. The primary focus on this research is on identifying the vortical singularities of unisonal vortex in natural phenomena, and on understanding the associated complexly inversed illusions caused by a paradoxical effect, so as to conduct validity analysis at fundamental level through inductive reasoning based on the model of Universal Vortical Singularity with consistence logic. This process solves cognitive paradoxes of natural phenomena and establishes qualitative predictions that are experimentally testable or provable. Based on the model of Universal Vortical Singularity, through inductive reasoning it has revealed numerous mysteries in those natural phenomena observed to be related to unisonal vortex mechanism by identifying its vortical singularities. This explains the enigmas in phenomena of some known naturally occurred free vortices, it also explains comprehensively and reasonably in the single model for some free vortex related phenomena that were explained otherwise by conventional knowledge, and shows elements of unisonal vortex in other mysterious phenomena observed that were not cleared or not known to be of vortical origin. The process clarifies misconceptions that have been misled by complexly inversed illusions of nature, it could thereby establish suitable hypothetical constructs with basic ideas and fundamental concepts for understanding the observed phenomena qualitatively based on unisonal vortex mechanism, primarily focused on triggering mechanism and fundamental working principles. When dealing with unknown fundamental for any observed natural phenomena, basic idea and fundamental concept of the hypothetical construct for understanding the underlying working principle should be the primary area of focus; validity analysis for an observed phenomenon is the foremost. See a section on "Validity analysis" from the perspective of Universal Vortical Singularity.

Unisonal vortex

A mechanism of unisonal vortex

Qualitative prediction is concerned with problems of building symbolic descriptions of processes, and using these descriptions for predicting a plausible continuation of these processes. It stresses the qualitative form of prediction as it does not seek precise characterization of future events, but rather a specification of plausible properties and constraints on the future events (Excerpt from CiteSeer). There is a distinct different between a qualitative prediction and a postulation; qualitative prediction is based on a scientific model. A postulation can be an assumption based on a conjecture, such as the assumption for luminiferous aether that it is a static medium; this is merely a speculation.

List of qualitative predictions made through Universal Vortical Singularity in a single model

