Home
Preface
Overviews
Paradoxical effect
Revolutionary discoveries
UVS worldview
UVS model
UVS inspirations
Forum
Contact


Critiques of the scientific method
- Addressing 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 an illusion as a result of its natural cognitive paradox, and therefore was developed based on its misconception in delusive circumstances, such as it was based on the fallacious posit that Earth is the center of the universe, its first principle is fundamentally incorrect.

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

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

In a nutshell, with grounding in the discipline of epistemology, this is a critique of physics on several aspects of the scientific method.

See externally linked topics on "Criticism of science", 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.

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

Notwithstandingly, the endorsed scientific method of modern science, intrinsically suffers foundational crisis. And in the delusions of grandeur with its confirmation bias, its peer review process has been established in such incorrect foundations with fallaciously endorsed posits for its outset. Thus, the current mainstream modern science by at large, is still in its fogs of science delusion.

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

Putting into perspective for epistemic theories of truth with the resolved cognitive paradoxes, and understood the delusions in the theories of justification for many of such conventional wisdom that are validated with their criteria of truth, it could be demonstrated that the overemphasizing on deductive analysis with extreme obsession for higher resolution of their quantitative predictions, and ignoring qualitative evaluation for the posits in their mathematical constructs, as with the application of the scientific method for refining such hypothetico-deductive models, is a wrong path for mainstream physics in its fallacy of misplaced concreteness.

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

Any law of physics that suffers foundational crisis with any of its posits, would paradoxically distort its perception of reality. And with its validated quantitative predictions deduced in its delusion by begging the question for its premises, it could paradoxically make its deductive conclusions that would be fallaciously reckoned with scientific consensus as scientifically established facts. In its slippery slope fallacy thereon, any theory extrapolated from a foundation that was based on its false fact, would be fallacious. This is despite its valid conclusions are analytically true, and can also pragmatically work.

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

The deep-rooted belief in the capability of mathematical principles for conducting evaluation to validate a scientific claim solely through unassailable deductive analysis with quantitative rigors, could lead to the illusion of knowledge under the circumstances of a not known delusion.

A mathematically proven conclusion of its mathematical construct in theoretical physics solely deduced with quantitative rigors, although could have integrated its inference of reality with the empirical observation, in its abstract it was based on its philosophy of science with varying degrees of uncertainty for its interpretation of the numbers obtained from the observation; its analytically proven philosophical identities as posited in its abstract are the a priori assumptions that could be fallaciously proven by self-referencing.

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

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

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

A scientific theory that was proved in its mathematical construct to be analytically true, could be unwarily misled by a cognitive paradox of nature. If so, it would have been fallaciously established in its delusion, and ignorantly refers to its paradoxically perceived observation of nature as the reality; this is an erroneous perception of reality in its delusory shadow of truth with its artificial cognitive paradox.

It is a cognitive paradox fallacy that any physical law or axiom for the a priori proposition of an empirical observation, can be conclusively proven by the quantitative rigors of its a posteriori knowledge.

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

Although mathematics is the language that can precisely describe observed
natural phenomena with its constructs, in reality it is not the correct tool for
the evaluations and descriptions of the observed natural phenomena.
- UVS inspired
-

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

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

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

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

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

It is a myth that solely through deductive analysis based on its scientific model for attaining highly precise and consistent quantitative predictions, and thus rigorously develops its scientific theory with mathematical proofs for testing by its physics experiments, is generally the correct scientific method for the investigation of natural phenomena to make scientific progress. Such a process muddling preciseness as accurateness, merely pushes for higher resolution measurements with its deep-rooted belief that could be consistently perceived and interpreted in its delusion.

I don't believe in mathematics. - Albert Einstein

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

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

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

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

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

The systems of epitrochoid cycle based on the a priori assumption that Earth is the center of the universe, could be successfully used with the deferent and epicycles of the Sun for making precise quantitative predictions in geocentric events. Notwithstandingly, these workable quantitative predictions reckoned as validated deductive proofs for substantiating the claim of fact that it takes a period of approximately twenty-four hours for the Sun to revolve around the Earth in a solar day, is a known fallacy in modern science; a mathematical deduction substantiated with successful quantitative predictions that were fundamentally derived 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 the results of natural delusions. They are rendered by the natural cognitive paradoxes of relative motion illusions that are being caused by natural negations to result in their fallacious empirical observations of the natural phenomena.

