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 can predict quantitatively and how widely the established theory has been independently tested and accepted by so many elites 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 can pragmatically work 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 analysis in its evaluation to analytically prove its hypothesis for the empirically observed natural phenomenon. 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 its philosophy with varying degrees of uncertainty for its 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, "Theory of justification", 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, in the theories of justification with their understood delusions, it could be demonstrated that the overemphasizing on deductive analysis with extreme obsession for higher resolution of its quantitative prediction, and ignoring qualitative evaluation for its assumed philosophical identities in its mathematical construct, as with the hypothetico-deductive model of scientific method, 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.

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

It is a myth that solely through deductive analysis for attaining highly accurate quantitative prediction with mathematical proof to rigorously develop a scientific theory, is generally the correct scientific method for the investigation of natural phenomena; such a process merely pushes for high resolution measurements with its deep-rooted belief that could be perceived and interpreted in a delusion.

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 delusory shadow of truth.

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

Any law of physics that suffers foundational crisis with any of its posits would paradoxically distort its perception of reality, and with a validated quantitative prediction deduced in its delusion, it could make a deductive conclusion that would be fallaciously taken as a scientifically proven fact.

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

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.

“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 being 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 can 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 that was established in its mathematically quantifiable realm with its belief. 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 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 apparently 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

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 moving independently to whatever directions. This is a very amazing natural cognitive paradox, and its discernable optical illusion can be easily resolved for understanding its all applicable delusion of passive transformation in local reference frame.

In an era when astronomy was based on geocentric model of Aristotelian universe, the extreme crescent phase of Venus at then had been observed with the naked eye, all mainstream astronomers had believed that Venus revolves around Earth like the Moon, and they knew the Moon shines by reflecting the Sun's light. Although Galileo through observations with telescope had observed that Venus simultaneously exhibited a full set of phases similar to that of the Moon when they were in close proximity, 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, with inductive reasoning for Venus showed phases with a peculiarity, it had thus resolved the cognitive paradox. With positive assertion, Galileo 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".

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

According to the definition of mainstream 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.

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

Ever since mathematical physics has become the consensus for analyzing natural phenomena with the studies of quantitative measurement, and has dominated as the mainstream, the foundationalism of theoretical physics for natural science that bases on inductive analysis for qualitative evaluation has been discreetly sidetracked. Specifically, science as defined in mathematical physics, is merely the acquired knowledge of measurement for natural phenomena that could rigorously make accurate quantitative predictions with their theoretical foundations assumed in their beliefs.

Critically, as an example, there was no direct proof that the electron vibration frequency of the caesium-133 atom used in atomic clock would remain stable when it is subjected to different inertial accelerations. But assumed to be stable in the mathematical constructs of modern physics, thereon by self-referencing with its quantitative proof that was boasted to have ten digits accuracy, and its quantitative predictions have been overwhelmingly successful for technological achievements, it was 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 proven in its cognitive paradox with circular reasoning. This is as fallacious as the claim of proof for geocentrism with self-fulfilling prophecy by using its successful quantitative predictions that were validated in self-reference with its very own hardcore belief, which has had insidiously corrupted all its perceptions for the realities of nature.

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

Without qualitative proof, it cannot be certain that the quantitative proof of a scientific theory is true.

Physics 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 the Sun 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 is a newly formed star HL Tau within Milky Way. 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".Note: These illustrations would be qualitatively more accurate if they show the barycenter motion of a moving Sun that propagates in a composite helical path around the Galactic Center. “Celestial object rotates and revolves in vortical motion.” - UVS inspired The resolution of celestial object rotates and revolves in vortical motion, have significant implications for a better understanding of an underlying celestial mechanism that hitherto has been overlooked. See UVS topics on "Sunspot", "Solar System alignment effect" that elaborates on how some significant discoveries that are leading to substantial qualitative knowlege could be asserted with this resolution, and "The interactions of isotropic push-in gravity in the superior and inferior conjunction of Sun, Jupiter and Saturn" that resolves a cognitive paradox in Newton's law of universal gravitation. 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 and Newton's law of universal gravitation were based on this incorrect assumption that renders the cognitive paradox fallacy in their mathematical constructs. Any extrapolated theory that was based on this incorrect assumption to profess on any natural phenomenon would thus 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

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. With this resolution that has critically addressed the cognitive paradox, 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 empiricism it was erroneous for its theory of justification, and therefore is unthinkable; no logical thought experiment could work for such a paradoxical 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 suffers a paradox and therefore is logically fallacious. It could be abstractly postulated that the universe is an open system in the Big Bang model with mathematical proof such that it would take only ~500 million years for that distant galaxy in the expansion of space to 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 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 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

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. Paradoxically, 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 the effects of timeline and time dilation 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 that renders a compounded optical illusion. 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 time frame 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 time frame 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 time frame negation effect; the derivation of velocities among galaxies 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 in a compounded optical illusion caused by optical negation with limited speed of light. Consequently, any theory extrapolated from this foundation that has been based on a false fact would be fallacious, this is despite its quantitative predictions could paradoxically work for the apparently observed natural phenomenon. “Without realizing the cognitive paradoxes that negate to cause delusions in the physical universe, for centuries, the paradoxical effect of nature had fooled even the very brilliant people.” - UVS inspired

"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. “Any scientific fact must leave no room for any rational doubt.” - UVS inspired 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 fallaciously concluded that there is no electrical current in the system that makes it work. “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” - Richard Feynman 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.

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

“In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” - George Orwell

Page last edited on 10th March 2012.

References and links:
Natural science - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Natural phenomenon - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Empiricism - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Foundational crisis - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Epistemic theories of truth - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Theory of justification - 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
Scientific theory - 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
Belief system - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Theory of justification - 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
Hypothetico-deductive model - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Scientific method - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mathematical proof - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Fact - 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
Passive transformation - 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
Logical positivism - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Theoretical physics - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Foundationalism - 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
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
Newton's law of universal gravitation - 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
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

Hyperlinks in this web page:
Critiques of scientific method
Mathematical constructs based on geocentric model works
Apparent retrograde motion
The qualitative prediction on the orbiting path of Venus
The cognitive paradox fallacy in Kepler's law of planetary motion
The cognitive paradox fallacy in Big Bang model on expansion of space
The cognitive paradox fallacy in cosmic inflation on accelerated expansion of space
The cognitive paradox fallacy in Michelson-Morley experiment

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.