1. The physical universe is formed in a paradigm of unisonal vortices in unison universally in a self-perpetuating vortical universe.
2. The observable physical universe is a bipolar vortical system with self-perpetual motion.
3. The observable physical universe has a torus-shape structure.
4. The entire observable physical universe is wobbling in a two-axis orthogonal rotation.
5. The Universe has potential density with the encapsulation of an elementary plasmatic medium within a vast isotropic boundary in nested arrangement.
6. Astrophysical plasma in its elementary form as an elastic viscous medium is pervasive throughout the entire physical universe.
7. The clockwork universe with everything sets in unisonal motion is caused by a universal vortical system of unisonal vortex.
8. The geometrical structure of physical universe is a formation in paradigms of interweaved plasmatic spheroid and unisonal vortex in a oneness.
9. The observable universe was expanding as a result of a vortical chain reaction in the effects of vortically intensified Ultra vortex.
10. The observable Universe was expanding in deceleration.
11. Galaxy supercluster with hundreds of galaxy clusters are vortically held by a cosmic vortex and revolve around a center of mass.
12. Galaxy cluster with thousands of galaxies are vortically held by a satellite cosmic vortex and revolve around a center of mass.
13. Galaxy is suspended and driven by a galactic vortex in a galactic spheroid.
14. Local galaxy group with tens of galaxies are vortically held by a sub-satellite cosmic vortex and revolve around a center of mass.
15. An invisible galactic spheroid of plasmatic viscous matter where galaxy is levitated on, is present.
16. Galactic vortex is formed in a galactic spheroid.
17. Galaxy is induced by a galactic vortex that has formed in a galactic spheroid.
18. Galaxy is formed by vortical collection of stars levitated on a galactic vortex.
19. Satellite galaxy is induced by satellite galactic vortex of a main galactic vortex.
20. Elliptical galaxy is formed in the wake of a dissipated galactic vortex.
21. Globular cluster is formed in the wake of a dissipated satellite galactic vortex.
22. The ripping of a galaxy is caused by the cyclonic gravity field effect from another larger galaxy system on near encounter.
23. Binary stars are revolving around each other in a common plasmatic shell that has merged from two stars.
24. Star cluster is held together by strong interactions from electromagnetic vortices of stars in the weak vortical interactions of the galactic vortex.
25. New stars are evolved by vortical interaction of satellite galactic vortex that form primordial bipolar vortexes pairs of stellar cloud.
26. Star is formed in a vortical compression of stellar matter in a primordial bipolar vortexes pair driven by a galactic vortex on its accretion disk.
27. The brightness of star depends on electric current generated by dynamo effect in magnetohydrodynamics of cyclonically consolidated plasma.
28. Stars are held apart in their clusters by electrostatic repulsion of electric force between charges from their plasmatic spheroids.
29. The nuclear fusion in star is cause by vortical consolidation of tremendously compressed plasmatic stellar matter compacted as a rotating plasmatic spheroid.
30. Stellar jets are formed in vortex columns of a polar vortex pair with ionized gas stream vortically pushing inward to the core of its suspended spheroid.
31. Protoplanetary disk is glowing plasma driven by vortical column of vortrex caused by its stellar jet vortex of a newly formed star.
32. The dust disk of star is induced by an outer layer huge stellar polar vortex.
33. The glowing spokes on dust disk of a star are satellite plasma vortices.
34. Supernova is typically caused by an unwinding process on driving the star to gradually spin in opposite direction.
35. Planetary nebula is a consolidating diffused star wobbling in precession with glowing plasma vortices pairs.
36. The bipolar nebula of a single star system is primarily caused by precession of the equator.
37. The bipolar nebula of a binary star system is primarily caused by precession of the ecliptic.
38. Protoplanet is formed in vortically scattered stellar clouds in a satellite vortexes pair on a plane of flattened plasmatic polar vortexes pair of its parent star.
39. Sun is revolving around Galactic center on a perpetual vortical force driven by a galactic vortex.
40. Sunspots are lower latitude unisonal vortices that have spawned in photosphere of Sun.
41. Solar cycle is mainly caused by combined gravities of Jupiter and Saturn in their orbital interactions on photosphere of Sun.
42. The less prominent solar cycles are caused by planetary alignments of inner solar system planets with Sun and either Jupiter, or Saturn.
43. The reversal in direction of the magnetic field lines of a sunspot is caused by perturbation from Jupiter and Saturn.
44. A sunspot pair is a dual-core unisonal vortex of Sun's photosphere that its dual-core are separated on the surface of photosphere.
45. Solar maximum of solar cycle is caused by combined precession effect of aligned Sun, Jupiter and Saturn.
46. Solar minimum of solar cycle occurs when position of Jupiter is perpendicular to the alignment of Sun and Saturn at the quarter phases.
47. Sunspot sprout on shifting latitude is caused by a precession effect on photosphere of Sun by gravity of Jupiter.
48. The inert dark center of a sunspot is caused by the void of vortex column that inhibits convection.