Image on right illustrates the basic elements of Ptolemaic system for astronomy based on the geocentric model, showing a planet (orange color object) on an epicycle (smaller dotted circle) with a deferent (larger dotted circle) and an equant (solid black dot •) directly opposite the Earth (purple and white color object) from the center of the deferent (symbol x). Watch a video clip on "Ptolemy's geocentric universe" for further elaboration.


An animation to
illustrate epitrochoid


Ptolemaic elements
in a geocentric model.


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


Apparent retrograde
motion of Mars.

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

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

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

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

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

What one has believed as a truth that refers to reality is one issue, what is the truth is another issue. - UVS inspired -

As a matter of fact, although the equatorial mount, celestial sphere, and celestial coordinate system were the inventions of geocentrism, they are so successful, simpler, and cost effective that they are still being used in modern astronomy. And when it comes to astrophotography, even the modern Alt-Azimuth GoTo system is pragmatically inferior in comparison; a know-how is not tantamount to its know-what or know-why. A pragmatic know-how that is developed in the realm of its scientific model, is not by de-facto the proof for the know-what of its empirical observation. The exact sciences of geocentrism and heliocentrism that can successfully predict natural phenomena, are not the proofs for the postulated first principle or axioms of their models.

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

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


The Moon

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

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

Galileo qualitatively predicted with his hypothesis by inductive reasoning that the time of descent for free falling objects, is independent of their mass. This was with qualitative rigor in the law of noncontradiction for its a priori reasoning, and the resolution of this Galileo's hypothesis had thus addressed the cognitive paradox fallacy in the Aristotle's theory of gravity, which falsely states that heavier objects fall faster. Reportedly he proved this qualitative prediction by dropping two balls of different mass from the Leaning Tower of Pisa, and the experiment demonstrated that the time of descent of the balls is independent of their mass.

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

In an era where astronomy was based on geocentric model of Aristotelian universe, all mainstream astronomers in that era had believed that Venus revolves around Earth like the Moon. The extreme crescent phase of Venus at then had been observed with naked eye observations, and they knew Moon and Venus shine by reflecting the light of the Sun.

Although Galileo through observations with telescope had observed that Venus did simultaneously exhibited phases similar to that of the Moon when they were in close proximity, in his analysis he based on the Copernican heliocentrism for the qualitative prediction on the orbiting path of Venus, and after an extensive period of telescopic observation, with abductive reasoning on Venus showed its phases with a peculiarity, which can only happen if it revolved around the Sun, its cognitive paradox was thus resolved.

With positive assertion, Galileo proved the qualitative prediction that Venus revolves around the Sun and not the Earth.

See externally linked topics on "Phases of Venus", and "An animated simulation for phases of Venus" for further elaboration.


Venus orbit


Phases of Venus

See a subtopic on "The cognitive paradox in Kepler's laws of planetary motion" that elaborates on how the validated Kepler's laws were based on an incorrect fundamental a priori assumption stemmed from its delusive circumstances.

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

According to the discipline of mainstream theoretical physics that is currently being upheld by the vast majority of the experts, without any quantitative prediction, the research done by Galileo that had proven Venus revolves around the Sun is not science in the nowadays standard for physics. And there is a very prevailing notion that any research that does not involve mathematical equation, is not science in the discipline of physics. Nonetheless, this Galilean study is absolutely a research in the discipline of natural science with positive assertion that has precedential significant for its generalization, and it refers to reality for how the observed phenomenon actually works; this is an epistemic truth for the actuality of an empirically observed natural phenomenon that refers to reality.

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

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

We should remember that there was once a discipline called Natural Philosophy. Unfortunately, this discipline seems not to exist today. It has been renamed science, but the science of today is in danger of losing much of the natural philosophy aspect. - Hannes Alfven, 1986

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

Notwithstandingly, the a priori posits for such typical fundamental theories, were intrinsically proven by self-referencing with their a posteriori knowledge.

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

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

One can persistently fool himself with the founded consistency in a delusion that validates
his paradoxical perception, and therefore becomes biased for believing what is not true.
- UVS inspired -

See a UVS topic on "Qualitative evaluation on time dilation" that elaborates on a crucial foundational crisis and its artificial cognitive paradoxes in modern physics.

A self-reference mathematical construct will 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, such as reified space or reified time, it therefore could be deduced to prove anything and infallibly makes conclusions within its mathematically defined realm that is based on its fundamental a priori assumption. However, without qualitative proof for the a priori assumption, its validated a posteriori deductive proof substantiated with precise and consistent quantitative prediction, is not certainly conclusive when referred to reality.

