sun and its planets are moving in helical paths through space and this could be visualized from an external reference frame in their transcendental views. For the resolution of this issue one have to let go the Kepler's laws of planetary motion in its mathematical construct for the model of satellite orbital motion that was disseminated and printed on all the books for astronomy; this is merely a localized perception with incomplete view and in its negation it would not reflect the actual celestial mechanics for planetary motion. The image to the right at the center is a newly formed star HL Tau within Milky Way. From the perspective of UVS worldview, the star HL Tau is still at infancy stage of a star birth that is coalescing in vortical motion with a 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. Star HL Tau and its protoplanet HL Tau b See UVS topics on "Orbit of satellites" and "Vortical motion of planetary moon" for further elucidation on vortical motion of planet. See also a link on "The Universal Helicola" that presents a marvelous and immutable 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 in a moving Sun, and "The solar system's motion thru space". “Celestial object rotates and revolves in vortical motion.” - UVS inspired This resolution have significant implications for a better understanding of an underlying celestial mechanism that hitherto has been overlooked. See UVS topics on "Sunspot" and "Solar System alignment effect" that elaborates on how some significant discoveries that are leading to substantial qualitative knowlege could be asserted with this resolution. Although the proposition of heliocentrism is correct on planets are revolving around the Sun in the Solar System in its inertial frame of reference, its postulation that the Sun is at the center of the universe was falsified in the twentieth century astronomy; Kepler's laws of planetary motion was based on this incorrect assumption that renders its cognitive paradox fallacy. Any extrapolated theory that was based on this incorrect assumption to profess on any natural phenomenon would be fallacious. “A paradoxical effect can consistently fool us with its cognitive paradox in its state of delusion.” - UVS inspired By confining within the Kepler's laws of planetary motion on the ground that it was based on scientifically proven fact and in its mathematical construct these laws had achieved scientific consensus, taking it as it was propositioned and therefore would not seek further inquiry for its transcendental view, in its cognitive paradox, one could maintain its mathematically deduced conclusions were empirically valid; this was merely a misconception of nature that was perceived from its inertial frame of reference. This is how the laws of physics could lie with the deductive inference in its mathematical construct for its empirical observation when it gets to the reality of nature; in its concept from its localized perception it negates the reality and in its delusion it results in its illusion of knowing with its deductive proof. “The illusion of knowing in a delusion is apparently real in its cognitive paradox.” - UVS inspired UVS qualitatively predicts that the Solar System objects evolved from the vortical coalescing of stellar clouds in resonant frequencies of standing wave and they are vortically propagating in longitudinal waves.

