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 deeprooted 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 wellestablished
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 hypotheticodeductive
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
deeprooted 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 selfreferencing.
“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 deeprooted 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 twentyfour 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 millenniumsold 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 Earthcentered
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 twentyfour
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 selffulfilling
prophecy by selfreference.
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.


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 selfreferencing 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 knowhow 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 AltAzimuth
GoTo system is pragmatically inferior in comparison; a knowhow
is not tantamount to its knowwhat
or knowwhy.
A pragmatic knowhow that is developed in the realm of its scientific
model, is not by defacto the proof
for the knowwhat 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 selfreinforcing cohort of its nonselfcritical 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 selfreferencing with their a posteriori
knowledge.
Critically,
there was no direct
proof that the electron vibration frequency of the caesium133 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 selfreferencing
with its quantitative proofs that were boasted to have greater than tendigit
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 selffulfilling
prophecy by using its successful quantitative predictions that were
validated by selfreference 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 topsyturvy
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
selfreference mathematical construct will create a mathematical
paradox with selfreferential 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 selfjustifications
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 dualcore 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 largescale 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 pushedin 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 timedilated 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 noncontradiction.
The
Big Bang model is a selfreferenced 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 timedilated
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 timedilated 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 selfreferencing
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 lightyears 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 lightyears
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 Xray 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 
Xray
image 
Qualitatively,
the
conceptbased 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 threedimensional
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
twentyfour 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 MichelsonMorley 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 MichelsonMorley
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 MichelsonMorley experiments
if it exists at all. 

Watch
a
video clip on simulating MichelsonMorley experiment in aether wind,
and also see an
animated simulation of MichelsonMorley 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 MichelsonMorley
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 selfreferential 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 selffulfilling
prophecies by selfreference;
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 "Fourdimensional
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,
"MichelsonMorley
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 WenHao, 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 intuitiveinductive 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 indepth 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 nonartificial 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
Knowhow
 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
Hypotheticodeductive
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
Selffulfilling
prophecy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Selfreference

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
AltAzimuth
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
Selfjustification
 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 noncontradiction 
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
Threedimensional
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
MichelsonMorley
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 MichelsonMorley experiment in aether wind
 You Tube; pepenjuto
An
animated simulation of MichelsonMorley 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 MichelsonMorley experiment
Copyright
information: This UVS web site is for nonprofit 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.