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

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

With the adulterated definition for what is a scientific theory, and in self-justifications with the speciously validated propositional knowledge, the mainstream modern science with the endorsed scientific method, thus is still in the fogs of its science delusion.

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


Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. - Richard Feynman

I have often made the hypothesis that ultimately physics will not require a mathematical statement,
that in the end the machinery will be revealed and the laws will turn out to be simple.
- Richard Fenyman

Looking back at the worst times, it always seems that they were times in which there were people who believed with absolute faith and absolute dogmatism in something. And they were so serious in this matter that they insisted that the rest of the world agree with them. And then they would do things that were directly inconsistent with their own beliefs in order to maintain that what they said was true. - Richard Feynman

 

 

 

The cognitive paradox fallacy in Kepler's laws of planetary motion

"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.


Paradoxically, the Sun does not rise in the east like it apparently seems to be, it is not stationary nor the center of the universe like it had been believed to be so with the putative laws of physics, and it is also not the central of the Solar System like it is being thought as with conventional wisdom; nothing is further from the truth than these false facts of past and present that were conceived in all sorts of delusion.- UVS inspired -

See externally linked topics on "Solar System model", and "Orrery" that elaborate on the relative positions and motions of the planets and moons in the Solar System.

It is an immutable fact that all Solar System objects including the Sun are moving in helical paths through space while revolving around the Milky Way galaxy, and this could be visualized from an external reference frame in their transcendental perspectives. 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, which was disseminated and printed on all the school books for astronomy; this is merely a localized perception with incomplete view. And in its negation, it would not reflect the actual celestial mechanics for planetary motion.

The image on right shows a newly formed star HL Tau with its protoplanet that was coalescing in a womb of gas.

See UVS topics on "The structure of a galaxy", "The orbit of natural satellite", and "Vortical motion of planetary moon" for further elucidation on vortical motion of planet.


Star HL Tau and its
protoplanet HL Tau b

See also an externally linked topic on "The Universal Helicola" that presents an impeccable illustration for spiral motion of Earth's path in space on page 269 in figure 13.1, it was elaborated qualitatively, analytically and quantitatively. Watch video clips on "Earth Rotation & Revolution around a moving Sun" that illustrates with an external perception for the helical motion of Earth along a moving Sun and "The solar system's motion thru space". Note: Qualitatively, these animated illustrations would be more accurate if the barycenter motion of a moving Sun that propagates in a composite helical path around the Galactic Center were shown, nonetheless, despite their flaws and technical errors, these were still excellent animated illustrations for the spiral motion of planets.

All celestial objects rotate and revolve in vortical motion with resonated precession effects.- UVS inspired -

The Sun exchanges angular momentum primarily with Jupiter, and also with all other Sun's satellites and stuff in the heliosphere while the Sun moves; it is a scientific fact that the Sun spirals to revolve around the barycenter of the Solar System. And it is indubitable that the Sun revolves by spiraling around the dual-core Galactic Center of the Milky Way galaxy at the velocity of approximately 232 km/s and it takes around 230 million years to make one revolving cycle.

Any two celestial objects revolving around each other with their barycenter vortically moving through space, will spiral in helical motions with precession effects. In the external reference frame of the Milky Way galaxy, the Sun as a matter of fact is moving in a composite helical path around the Galactic Center. This infers the motion of the Sun is primarily impelled by the vortical motion of its galaxy. The motion of the Solar System is a vortical motion transferred from the vortical motion of the Milky Way galaxy, and the Solar System is being coalesced in a resonated vortical motion with stellar materials. This elucidates that the helical motions of Solar System objects are manifested by the vortical motion of the Solar System.

Local physical laws are determined by the large-scale structure of the universe. - Mach's principle

The Newtonian kinetic energy of Earth according to Kepler's law of planetary motion, is ~2.687E33 kg.m²/s² (or joules); ½mv², where m is ~5.972E24 kg for the mass of Earth, v is ~30 km/s for the Earth's orbiting velocity. Nonetheless, Earth moving through space is impelled by the Milky Way galaxy that moves at the velocity of ~369 km/s against the CMB rest frame, therefore a primary kinetic energy of Earth in this rest frame should be ~4.07E35 joules instead. The average kinetic energy of the Earth from this transcendental perspective in the CMB rest frame, is a staggering 151 times of the quantitatively predicted kinetic energy of the Earth that was based on a static Sun, which is way far out of reality, and this has significant induced precession effects on a vortically spiraling Earth.