According to the Big Bang model, the universe has expanded from an extremely dense and hot state and continues to expand today. The model suggests in the expansion of space every celestial object in approximately 13.7 billion years has reached its current time-dilated spatial location in a timeline according to the trajectory of the celestial object in its expanded space. "WMAP definitively determined the age of the universe to be 13.73 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 external link 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 digits. The universe's timeline, from inflation to the WMAP. The Big Bang model propositioned that the boundary of the observable physical universe in every direction is a view at ~13.7 billion years ago when the physical universe was in its primordial form, but this is absolutely contradicting in its three main aspects to all extents; the extremely small, dense and hot state of the nascent physical universe in its isotropic form is currently being empirically observed in its time dilation image at ~13.7 billion years ago to be having an extremely large radius of ~13.7 Gly in an extremely sparse and cooled state. This is a self-referenced mathematical construct that creates a fallacious cognitive paradox of the most extreme physical extents in its mathematical realm and it does not refer to reality. The big bang model is so busted. "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 logical framework, although in its hypothetical construct it would be mathematically valid and could be analytically understood, in logical empiricism it was erroneous, and therefore is unthinkable; no logical thought experiment could work for such a scenario. The furthest observed galaxy Abell 1835 IR1916 in the constellation of Virgo (located at northern celestial hemisphere) has been observed near the boundary of the observable universe and this is believed to be a sight when the universe was merely ~500 million years young with a redshift factor of z = ~10.0, it has an angular diameter distance of ~2.86 billion light year (Gly) when the galaxy emitted its light; this is a scientific evidence that at ~13.2 billion years ago that furthest galaxy was already at that spatial location and it had developed to a galaxy of significant size. Put on a logic thinking cap and ask the question on how could the time-dilated image with an approximately 500 million years young scenario of that primordial galaxy appear at the ~13.2 billion year timeline in a Big Bang expansion; rationally it is impossible. If the expansion of space had brought that galaxy there in ~500 million years with the Big Bang expansion, the observed time-dilated image of the primordial galaxy at ~500 million years young would not be able to appear at that spatial location in that ~13.2 billion year timeline; the Big Bang model that suggests the physical universe was created in a runaway swell from a small hot ball is logically fallacious. It could be abstractly postulated that the universe is an open system in the Big Bang model with mathematical proof such that it would take only ~500 million years for that distant galaxy in the expansion of space to relatively travel at superluminal speed to be at the angular diameter distance of ~2.86 Gly. Although this could be analytically understood, it was not coherent to what has been empirically observed and it would also violate Einstein's special relativity for the galaxy to be observable at all in a runaway expansion of space. The abstract moot reasoning deduced to be valid through such mathematical construct is not substantiatable at all in logical empiricism when it is referred to reality; this is merely a baloney of a mathematical realm. Note: It does not even need to mention the furthest observed galaxy cluster JKCS041 is located on the southern celestial hemisphere (this is opposite to the northern celestial hemisphere where Abell 1835 IR1916 is located) at about 10.2 billion light-years away in the constellation of Cetus; this would also render the Big Bang model to be fallacious from another logical aspect. Stars were formed in every direction at timelines of more than 13 billion years ago in a background temperature of 2.7K; this suggests that the primordial physical universe was spanning for at least billions of light-years across and it was as cold as it is now. In logical empiricism, the conclusion of the Big Bang model on the universe has expanded from a small ball in extremely dense and hot state is fallacious. Qualitatively, the concept-based expansion of space in the Big Bang theory was an erroneous assumption at the fundamental level and its propositions would therefore be logically fallacious. The assumption that space can expand is absurd, it is a wonder for how such fundamental of the natural phenomenon could be overlooked. “Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself anymore.” - Albert Einstein The majority of scientific elites in cosmology are holding a dogmatic belief that modern physics is an abstract study with rigor in quantitative measurements using mathematical equations; a hardcore belief in empirically observed natural phenomena could only be evaluated and validated with measurements in mathematical constructs based on the concept of elastic space that had achieved scientific consensus in modern physics. In the Big Bang model, the three-dimensional space is variant, therefore it is indifferent for length and distance in an elastic space; with this ambiguity it therefore would create the paradoxical effect to cause the mathematical cognitive paradox fallacy in its mathematical construct that leads to its mathematically deduced conclusions that are logically fallacious. “Time and space are modes in which we think and not conditions in which we live.” - Albert Einstein An assumption of a hypothetical model that is not proven in qualitative evaluation (such as in geocentric model, the Sun takes approximately twenty-four hours to revolve around the Earth) could be used to mathematically deduce the hypothetical model to be valid; a deductive mathematical proof that can quantitatively predict the observation successfully is not the proof for its fundamental assumptions. “I don't believe in mathematics.” - Albert Einstein From the UVS perspective, it is only logical and rational to think that at ~13.2 billion years ago, that distant galaxy in three-dimensional Euclidean space was already vortically formed there at that spatial location. Its time dilation image in a relativistic Doppler effect now its light takes ~13.2 Gly to reach the observer on Earth, in absolute time and space (one temporal dimension of time and three-dimensional Euclidean space) the galaxy would have traveled to a further spatial location to the comoving distance of ~31.5 Gly according to its trajectory. For further elucidation, see UVS topics on "Qualitative evaluation on time dilation","Michelson-Morley experiment reviewed with UVS", "Universal Vortical Singularity resolves the GR concept of gravity", "The causality of gravity", "Expanding physical universe reviewed with UVS" and "Cosmic evolution of stars and galaxies based on UVS model". UVS qualitatively predicts that the physical universe in a perpetual vortical motion was vortically emerged from the vortical motion of an all-pervasive inviscid medium.