49. The long-lived corona holes on polar caps are polar vortices of photosphere.
50. Corona loops are satellite plasma vortices.
51. Corona mass ejection is caused by angular momentum in vortex column of a broken corona loop.
52. Solar wind is a steady stream of ionized gas spun from vortex column at high speed that has reached escape velocity at mid section of a corona loop.
53. The synchronized peaks for sunspot activities with aurora, storm and cyclone activities on Earth are caused by aligned Sun, Jupiter and Saturn.
54. Comets in Oort cloud revolving around Sun in uniformly spread out manner are vortically consolidated in harmonics of unisonal vortex.
55. Gas tail of comet is a vortex formed in the coma of comet.
56. Dust tail of comet is formed by vortrex of the gas tail.
57. The vacuum in the gas tail of comet is the void in vortex column of coma's unisonal vortex.
58. The splitting of comet is caused by the cyclonic gravity field effect from larger suspended spheroid on near encounter.
59. Planetary rings are flattened polar vortex pairs, or polar vortexes pair.
60. The hexagonal polar vortex structure of Saturn is caused by a tri-pole precession. With credits to Graham Burnett.
61. Cloud bands are formed by polar vortex pairs with vortex column opened to different extends.
62. The Great Red Spot, ovals and other storms of Jupiter are satellite vortices of polar vortices.
63. The stability for the Great Red Spot of Jupiter is primarily caused by orbital resonance with the three Galilean moons that are in a Laplace resonance.
64. Orbits of satellites are developed as a result of conserved angular momentum transferred from vortical dynamics of a primordial bipolar vortexes pair.
65. Venus is in fact cyclonically rotating in counter-clockwise direction in its counter-clockwise revolving path around the Sun. Inspired in a forum discussion with Graham Burnett.
66. The rotating and revolving speed of Earth and Sun are not constant in a vortical galactic period.
67. The inertia force drawing a lower latitude vortex towards polar region is caused by a relatively concave surface of viscous matter.
68. Polar aurora is induced by polar vortex of thermosphere.
69. The electromagnetic storm in the presence of an aurora is caused by the vortical effect of vortex.
70. Ozone hole is caused by polar vortex inside its vortex column.
71. Antarctica ozone hole within the polar vortex wobbles in synchronization with the Earth-Moon precession cycles.
72. Ozone hole can be significantly affected by focused gravities of a solar system alignment.
73. Ozone hole could not form at North Pole is as a result of land masses has weakened the intensity of the Arctic Polar Vortex.
74. Ozone hole with significant differences in temperature at the boundaries of adjacent air masses is as a result of sunken mesosphere into the vortex column.
75. Clear air vortex with invisible vortrex is formed in invisible atmospheric layer through torque-free precession.
76. Polar jet stream with significant differences in temperature at the boundaries of adjacent air masses is as a result of sunken atmosphere in the vortex column.
77. Polar jet stream is the vortrex at a bottom section of polar vortex flowing in closed streamlines at high speed in a loop.
78. Polar vortex can be significantly affected by focused gravities of a solar system alignment.
79. Arctic Polar Vortex is embedded to Earth's rotation by effects of land masses.
80. Antarctica Polar Vortex wobbles in synchronization with the Earth-Moon precession cycles.
81. Tropical cyclone is induced by a lower latitude huge atmospheric clear air vortex.
82. Warm core of a tropical cyclone is as a result of sunken warmer stratosphere in the vortex column.
83. Storm surge is caused by vortrex of a huge atmospheric vortex with persistence circular momentum that has bounced off surface of water.
84. Tornado is driven by a large atmospheric vortex formed on higher altitude.
85. Cold core of a tornado is as a result of sunken colder troposphere in the vortex column.
86. The upward spiraling jet of air stream in a tornado is formed by vortical reactions of a clear air vortex with a circular momentum that has bounced off a surface.
87. Supercell, tropical storm and thunderstorm are induced by atmospheric vortex.
88. Rainfall in a precipitation process is caused by vortical compression of consolidated clouds levitating on its atmospheric layer.
89. Raindrops, snowflakes or hails in homogenous forms showering in uniformly spread out manner is as a result of a unisonal evolution mechanism.
90. Dust Devil is formed by vortical reactions of a clear air vortex with a circular momentum that has bounced off the ground.
91. Dust storm is formed by vortical reactions of a huge cyclonic clear air vortex with a circular momentum that has bounced off the ground.
92. Atmospheric layers are plasmatic spheroids of condensed viscous matter electrically charged to different electrical energy levels.
93. Atmospheric pause layers are the repulsive barriers of viscous matter between adjoining atmospheric layers.
94. Bow echo is driven by an atmospheric vortex of lower cloud level, it is triggered by focused gravities of planetary alignments of a solar system alignment.
95. Clouds are levitated on plasmatic surface of atmospheric layers by electrostatic repulsion.
96. Air-pocket commonly experienced by cruising air-craft is the vortex column of a clear air vortex where there is a void of usual atmospheric layer.