The Sun has had the false reputation that it is the center of the universe,
and it is also not the central of the Solar System.
- UVS inspired -

With the resolved cognitive paradoxes, thus rendering the resolution on celestial objects are rotating and revolving in vortical motion, these have significant implications for advancing the knowledge of an underlying celestial mechanism that hitherto has been overlooked with conventional wisdom.

See UVS topics on "The interactions of spheroidal pushed-in gravity in superior and inferior conjunction", "Sunspot", "Solar System alignment effect" that elaborates on how some significant discoveries that are leading to substantial qualitative knowledge could be asserted with this resolution.

Although the proposition of heliocentrism is valid for planets are revolving around the Sun in the Solar System in its inertial frame of reference, its posit of a static Sun is the center of its static universe model with motionless stars was falsified in the twentieth century astronomy; Kepler's laws of planetary motion and Newton's law of universal gravitation were based on this incorrect a priori assumption that renders the cognitive paradox fallacy in their mathematical constructs.

A paradoxical effect can consistently fool us with
its cognitive paradox in its state of delusion.
- UVS inspired -

By confining within the Kepler's laws of planetary motion on argumentative ground that it was based on scientifically proven fact, and in its mathematical construct these laws have had achieved scientific consensus with further support from Newton's laws, taking it as it was propositioned, and therefore would not seek further inquiry for its transcendental perspective. In its artificial cognitive paradox, one could maintain its mathematically deduced conclusions are empirically valid in its reference frame; this is a negated perception of the natural phenomenon with its putative laws of physics that was perceived in the subjective reality of its model with a static Sun.

This is how the putative laws of physics could lie with the deductive inference in the mathematical construct for its empirical observation when it gets to reality; in its concept from its localized perception it negates the reality. And in its delusion, it results in its illusion of knowledge with its a posteriori deductive proof.

The illusion of knowing in a delusion is apparently real in its cognitive paradox. - UVS inspired -


 

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

According to the Big Bang model, the universe has expanded from an extremely dense and hot state, and continues to expand today in its metric expansion of space.

The model suggests in the expansion of space, every celestial object in approximately 13.8 billion years has reached its current time-dilated spatial location in a timeline according to the trajectory of the celestial object in its expanded space.

"WMAP definitively determined the age of the universe to be 13.77 billion years old to within 1% (0.12 billion years) -as recognized in the Guinness Book of World Records!" - excerpt from "Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe".

See an externally linked topic on "The Distance Scale of the Universe" that elaborates on all types of distance measures, see also a software tool for calculating distance measures. Note: All figures herein are in approximation to three significant digit.

The Big Bang model propositioned that the boundary of the observable universe in every direction is a view at ~13.8 billion years ago when the universe was in its primordial stage, but this is absolutely contradicting in its three main fundamental aspects to all extents.

It paradoxically suggests that at the initial stage of the Big Bang within its first second, the extremely small, dense and hot state of the nascent universe, is currently being empirically observed in its time dilation image at ~13.8 billion years ago to be a spheroidal structure with an extremely large radius of ~13.8 Gly in an extremely sparse and cooled state.

Notwithstandingly, the Big Bang model has thus had flopped under the law of non-contradiction.

The Big Bang model is a self-referenced mathematical construct that creates an artificial cognitive paradox of the most extreme physical extents that are fallacious in its contradicting mathematical realm. With this resolution that has critically resolved the artificial cognitive paradox, the Big Bang model is so busted; the Big Bang is a myth.

The universe's timeline,
from inflation to the WMAP.

"According to the Big Bang model, the universe expanded from an extremely dense and hot state and continues to expand today. A common analogy explains that space itself is expanding, carrying galaxies with it, like raisins in a rising loaf of bread. The graphic scheme above is an artist concept illustrating the expansion of a portion of a flat universe."
- Excerpt from Wikipedia on Big Bang.

The proposition of expanding space in the Big Bang model is inconsistence in its own conceptual framework, although in its hypothetical construct it would be mathematically valid, and could be analytically understood, in epistemology, it was erroneous for its theory of justification; the Big Bang model is a paradoxical construct.

The farthest 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. This is believed to be a sight when the universe was merely ~500 million years young with a redshift factor of z = ~10.0, and it has an angular diameter distance of ~2.86 billion light year (Gly) when the galaxy emitted its light; this is an empirical evidence that at ~13.2 billion years ago that farthest galaxy was already at that spatial location and it had developed to a galaxy of significant size.

Put on a logic thinking cap and ask the question on how could the time-dilated image with an approximately 500 million years young scenario of that primordial galaxy appear at the ~13.2 billion year timeline in a Big Bang expansion; rationally it is impossible.