Ever since galaxies are receding in acceleration had been empirically observed, the classic Big Bang model that describes expansion of space is similar to a conventional explosion had then fallen apart. Cosmic inflation with a runaway expansion of space answers the classic conundrum of the big bang cosmology, it is thus now considered as part of the standard hot big bang cosmology. The explanation for the observable physical universe in the Big Bang model now adopts the raisin pudding analogy to explain the observed phenomenon with accelerated expansion of space in the cosmic inflation; space is expanding exponentially. Logically, limited by the speed of light, the empirically observation of the physical universe on receding galaxies in their frame of reference would be apparently negated by timeline and time dilation effect; a time frame negation effect. Hence, in circumstances of decelerated recession of the galaxies in the physical universe, those distant galaxies that are apparently observed in their further timelines from Earth would therefore paradoxically appear to be receding at increasing velocities than a galaxy at a nearer timeline. This would render an optical illusion as a result of timeline and time dilation effect with a scenario that the physical universe is apparently expanding in acceleration. If the physical universe is expanding in acceleration as it was propositioned in cosmic inflation, the effects of timeline and time dilation would paradoxically render the observation of the physical universe to be apparently expanding in deceleration instead. This natural cognitive paradox fallacy is caused by the time frame negation effect of timeline and time dilation. Animated raisin pudding model of the BB expansion. See external links on "Accelerating universe" and "Cosmic scale factor" that elaborate on how the accelerated expansion of space was observed. “Misconception would inherently occur when we try to comprehend by means that have limited bandwidth in a spectrum to interpret a natural phenomenon that has a constituency of immeasurable frequency spectrums, and not knowing what exactly is referenced to.” - UVS inspired The observation that the universe appears to be expanding at an increasing rate with proper distance at proper time, which had concluded with the cosmic scale factor a(t) has a positive second derivative, did not address or account for the timeline negation effect; it merely creates a mathematical cognitive paradox fallacy with its mathematical treatment that misleads people with a misconception to believe it had accounted for the timeline negation effect. The mathematical treatment to illustrate that space accelerates exponentially with the proposition of proper distance for the calculation of optically observed deep space objects that were moving in a frame of reference on different timelines would not correct it from its natural cognitive paradox fallacy of timeline negation effect; the derivation of velocities was apparently observed on different timelines. The conclusion of the revised Big Bang model with cosmic inflation on exponentially expanding space is fallacious, this was simply because its mathematical construct was based on the natural cognitive paradox fallacy caused by optical negation with limited speed of light. Consequently, any theory extrapolated from this foundation that is based on a false fact would be fallacious, this is despite its quantitative predictions could paradoxically work for the observed natural phenomenon. “Without realizing the cognitive paradoxes that negate to cause delusions in the universe, for centuries, the paradoxical effect of nature had fooled even the very brilliant people.” - UVS inspired In the UVS worldview with the natural cognitive paradox resolved, it qualitatively predicts that the distances between most galaxies in the observable physical universe were vortically extending in deceleration. The phenomenon of accelerated expansion of space as apparently observed is merely an optical effect of a natural cognitive paradox; this is an optically rendered complexly inversed illusion that is caused by the paradoxical effect of nature. Nonetheless, an aetheric vortex could cause celestial object such as the Type Ia supernova to vortically expanse in acceleration in absolute space and time. See UVS topics on "Other vortical phenomena of star" that elaborates on the vortical runaway effect of a supernova in accelerated expansion, and "Expanding physical universe". UVS qualitatively predicts that the distances between most galaxies in the observable universe were vortically extending in deceleration.

“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” - Richard Feynman "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). With the assumption that a celestial object moving in a static medium of luminiferous aether would experience a drag, an aether wind should be detectable. In a simplified illustration, Earth revolves at approximately 30 km/s around Sun, the Sun revolves at approximately 232 km/s around the Galactic center of Milky Way, therefore Earth moving in this static medium should show a significant aether wind, and more significantly if the movement of Milky Way in space relative to Cosmic microwave background at approximately 552 km/s is considered. If there is such an aether wind at all it should be easily detected with the interferometer. However, in all Michelson-Morley experiments, measurements of such expectations were not detected at all, it was thus concluded that the postulated static luminiferous aether does not exist at all; the postulated static luminiferous aether would have been detected by the Michelson-Morley experiments if it exists. 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. M-M experiment video simulation “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” - Carl Sagan The scientific consensus on luminiferous aether does not exist is logically fallacious, it was based on a null hypothesis with the null result obtained by the Michelson-Morley experiment; it had only concluded that the quantitatively predicted aether wind was not found with the 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 did not exist but it cannot conclude that aether did not exist. This is simply a formal fallacy of affirmative conclusion from a negative premise in a hasty generalization, and most critically, a null hypothesis can never be proven. As an analogy for the null hypoethsis 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 run by a direct current, and after the direct current meter measured nothing, it fallacious concluded that there is no electrical power in the system that makes it work. “Any scientific fact must leave no room for any rational doubt.” - UVS inspired It is merely the dogma in the belief system of mathematical physics that asserts aether does not exist, the conclusion was deduced with self-fulfilling prophecy by self-reference in its abstract mathematical constructs based on the absurd assumptions of transformable space or reified time to conclude aether does not exist. “By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox.” - Galileo Galilei By assuming that luminiferous aether is a static medium, one could maintain a fallacious self-referential cognitive paradox with strawman argument to assert that aether was scientifically proven to be nonexistence; this is merely a logical fallacy of affirming the consequent. For further elaboration, see a UVS topic on "Michelson-Morley experiment reviewed with UVS".

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

Qualitative predictions of UVS

Qualitative prediction is concerned with problems of building symbolic descriptions of processes, and using these descriptions for predicting a plausible continuation of these processes. It stresses the qualitative form of prediction as it does not seek precise characterization of future events, but rather a specification of plausible properties and constraints on the future events. - An excerpt from CiteSeer.

There is a distinct different between the proposition of a qualitative prediction and a postulation; the qualitative prediction of a phenomenon is derived through qualitative evaluation by inductive reasoning based on its scientific model. A postulation can be an assumption based on a conjecture, such as the educated assumption for luminiferous aether that it is a static medium; this is merely a speculation. See a UVS topic on "Michelson-Morley experiment reviewed with UVS" that elucidates on the fallacious assumption of a static luminiferous aether.