97. Unisonal vortex of molten matter can be formed underneath Earth's crust as a result of precession caused by planetary alignments.
98. Crater can be formed by vortex of molten matter.
99. The dual core in remnants of a crater is caused by a separating core towards the surface in unisonal vortex of molten matter.
100. Earthquake can be triggered by focused gravities of a solar system alignment rendering a stronger torque-induced precession.
101. Earthquake can be caused by seismic waves generated from vortex of molten matter triggered in a torque-free precession.
102. Volcano eruption can be triggered by focused gravities of a solar system alignment.
103. Deep-ocean whirlpool clusters are triggered by focused gravities of a solar system alignment effect causing oceanic torque-free precession.
104. Tidal bore is a section of a huge whirlpool driven by torque-free precession of Earth.
105. Tidal bore is triggered seasonally as daily event around equinox with a torque-induced precession on Earth primarily cause by focused gravities of aligned Moon and Sun.
106. Tidal bore can be driven by atmospheric vortex.
107. Tidal bore can be caused by seismic waves transferred from a rumbling vortex of molten matter formed underneath Earth's crust in a torque-induced precession on Earth.
108. Tidal wave can be formed by a vortical air column of vortrex with air stream vortically bounced up from the bottom of the atmospheric vortex column.
109. Tidal wave can be formed by seismic waves that resonates on surface of water at frequencies that can spin water out of its surface by overcoming cohesion force and gravity.
110. Spokes and spiral arms are satellite vortices on leading arcs of dilated harmonic vortices at different angular phase that cyclonically rotates around a vortical origin.
111. Lightning is caused by atmospheric vortex that has dynamo effect on bipolar molecules of water vapor that generates electrical charges.
112. Lightning is formed by vortrex of glowing plasma in a vortically folding back process on invisible electromagnetic vortex column.
113. Lightning is an electromagnetic vortices of electrodynamics with electrons tunneling in vacuum of the vortex column.
114. Lightning peaks in the noon is caused by solar wind from the Sun affecting the magnetosphere of Earth.
115. The isotropy of gravitational force of all celestial objects in the physical universe is caused by a potential density in volumetric pressure.
116. Gravity is an inertial force pushing inwards to the zero-point of matter in vortical core-seeking motion. Inspired by Tiny Bits Part I on Gravity.
117. Gravity is fundamentally caused by electromagnetic forces of different wavelengths. With credits to James Aaron Nicholson.
118. Gravity is caused by electrostatic pressure repelling inside nested magnetospheres pushing matters toward the core following an inverse-square law.
119. Focused gravities of a solar system alignment have significant effects on climate of Earth.
120. Meniscus of water in a container in enclosure is vortically pushed up the edge by gravity.
121. Nested magnetospheres are vortically spinning magnetic fields in shell layers of electrostatic repulsion barriers as charged spheres with equipotential surfaces.
122. Nested magnetospheres are vortically formed in a bipolar set of magnetic monopole systems within an encompassing plasmatic spheroid.
123. The torus shape structure of nested magnetospheres is caused by electromagnetic vortexes warping its surfaces at two polar regions.
124. Electric flux in standing wave is vortically generated by electric current in longitudinal wave flowing through an electrical resistant.
125. The chaotic magnetic behaviors during magnetic poles reversal are caused by vortex cluster of molten matter underneath the surface of a suspended spheroid.
126. The geometrical structure of an atom is electromagnetic polar vortex pairs driven by cyclonic gravity field effect in a precession.
127. Electron shells are pause layers of equipotential surfaces of electrostatic spheroids with different electrical energy levels.
128. Strong nuclear force is the vortical culmination of electromagnetic force by the vortex column of an electromagnetic vortex at atomic level.
129. Weak nuclear force is the force dynamics on the accretion disk of the electromagnetic vortex at atomic level.
130. Electron is an subatomic electromagnetic vortex driven by the electromagnetic vortexes of an atom.
131. Electrons in atomic matters levitated on the plasmatic surfaces of electron shells are held by the strong nuclear force.
132. Electron has a vortex form with sub-orbitals in a subatomic particle scenario.
133. Electrons spin perpetually around its nucleus in its atomic orbitals on accretion disk is driven by its atomic vortex.
134. Positron is consolidated and levitated vortical subatomic particles in a vortrex that folds back on its electron vortex.
135. Quark is a subatomic electromagnetic vortex of vortexes. With credits to Allen Barrow.
136. Electrons at opposite ends of their nucleus can interact instantaneously with each other is caused by the connectedness with their atomic vortex. Inspired by Brian Beh (Ph.D)
137. The frequency of a rotating electron can be affected by gravitational potential of Earth that has varying potential density at different altitude and latitude.
138. All steady state physical structures are vortically consolidated viscous matter of different states and phases and are held stable by self-perpetuating vortical motions in different wavelengths within a universal medium.