If the expansion of space had brought that galaxy there in ~500 million years with the Big Bang expansion, the observed time-dilated image of the primordial galaxy at ~500 million years young would not be able to appear at that spatial location in that ~13.2 billion year timeline; the Big Bang model that suggests the observable universe was created in a runaway swell of space from within a small hot ball suffers a paradox and therefore is logically fallacious.

It could be abstractly postulated that the universe is an open system in the Big Bang model with mathematical proof such that it would take only ~500 million years for that distant galaxy in the expansion of space to have relatively moved at superluminal speed to be at the angular diameter distance of ~2.86 Gly. Although this could be analytically understood that it did not violate Einstein's theory of special relativity on nothing can move faster than light through space in the metric expansion of space, it was still not coherent to what has been empirically observed; it violates the Einstein's theory of special relativity for the galaxy to be observable at all in such runaway expansion of space at superluminal speed. The abstract moot reasoning deduced to be valid 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.

Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity,
I do not understand it myself anymore.
- Albert Einstein

As an analogy, it is like the theorists of geocentrism postulated that the Sun with its precession of orbital inclination is revolving around the Earth, which means everyday the Sun rises from the horizon with a little shift to the left or to the right as observed are depended on the phases of the geocentric equinox. With the discovered precession effect in the empirical observation that was analytically consistent and precise with the quantitative predictions based on the precession of the Sun's orbital inclination, it thus claimed that this geocentrism discovery of the precession effect, is a scientific proof for the geocentric model that posits the Sun is revolving around the Earth. This is merely a red herring fallacy stemmed from its delusional observation, and it was proven in its cognitive paradox fallacy with self-referencing and circular reasoning by affirming the consequent.

Note: It does not even need to mention the farthest observed galaxy cluster JKCS041 is located on the southern celestial hemisphere (this is opposite to the northern celestial hemisphere where Abell 1835 IR1916 is located) 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 observable universe was spanning for at least billions of light-years across, and it was as evenly cold as it is now being observed across the timeline. By this analysis itself, it elucidates that the conclusion of the Big Bang model on the universe has expanded from a small ball in extremely dense and hot state is fallacious.

See "Big Bang Theory Busted By 33 Top Scientists" for An Open Letter to the Scientific Community, see also the video clips on "Cosmology Quest - Debunking Quackademic Cosmology" in Part 1 of 4, Part 2 of 4, Part 3 of 4, and Part 4 of 4 that illustrate with numerous empirical observations on the fallacy of the cosmological redshift, and a thesis on "Anomalous Redshift Data and the Myth of Cosmological Distance".

If a quasar of the Cartwheel galaxy is measured to have a significantly higher cosmological redshift than its host galaxy, with its X-ray image revealing the depth of view showing the quasar is at the foreground of the obscured region, hence confirming Earth is nearer to it than the core of the Cartwheel galaxy, this would be a concrete proof with its immutable empirical observation that the quasar is not at the distance as predicted with its cosmological redshift.


Optical image

X-ray image

Qualitatively, the concept-based expansion of space in the Big Bang theory was an erroneous a priori assumption at the fundamental level, and in its slippery slope fallacy, its propositions are therefore fallacious. The assumption that space can expand is absurd, but it is amazing for how such fundamental of the natural phenomenon can be overlooked.

The majority of experts in cosmology are obliviously holding a dogmatic belief that modern physics is an abstract study with rigor in quantitative measurements using mathematical equations; a hardcore belief in empirically observed natural phenomena could only be evaluated and validated with measurements in mathematical constructs based on the concept of elastic space that had achieved scientific consensus in modern physics. In the Big Bang model, the three-dimensional space is variant, therefore it is indifferent for length and distance in an elastic space. With this ambiguity, it therefore creates the paradoxical effect with its artificial cognitive paradox in its mathematical construct, and therefore leads to its validated mathematically deduced conclusions that are inherently fallacious.

Time and space are modes in which we think and not conditions in which we live. - Albert Einstein

An a priori assumption of a hypothetical model that is not proven in qualitative evaluation (such as in geocentric model, the Sun takes approximately twenty-four hours to revolve around the Earth) could be used to mathematically deduce the hypothetical model to be valid. A deductive mathematical proof that can quantitatively predict the observation successfully, is not the proof for its a priori assumption.

I don't believe in mathematics. - Albert Einstein

The apparently observed phenomenon of receding galaxies that suggests the universe is expanding, is indubitably not as a result of the metric expansion of space.