List of qualitative predictions that are based on the UVS model

1. The physical universe in a perpetual vortical motion was vortically emerged from the vortical motion of an all-pervasive inviscid medium.
2. The observable physical universe is a bipolar vortical system that is precessing in perpetual motion and primarily wobbles in a two-axis orthogonal rotation.
3. The observable physical universe has a vortically coalesced torus-shaped steady-state structure.
4. The physical universe has potential density with the vortical encapsulation of an inviscid medium within a vast isotropic boundary in nested arrangement.
5. Astrophysical plasma in its elementary form is all-pervasive throughout the entire physical universe.
6. The clockwork universe with everything sets in unisonal motion is caused by a universal vortical system of unisonal vortex.
7. The geometrical structure of physical universe is a vortical formation of nested plasmatic spheroidal vortex structures that are interweaved in a unisonal oneness. .
8. Celestial object rotates and revolves in vortical motion.
9. The distance between most galaxies in the observable universe was apparently expanding as a result of a vortical chain reaction in a vortically intensified effect.
10. The distances between most galaxies in the observable universe were vortically extending in deceleration.
11. Galaxy supercluster with hundreds of galaxy clusters are vortically held by a cosmic vortex and vortically revolve around a center of mass.
12. Galaxy cluster with thousands of galaxies are vortically held by a satellite cosmic vortex and vortically revolve around a center of mass.
13. Local galaxy group with tens of galaxies are vortically held by a sub-satellite cosmic vortex and vortically revolve around a center of mass.
14. An invisible galactic spheroid of plasmatic viscous matter where galaxy is levitated on does exist.
15. Galaxy is suspended and driven by a galactic vortex on a surface of a nested galactic spheroid.
16. Galactic vortex is formed in a galactic spheroid.
17. Galaxy is induced by a galactic vortex that has formed in a galactic spheroid.
18. Galaxy is formed by vortical collection of stars levitated on a galactic vortex.
19. Satellite galaxy is induced by satellite galactic vortex of a main galactic vortex.
20. Elliptical galaxy is formed in the wake of a dissipated galactic vortex pair.
21. Globular cluster is formed in the wake of a dissipated satellite galactic vortex pair.
22. The ripping of a galaxy is caused by the cyclonic gravity field effect from another larger galaxy system on near encounter.
23. Binary stars are revolving around each other in a common plasmatic shell that was merged from two stars.
24. Star cluster is held together by strong interactions from electromagnetic vortices of stars in the weak vortical interactions of the galactic vortex.
25. Protoplanetary disk is glowing plasma driven by vortical column of vortrex caused by its stellar jet vortex of a newly formed star.
26. A new star is evolved by vortical interaction of satellite galactic vortex that form primordial bipolar vortexes pairs with stellar cloud. With credits to Allen Barrow.
27. Protoplanet is formed in vortically scattered stellar clouds in a satellite vortexes pair on a plane of flattened plasmatic polar vortexes pair of its parent star.
28. Sun is rotating and revolving around Galactic center in a perpetual vortical motion driven by its galactic vortex.
29. Heliosphere is a nested plasmatic spheroidal vortex of Sun vortically driven by its galactic vortex.
30. Star is vortically driven by galactic vortex to form with coalesced stellar matter in a bipolar vortexes pair nested within its heliosphere.
31. The nuclear fusion in star is cause by vortical consolidation of tremendously compressed plasmatic stellar matter compacted as a rotating plasmatic spheroid.
32. The brightness of star depends on electric current generated by dynamo effect in magnetohydrodynamics of vortically consolidated plasma.
33. 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.
34. The effects of themodynamics are caused by vortical motion of an all-pervasive medium in the physical universe.
35. Thermal emission from the interior of a planet is generated by vortical motion of viscous matter.
36. Stars are held apart in their clusters by electrostatic repulsion of electric force between charges from their plasmatic spheroids.
37. Stellar jet is vortically formed in a vortex column with ionized jet of gas stream vortically culminated into the core of its plasmatic spheroid. With credit to Anna Lorrina Mitchell.
38. The dust disk of star is a flattened nested stellar polar vortex pair
39. The glowing spokes on dust disk of a star are satellite plasma vortices.
40. Supernova is caused in an unwinding process with a harmonic atheric vortex driving the star to violently spin in opposite direction.
41. Planetary nebula is a consolidating diffused star wobbling in precession with glowing plasma vortices pairs.
42. The bipolar nebula of a single star system is primarily caused by precession effect of revolving axis acting on the rotating axis of the difussed star.
43. The bipolar nebula of a binary star system is primarily caused by countering precession effect acting on both stars.
44. Sunspot cluster is driven by its solar jet stream and this is driven by its polar vortex in a unisonal vortical motion.
45. The solar cycle is primarily caused by combined toruqe-induced precession of Jupiter and Saturn in their orbital interactions on photosphere of a moving Sun.
46. Sunspots are lower latitude unisonal vortices that have spawned in the photosphere of Sun.
47. Solar jet stream is caused by the polar vortex of photosphere.
48. The less prominent solar cycles are caused by cyclical precession effect of other Solar System planets with Sun and either Jupiter, or Saturn.
49. The reversal in direction of the magnetic field lines of a sunspot is caused by perturbation from Jupiter and Saturn.
50. A sunspot pair is a dual-core unisonal vortex of Sun's photosphere that its dual-core are separated on the surface of photosphere.
51. Solar maximum of solar cycle is caused by the maximum combined precession effect of aligned Sun, Jupiter and Saturn.
52. Solar minimum of solar cycle occurs when position of Jupiter is perpendicular to the alignment of Sun and Saturn at the quarter phases.
53. Mauder Minimum is caused by the Jupiter-Sun-Saturn superior conjuction with all other planets to keep the Sun nearest to its primary mass center.
54. The superior conjuction of Jupiter-Sun-Saturn would push Saturn to a nearest point from the Sun with the effects of isotropic push-in gravity.
55. Wee-Foo Maximum is caused by the Sun-Jupiter-Saturn inferior conjuction with all other planets to held the Sun furthermost from its primary mass center.
56. The inferior conjuction of Sun-Jupiter-Saturn would push Saturn to a furthermost point from the Sun with the effects of isotropic push-in gravity.
57. Sunspot sprouts on shifting latitude is caused by a precession effect of a large planet that interacts with the polar vortex of the Sun
58. The inert dark center of a sunspot is caused by the void of vortex column that inhibits convection.
59. The long-lived corona holes on polar caps are polar vortices of photosphere.
60. Corona loops are satellite plasma vortices.
61. Corona mass ejection is caused by angular momentum in vortex column of a broken corona loop.
62. Solar wind is a steady stream of ionized gas spun from vortex column at high speed that has reached escape velocity at mid section of a corona loop.
63. The synchronized peaks for sunspot activities with aurora, storm and cyclone activities on Earth are caused by aligned Sun, Jupiter and Saturn.
64. Comets in Oort cloud revolving around Sun in uniformly spread out manner are vortically consolidated in harmonics of unisonal vortex.
65. Gas tail of comet is a vortex formed in the coma of comet.
66. Dust tail of comet is formed by vortrex of the gas tail.
67. The vacuum in the gas tail of comet is the void in vortex column of coma's unisonal vortex.
68. The splitting of comet could be caused by the cyclonic gravity field effect from larger suspended spheroid on near encounter.
69. Planetary rings are flattened polar vortex pairs of the outer atmospheric layers of a planet.
70. Ring systems of a celestial object are vortically formed in resonated motion of evenly spreaded out satellites of a nested celestial spheroid by a flattened polar vortex pairs.
71. The hexagonal polar vortex structure of Saturn is caused by a tri-pole precession effect. With credits to Graham Burnett.
72. Cloud bands are formed by polar vortex pairs with vortex column opened to different extents.
73. The Great Red Spot, ovals and other storms of Jupiter are satellite vortices of polar vortices.
74. The retrograde rotation of satellite could be caused naturally from transferred angular momentum of vortical motion in its differential rotation.
75. The stability for the Great Red Spot of Jupiter is primarily caused by orbital resonance with the three Galilean moons that are in a Laplace resonance.
76. The orbits of satellite are developed as a result of conserved angular momentum transferred from vortical dynamics of a primordial bipolar vortexes pair.
77. Solar System objects evolved from the vortical coalescing of stellar clouds in resonant frequencies of standing wave and they are vortically propagating in longitudinal waves.
78. The synchronized peaks of solar cycle and peaks of climatic events on Earth is caused by the alignment of Sun, Juipter, Saturn and Earth.
79. Venus is cyclonically rotating in counter-clockwise direction in its counter-clockwise revolving path around the Sun. Inspired in a forum discussion with Graham Burnett.
80. The rotating and revolving speed of Earth and Sun are not constant in a vortical galactic period.
81. Tidal force is vortically caused by a universal isotropic push-in gravity.
82. Magnetotail is vortically caused by sling action of a celestial object in orthogonal precession.
83. Tidal bulge is pushed ahead of its alignment with the Moon in a vortical motion drag.
84. The inertia force drawing drawing a lower latitude vortex towards polar region is caused by a potential gradient on the potentially concaved surface of the viscous matter.
85. Polar aurora is induced by polar vortex of thermosphere.
86. The electromagnetic storm in the presence of an aurora is caused by the vortical effect of vortex.
87. The ozone hole is mechanically caused by the polar vortex that displaces the ozone layer inside the vortex column.