 

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

Ever since galaxies are receding in acceleration had been empirically observed, the classic Big Bang model that describes expansion of space with deceleration, had then fallen apart. Cosmic inflation with a runaway expansion of space answers the classic conundrum of the big bang cosmology, it is thus now considered as part of the standard hot big bang cosmology. The explanation for the observable universe in the Big Bang model now adopts the raisin pudding analogy to explain the observed phenomenon for accelerated expansion of space with cosmic inflation; space is expanding exponentially.

Paradoxically, limited by the speed of light, the empirical observation of the observable universe on receding galaxies in their frame of reference, would be apparently affected by timeline and time dilation effect; this is the composition of a time frame negation effect.

Hence, in circumstances of decelerated recession of the galaxies in the observable universe, those distant galaxies that are apparently observed in their further timelines of more distant past from Earth, would therefore paradoxically appear to be receding at increasing velocities than a galaxy at a nearer timeline of lesser distant past. This would render an optical illusion as a result of the effects of timeline and time dilation with a scenario that the observable universe is apparently expanding in acceleration.


Animated raisin pudding model of the BB expansion.


This natural cognitive paradox fallacy is caused by the time frame negation effect of timeline and time dilation that renders its composite optical illusion.

If the observable universe is expanding in acceleration as it was propositioned in cosmic inflation, the effects of timeline and time dilation would paradoxically render the observation of the observable universe to be apparently expanding in deceleration instead.

See externally linked topics on "Accelerating universe" and "Cosmic scale factor" that elaborate on how the accelerated expansion of space was observed and measured.

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, will not correct it from its natural cognitive paradox fallacy of time frame negation effect; the derivation of velocities among the distant galaxies was apparently observed on different timelines.

The conclusion of the revised Big Bang model with cosmic inflation on exponentially expanding space is thus fallacious. This is simply because its mathematical construct with its postulated metric expansion of space, was stemmed from the natural cognitive paradox fallacy in a composite optical illusion, which is caused by optical negation rendered by the limited speed of light from distant galaxies receding on different timelines.

The phenomenon of accelerated expansion of space as inferred with its apparently observations, is merely an optical effect of a natural cognitive paradox perceived with its artificial cognitive paradox and its posit of transformable space.

Consequently, any theory extrapolated from this foundation that was based on the false fact would thus be fallacious at its best.

Without realizing the cognitive paradoxes that negate to cause delusions in the observable universe,
the paradoxical effect of nature has had fooled even the very brilliant people.
- UVS inspired
-

Space is not expanding, and notwithstandingly, the galaxies are not receding from each other in acceleration as apparently observed.

 

The cognitive paradox fallacy in Michelson-Morley experiment

"Many astronomers believe the Milky Way is moving at approximately 600 km/s relative to the observed locations of other nearby galaxies. Another reference frame is provided by the Cosmic microwave background. This frame of reference indicates that The Milky Way is moving at around 552 km/s." - Excerpt from Wikipedia on motion (physics).

In a nutshell, with the deduction that a celestial object moving in a static medium of luminiferous aether would experience a drag, an aether wind should be detectable. This is because Earth revolves at approximately 30 km/s around Sun, the Sun revolves at approximately 232 km/s around the Galactic Center of Milky Way, therefore Earth moving in this static medium should show a significant aether wind, and more significantly if the movement of Milky Way in space relative to Cosmic microwave background at approximately 552 km/s is considered. If there is such an aether wind at all, it should be easily detected with the interferometer. However, in all Michelson-Morley experiments, measurements of such expectations were not detected at all, it was thus concluded that the postulated static luminiferous aether does not exist; the postulated static luminiferous aether would have been detected by the Michelson-Morley experiments if it exists at all.

Watch a video clip on simulating Michelson-Morley experiment in aether wind, and also see an animated simulation of Michelson-Morley experiment that its aether wind speed can be varied.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. - Carl Sagan

The scientific consensus on luminiferous aether does not exist, was based on a null hypothesis with the null result obtained by the Michelson-Morley experiment. Notwithstandingly, this conclusion is logically fallacious. It had only concluded that the quantitatively predicted aether wind was not found with the a priori assumption that luminiferous aether is a static medium. Neither Albert Michelson nor Edward Morley had ever considered that their experiment had disproved the aether hypothesis; it merely had proven that the postulated static aether does not exist.