88. The Antarctica ozone hole within the polar vortex wobbles in synchronization with the Earth-Moon precession cycles.
89. The ozone hole can be significantly affected by focused precession effect of a Solar System alignment.
90. The ozone hole could not form at North Pole is as a result of land masses has weakened the intensity of the Arctic Polar Vortex.
91. The ozone hole with significant differences in temperature at the boundaries of adjacent air masses is as a result of sunken mesosphere into the vortex column.
92. Clear air vortex with invisible vortrex is formed in invisible atmospheric layer through torque-free precession.
93. Polar jet stream is the vortrex at a bottom section of polar vortex flowing in closed streamlines at high speed in a loop.
94. Polar jet stream with significant differences in temperature at the boundaries of adjacent air masses is as a result of sunken atmosphere in the vortex column.
95. Polar regions with colder climates are largely as a result of vortically dispersed troposphere caused by the bipolar polar vortex pair.
96. The shifting of jet stream latitude is caused by the circumstantial variations of its polar vortex column.
97. Polar vortex can be significantly affected by focused precession effect of a Solar System alignment.
98. Arctic Polar Vortex is embedded to Earth's rotation by effects of land masses.
99. Antarctica Polar Vortex wobbles in synchronization with the Earth-Moon precession cycles.
100. Tropical cyclone is induced by a lower latitude huge atmospheric clear air vortex.
101. Warm core of a tropical cyclone is as a result of sunken warmer stratosphere in the vortex column.
102. Storm surge is caused by vortrex of a huge atmospheric vortex with persistence circular momentum that has bounced off the surface of water.
103. Tornado is driven by a large atmospheric vortex formed on higher altitude.
104. Cold core of a tornado is as a result of sunken colder troposphere in the vortex column.
105. The upward spiraling jet of air stream in a tornado is formed by vortical reactions of a clear air vortex with a circular momentum that has bounced off the surface.
106. Supercell, tropical storm and thunderstorm are induced by atmospheric vortex.
107. Rainfall in a precipitation process is caused by vortical compression of consolidated clouds levitating on its atmospheric layer.
108. The collision of cold front and warm front is caused by vortical motion of two atmospheric layers.
109. The low pressure in a storm is caused by vortical motion of atmospheric vortex with resonated vortex column.
110. Raindrops, snowflakes or hails in homogenous forms showering in uniformly spread out manner is as a result of a unisonal evolution mechanism.
111. Dust Devil is formed by vortical reactions of a clear air vortex with a circular momentum that has bounced off the ground.
112. Dust storm is formed by vortical reactions of a huge cyclonic clear air vortex with a circular momentum that has bounced off the ground.
113. Atmospheric layers are nested plasmatic spheroids with their surfaces electrically charged to different electrical energy levels.
114. Bow echo is driven by an atmospheric vortex of lower cloud level and it could be triggered by focused precession effect in a Solar System alignment effect.
115. Clouds are vortically levitated on plasmatic surface of atmospheric layers by electrostatic repulsion.
116. Air-pocket commonly experienced by cruising air-craft is the vortex column of a clear air vortex where there is a void of usual atmospheric layer.
117. Unisonal vortex of molten matter can be formed underneath Earth's crust as a result of precession caused by planetary alignments.
118. Crater can be formed by vortex of molten matter.
119. The dual core in remnants of a crater is caused by a separating core towards the surface in unisonal vortex of molten matter.
120. Earthquake could be triggered by focused precession effects from a Solar System alignment with a strong torque-induced precession.
121. Earthquake could be caused by seismic waves generated from vortex of molten matter triggered in a torque-free precession.
122. Volcano eruption could be triggered by focused effects of precession from a Solar System alignment.
123. Deep-ocean whirlpool clusters are triggered by focused precession effects from a Solar System arrangement causing oceanic torque-free precession.
124. Tidal bore is a section of a huge whirlpool driven by torque-free precession of Earth.
125. Tidal bore is triggered seasonally during equinox with a torque-induced precession from aligned Moon and Sun that exerts on Earth.
126. Tidal bore could be caused by seismic waves transferred from a rumbling vortex of molten matter formed underneath Earth's crust in a torque-induced precession on Earth.
127. Tidal wave could be formed by a vortical air column of vortrex with air stream vortically bounced up from the bottom of the atmospheric vortex column.
128. Tidal wave could be formed by seismic waves that resonates on surface of water to spin water molecules out of the surface after overcoming gravity and its cohesive force.
129. Mist can be caused by combined tidal forces in a Solar System alignment effect that lowers the altitude of atmospheric layers.
130. Spokes and spiral arms are satellite vortices on leading arcs of dilated harmonic vortices at different angular phase that cyclonically rotates around a vortical origin.
131. Lightning is caused by atmospheric vortex that has dynamo effect on bipolar molecules of water vapor that generates electrical charges.
132. Lightning is formed by vortrex of glowing plasma in a vortically folding back process on invisible electromagnetic vortex column.
133. Lightning is an electromagnetic vortices of electrodynamics with electrons tunneling in vacuum of the vortex column.
134. The isotropy of gravitational force of all celestial objects in the physical universe is caused by the potential density of aetheric medium in its volumetric pressure.
135. Gravity is vortically caused by electromagnetic fields of different wavelengths. With credits to James Aaron Nicholson.
136. Gravity is an inertial force of vortical core-seeking motion and it vortically pushes matters inwards to a zero-point. Inspired by Tiny Bits Part I on Gravity.
137. Gravity is caused by electrostatic pressure repelling inside nested plasmatic spheroids pushing matters vortically toward the core.
138. The focused precession effect of a Solar System arrangement have significant effects on natural events on Earth.
139. Meniscus of liquid in an enclosure is caused by the push effects of geometrical gravity field with vortically culminated momentum.
140. Convection in nature is caused by vortical motion of molecules within viscous matter.
141. Nested magnetospheres are vortically spinning magnetic fields in shell layers of electrostatic repulsion barriers as charged spheres with equipotential surfaces.
142. Matter is weaved in isotropic vortical spin fusion of aetheric vortex and this is the causality for vortical spin radiation in various harmonic wavelengths.
143. Nested plasmatic spheroid is vortically formed in a bipolar set of magnetic monopole system within a larger encompassing plasmatic spheroid..
144. Electromagnetic radiation is the vortical interaction in the vortrex phase driven by its undulating aetheric unisonal vortex.
145. Thermodynamics of the universe is caused by aether vortical motion.
146. Energy is the function of aether vortical motion for its transferred motion as the mass effect of matters in a closed-system of the steady state physical universe.
147. The mass effect of matter is caused by aether vortical motion that renders the phenomenon of universal gravitation.
148. The torus shape structure of nested magnetospheres is caused by electromagnetic vortexes warping its surfaces at two polar regions.
149. Electric flux in standing wave is vortically generated by electric current in longitudinal wave flowing through an electrical resistant.
150. Electromagnetic field is vortically coalesced atheric jetstreams of laminar flow in vortical harmonics of progressive angular phase.
151. The chaotic magnetic behaviors during magnetic poles reversal are caused by vortex cluster of molten matter underneath the surface of a suspended spheroid.
152. Strong nuclear force is rendered by the electrostatic replusion force exerted by the unisonal spheroidal vortrex of atom.
153. Weak nuclear force is rendered by the vortical distribution of electrostatic force of atomic unisonal vortex manifested in subatomic particles.UVS
154. The geometrical structure of an atom of an atom is electromagnetic polar vortex pairs and it is driven by cyclonic gravity field effect of a universal bipolar system in precession.
155. Electron shells are pause layers of equipotential surfaces of a nested electrostatic spheroid with different electrical energy levels.
156. Electron is a subatomic electromagnetic vortex driven by the electromagnetic vortexes of an atom.
157. Electrons in atomic matters levitated on the plasmatic surfaces of electron shells and the are vortically held by the strong nuclear force.
158. Electron has a vortex form with sub-orbitals in a subatomic particle scenario. With credits to Allen Barrow
159. Electrons spin perpetually around its nucleus in its atomic orbitals on accretion disk that is driven by its atomic vortex.
160. Positron is consolidated and levitated vortical subatomic particles in a subatomic vortrex that folds back on its electron vortex.
161. Quark is a subatomic electromagnetic vortex of vortexes. With credits to Allen Barrow.
162. Electrons at opposite ends of their nucleus can interact instantaneously is caused by the connectedness of their undulating atomic vortex. Inspired by Brian Beh (Ph.D)
163. The frequency of a rotating electron can be affected by gravitational potential of Earth that has varying potential density at different altitude and latitude.
164. All forms of energy in the physical universe is the effects of the self-perpetual vortical motion of aether in a closed system.
165. All non-contact forces in nature are caused by vortical motion of an inviscid aetheric medium that is all-pervasive in the physical universe.
166. All steady-state physical structures are vortically consolidated viscous matters in different states and are held stable by a self-perpetuating vortical motion of different wavelengths.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some resonated remarks received that are relevant to Universal Vortical Singularity (aka UVS) for its overviews:

“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.” - Gerald (aka spacedout of TOEQuest Forum), 4th Jul 2011.

“The UNIVERSAL VORTICAL SINGULARITY is the best cosmological model available today to explain the Universe.” - pat n, scientist by profession, author of “REAL HOLOGRAPHIC UNIVERSE MODEL”, 23th March 2011.

“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.” - Ophiolite of Naked Science Forum, 21st Sep 2010.

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

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

“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.” - Dr. Vladimir B. Ginzburg, mathematician, accomplished engineer, 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, 28th Jun 2009.

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

“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.” - David Levi Wing (aka dleviwing, moderator of TOEQuest forum; author of "TORONICS"- Interpretations of Physics, The Mystery of Mass, Wave Characteristics, The Standard Model), 30th Dec 2008.

“You are right-on with your "Universal Vortical Singularity" the only thing left is to prove that the same thing happens on the quantum level.” - James A. Graber (aka Jag of TOEQuest) with twenty-five years into vortex research, 6th Oct 2008.

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

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

“Vincent I think I finally got you; the whole universe is twisted!” - Graham Burnett (aka G_burnett of TOEQuest Forum), 2008.

“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.” - Allen Barrow (aka PoPpAScience of TOEQuest Forum), 31st Mar 2008.

Author's note: When I was awakened to the idea of a vortical universe in May 2007 and subsequently has developed the model of Universal Vortical Singularity (UVS model), 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 in all eras, was presented in "From cosmic whirl to vortices" by Vladimir B. Ginzburg who had wrote a vortex theory called "Three-Dimensional Spiral String Theory", had came to my attention in June 2009 only after the vortical universe concept for UVS was quite developed with 138 qualitative predictions. Even then, UVS still has its uniqueness among these other vortex theories. June 2009.

2008

References and links:
Natural science - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Natural phenomenon - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Logical empiricism - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Epistemology - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Foundational crisis - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Epistemic theories of truth - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Macrocosm and microcosm - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Universe - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Inductive reasoning - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hypothetical constructs - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Paradigm shift - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Epistemology - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Applied science - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mathematical model - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deductive reasoning - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reality - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Inference - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Paradoxes - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Philosophical identities - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Proof theory - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Syntactic - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Philosophical logic - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Physics - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Fallacy of misplaced concreteness - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Scientific method - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Scientific consensus - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Geocentric model - 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
Diurnal motion - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Celestial coordinate system - 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
Mathematical paradox - By James Yolkowski
Dichotomy - 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
Galileo's validity analysis on Venus - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Phases of Venus - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mathematical physics - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Theoretical physics - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Science - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
LINEAR MATHEMATICS IN INFINITE DIMENSIONS - U. H. Gerlach
Planetary orbits - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Solar System - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Universal Helicola - By Dr. Vladimir Ginzburg
Inertial frame of reference - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Kepler's laws of planetary motion - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Celestial mechanics - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Star HL Tau - National Geographic News
Heliocentrism - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Big Bang model- From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Timeline - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe - From NASA
Galaxy Abell 1835 IR1916 - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Redshift - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Angular diameter distance - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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
Mathematical proof - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Superluminal - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Einstein's special relativity - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Cosmology- From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Three-dimensional space - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Euclidean space - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Relativistic Doppler effect - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Absolute time and space - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Comoving distance - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Observable universe - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Galaxy cluster JKCS041 - From SPACE.com
Cosmic inflation - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Accelerating universe - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Cosmic scale factor - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Second derivative - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Type Ia supernova- 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
Strawman argument - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Affirming the consequent - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Pseudoscience - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Classical physics - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Modern physics - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
From cosmic whirl to vortices - Prime Elements of Ordinary Matter, Dark Matter & Dark Energy By Vladimir B. Ginzburg, Tatyana V. Ginzburg
Raisin pudding model - Western Washington University Planetarium
Scientific model - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Image of Flat Earth - Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania
Image of Our Solar System - Free clip art by cksinfo.com
Image of star HL Tau - Credit: Greaves, Richards, Rice & Muxlow 2008
Wobbling spheres animation - ThinkQuest Library
An animated simulation for phases of Venus - Physics Flashlets by Michael Timmins
Video clip on "Earth Rotation & Revolution around a moving Sun" - By Kurdistan Planetarium
Video clip "The solar system's motion thru space" - By The Resonance Project / Nassim Haramein.avi
A video clip on simulating Michelson-Morley experiment in aether wind - You Tube; pepenjuto
An animated simulation of Michelson-Morley experiment - Physics Flashlets; Michael Fowler

counter was reset on 02/02/2010

Disclaimers: The above revolutionary discoveries and conjectures based on an unheard-of hypothesis of Universal Vortical Singularity with radical ideas are unconventional, the explorations of the uncharted at fundamental stage might not be thoroughly covered, bound to have shortcomings, loose ends and errors, many details and assumptions have yet to be further researched, probed, evaluated, validated and proven. Many of the implicit explanations are for casual understanding of the topics presented, any term or statement if offensive in any manner or whatsoever is most regretted. Links to other sites do not imply endorsement of their contents; apply appropriate discretion whenever necessary. Some web browsers were reported to have displayed with data corruption for text, disorganized images and some animations did not work, it is recommended to view the contents from UVS web pages with Windows Internet Explorer.

Copyright information: Images found in this website have been used with the express permission of the copyright holders. Wherever possible, direct credit to the origin of the image has been provided; any re-use requires the permission of the original copyright holder. In instances in which an image credit has not been given, the image is understood to be in the public domain, if this is believed not to be the case for any image, please advise with the proper credit information.