Critically, a null hypothesis cannot assert positively with its hypothetical a priori posit, and therefore does not prove at all. The experimental conclusion for the a priori proposition that postulates a static medium of luminiferous aether is proven to be inexistent, is not the proof for the a priori posit that luminiferous aether is a static medium. The scientific consensus with the null hypothesis, thus is simply a formal fallacy of affirmative conclusion from a negative premise in a hasty generalization with its argument from ignorance.

Any scientific fact must leave no room for any rational doubt. - UVS inspired -

As an analogy for the null hypothesis with null result, it would be similar to setting up an experiment to measure electrical power with the assumption that the electrical energy of a running system is operated with direct current. And after the direct current meter measured nothing, with the null result it concludes that there is no electrical current in the system that makes it work. This logical fallacy can also be rhetorically addressed as its evidence of absence, was concluded with its red herring fallacy in its ignoratio elenchi.

With the assumption that luminiferous aether is a static medium, one could regressively maintain a fallacious self-referential cognitive paradox with strawman argument to assert that aether was scientifically proven to be nonexistence with its bigotry argument from authority. This is merely a formal fallacy of affirming the consequent in the subjective reality of its hypothetical construct.

Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. - Richard Feynman

All the conclusions for aether does not exist in the abstract mathematical constructs based on the absurd assumptions of transformable space or reified time, were deduced with self-fulfilling prophecies by self-reference; such cognitive paradox fallacies were rendered by their philosophies of science that do not require aether to exist in their mathematical constructs. It is merely the dogma in the belief system of mathematical physics that asserts aether does not exist with argumentum ad populum.

By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox. - Galileo Galilei

See UVS topics on "Four-dimensional spacetime continuum in a hypothetical construct for sound wave in a vector space void of medium" that illustrates a hatch job that could do away with the existence of air for sound wave to propagate in a hypothetical realm, "Michelson-Morley experiment reviewed with UVS" for further elaboration.

 

The observable universe is paradoxical. - UVS inspired -

 

 

 

Some resonated remarks:

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

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

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

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

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, 24th Mar 2010.

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

With great respect, Vladimir.
- Dr. Vladimir B. Ginzburg, mathematician, accomplished scientist, author of "Prime Elements of Ordinary Matter, Dark Matter & Dark Energy", "Spiral Grain of the Universe" and several other renowned books such as "Metallurgical Design of Flat Rolled Steels" for applied science, and holds over fifty U.S. and foreign patents, 28th Jun 2009.

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

 

 


Glossary:
cognition
-
The understanding and trying to make sense of the world.
cognitive paradox
-
A category of paradox with illusions that are pertaining to perception or awareness, such as with relative motion illusion, optical illusion, tactile illusion and the likes.
cognitive paradox fallacy
-
The formal logical fallacy of a cognitive paradox.
delusion
-
A false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur.
empirical
-
Derived from or guided by experience or experiment; provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.
first principle
-
The first basis from which a thing is known.
fallacy
-
A deceptive, misleading, or false notion, belief, etc.
hypothesis 
-
A proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts. 
inductive analysis
-
A form of analysis based on inductive reasoning; a researcher using inductive analysis starts with answers, but forms questions throughout the research process.
inversed illusion
-
A peculiar type of illusion that paradoxically appears in an inverse manner.
natural phenomenon
-
A natural phenomenon is a non-artificial event in the physical sense, and therefore not produced by humans, although it may affect humans.
observable universe
-
The observable segment of the universe.
paradox
-
Any thing, or situation exhibiting an apparently contradictory nature with false proposition.
paradoxical effect
-
The effects of a cognitive paradox that is rendered in its state of delusion to perpetually fool us in a perception with its cognitive fallacy.
posit
-
To put forward as the factual basis for an argument; a fundamental setting or basis of its hypothesis or theory.
postulate
-
To assume the truth, reality, or necessity of, as a basis of an argument.
postulation
-
A principle proposition assumed or perceived to be true for its hypothesis or theory; an axiom.
science
-
Knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
scientific theory
-
A theory that has achieved scientific consensus that its accepted explanation through a scientific model is based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning.
theory 
-
A coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena. 
transcendental 
-
Being beyond ordinary or common experience, thought, or belief.
universe
-
The totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm. It is beyond the defined observable universe.

 

 

 

Page last edited on 3rd of June, 2014.

References and links:
Scientific theory - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Earth as the center of the universe - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hypothetical constructs - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
First principle - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Experiment - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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
Begging the question - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Premises
- From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Slippery slope fallacy - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Critique
- From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Physics - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Scientific method - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Epistemology - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Epistemic theories of truth - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Theory of justification - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Criteria of truth - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Conventional wisdom - 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
Know-how - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Applied science - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Peer review - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Expert - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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
Abstract - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Paradoxes - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Philosophy of science - 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
Fallacy of misplaced concreteness - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Propositional knowledge - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hypothetico-deductive model
- From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fact - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Truth - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Physical law
- From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Axiom - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hypothesis - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A priori and a posterior - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
THE FOUNDATIONAL CRISIS OF MATHEMATICS - EVAN WARNER
LINEAR MATHEMATICS IN INFINITE DIMENSIONS - U. H. Gerlach
Mathematical proof - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Scientific model - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Physics experiments - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Scientific progress - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Measurement - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Scientific consensus - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Geocentric model - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Modern Science - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Precession - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Equinox - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Solstice - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Epitrochoids - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Deferent and epicycle - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Self-fulfilling prophecy - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Self-reference
- From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ptolemaic elements - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Equant - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Apparent retrograde motion - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Celestial sphere - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Astrophysics
- From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Diurnal motion
- From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Passive transformation - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Celestial coordinate system - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Copernicus - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Peer review
- From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Copernican Revolution - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Galileo - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nicolaus Copernicus heliocentrism - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Circular definition - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Equatorial mount - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Celestial sphere
- From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Celestial coordinate system
- From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Astrophotography
- From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Alt-Azimuth GoTo system
- From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mathematical paradox - By James Yolkowski
Dichotomy - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reference frame - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Galileo's Leaning Tower of Pisa exoeriment - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Two New Sciences - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Law of noncontradiction - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mathematical object - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Aristotelian universe - Astronomy 161, Dept Physics & Astronomy, University of Tennessee
Venus - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Names of lunar phases - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Galileo's validity analysis on Venus - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Copernican heliocentrism - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Phases of Venus - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Discipline - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Science - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mathematical physics - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Theoretical physics - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Foundationalism - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Scientism - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stereotype - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Confirmation bias - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Belief system - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Self-justification - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Exact science - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pragmatic theory of truth - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Experimental physics - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Direct proof - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Atomic clock - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Circular reasoning - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Five Ws - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Proof (truth) - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Prejudices - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Discriminations
- From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Golden age of physics - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Scientific realism - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scientific hypothesis - ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA
Correspondence theory of truth - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quantitative research - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Truth value - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Planetary orbits - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Solar System model - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Orrery
- From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Solar System - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Milky Way - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Universal Helicola - By Dr. Vladimir Ginzburg
Newtonian kinetic energy - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
CMB rest frame - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Inertial frame of reference - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Kepler's laws of planetary motion - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Celestial mechanics
- From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Star HL Tau
- National Geographic News
Heliocentrism - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Newton's law of universal gravitation - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Kepler's Laws and Newton's Laws - by Darby Dyar
Big Bang model - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Metric expansion of space - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Timeline - From Wikipedia, the free 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
Empirical evidence - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Distance Scale of the Universe - By Richard Powell
Distance measures - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A software tool for calculating distance measures - By Edward L. (Ned) Wright
Law of non-contradiction - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mathematical proof - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Superluminal - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Einstein's special relativity - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quasar - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Catwheel galaxy
- From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cosmology - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Three-dimensional space - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Euclidean space - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Relativistic Doppler effect
- From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Absolute time and space - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Comoving distance - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Observable universe - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Orbital inclination - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Gettier problem
- From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Galaxy cluster JKCS041 - From SPACE.com
Big Bang Theory Busted By 33 Top Scientists - Rense.com
Cosmic inflation - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Accelerating universe - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Cosmic scale factor - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Proper time - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Second derivative - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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
Argument from ignorance - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Evidence of absence - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Red herring - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ignoratio elenchi - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Strawman argument - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Affirming the consequent - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Argument from authority - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Argumentum ad populum - 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
Image for Venus orbit - Nichalp
Image for phases of Venus - Statis Kalyvas
Image of Our Solar System - Free clip art by cksinfo.com
Image of star HL Tau - Credit: Greaves, Richards, Rice & Muxlow 2008
Animated epitrochoid - Sam Derbyshire at en.wikipedia
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 laws 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

 

 

HTML Hit Counter

Copyright information: This UVS web site is for non-profit purposes and not for commercial use. Wherever possible, direct credits to the origin of the work or images were provided, be it on fair dealing, with explicit permission from their owners, or the materials were believed to be in the public domain. In instances for which any external material has any issue, kindly advise for its proper.