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

A paradoxical universe requires intellectual enlightenment to explore the uncharted.

Validity analysis - From the perspective of Universal Vortical Singularity

If the basis of a theory was misled by illusions as a result of a cognitive paradox and therefore had developed based on misconceptions, such as having adopted the Geocentric model and the concept that world is flat and Earth is the center of the universe, henceforth, regardless of how developed, how profound, how accurate the scientific theory can predict quantitatively or how widely the established theory has been accepted by so many people independently for a very long period of time, the foundation is fundamentally incorrect. This is despite the so called proven scientific theory that was misled by illusions could be mathematically authenticated in a delusion and has work in applied science.

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

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

“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

In overemphasizing on deductive reasoning with the extreme obsession for higher resolution of its quantitative prediction and ignoring qualitative evaluation, is a wrong path where modern science research is embarking on. The overemphasizing for the capability of mathematical principles to conduct evaluation for validating a scientific claim solely through deductive reasoning could lead to the illusion of knowing under the circumstances of a not known delusion. It is a myth that deductive inference is the only correct scientific evaluation method through quantitative prediction, and with greater precision using refined equations in rigorous experiments producing consistence test results quantitatively that correlate with empirical data, it would reinforce the validity of the hypothesis for it to gain more acceptance; this is merely pushing for higher resolution with a hard-core belief that could be perceived in a delusion.

“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

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

See UVS topics on "Logic and belief systems", " A flat world event" and "Optical illusion" and an excerpt from "Cargo Cult Science" by Richard Feynman relating to validity analysis.

“It is the theory that decides what can be observed.” - Albert Einstein

An example of a counterintuitive cognitive paradox of nature is the falsified historical fact that it takes twenty-four hours for the Sun to revolve around the Earth and this prediction was further accurately measured quantitatively to higher precisions by the seconds using clock first invented in the eighth century with ongoing improvements. Through modern knowledge that has proven this fact to be fundamentally incorrect since two centuries ago, at hindsight it is now completely dismissed without a slightest doubt that this is a false fact. However, this false fact was undoubtedly accepted independently by the majority of people from all over the world in all walks of life for millenniums. See an external link on "Sunrise" that elaborates on several illusions related to the Sun.

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

In ancient Greek astronomy, mathematical constructs based on Geocentric model works for quantitative predictions of natural events such as precession cycle, equinox and solstice in modern terms. Although the system of epitrochoid cycles based on the assumption that Earth is the center of the universe was successfully used in deferent and epicycles of Sun to make accurate quantitative predictions for geocentric events, using these workable quantitative predictions as deductive proofs to validate the claim of fact that the Sun takes a period of twenty-four hours to revolve around the Earth in a solar day is a known fallacy in modern science; a mathematical deduction substantiated with successful quantitative predictions that are derived on a wrong track can analytically conclude a false fact to be valid in self-fulfilling prophecy through self-reference. This fallacy is as a result of a natural delusion; a natural cognitive paradox of relative motion illusion that renders natural negation for its empirical observation of the natural phenomenon. Image on right illustrates the basic elements of Ptolemaic astronomy in a Geocentric model, showing a planet (orange color object) on an epicycle (smaller dotted circle) with a deferent (larger dotted circle) and an equant (solid black dot •) directly opposite the Earth (purple and white color object) from the center of the deferent (symbol x).

Ptolemaic elements in a Geocentric model.

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

Apparent retrograde motion of Mars.

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

In another classic example, in an era when astronomers based on Geocentric model of Aristotelian universe had believed that Venus revolves around Earth like the Moon; at then the extreme crescent phase of Venus has been observed with the naked eye. Although Galileo through observations with telescope had observed that Venus exhibited a full set of phases similar to that of the Moon, he based on Copernicus's theory of heliocentrism for the qualitative prediction on the orbiting path of Venus to deliberate through validity analysis by inductive reasoning on Venus showed phases with a peculiarity, and after an extensive period of telescopic observation, he proved the qualitative prediction that Venus orbits the Sun and not the Earth. See external links on phases of Venus and an animated simulation for phases of Venus. Image on right is a diagram of the orbit of Venus in relationship to the Earth.

Venus orbit.

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

In older times when the world was overrun with superstition and ignorance, philosophy was the consensus for the objective study of nature where astrology was not separated from astronomy, the methodology adopted in theoretical physics such as deductive reasoning to prove mathematically has been an excellence tool for validity analysis to segregate facts from myths in extrapolated studies for natural science of that era. However, ever since mathematical physics with morphed space or reified time mainly based on deductive analysis has taken over the scene in modern science, theoretical physics for natural science based on inductive analysis for qualitative evaluation has been discreetly sidetracked. See the preface of "LINEAR MATHEMATICS IN INFINITE DIMENSIONS" that explains Mathematics should be an inductive discipline first and a deductive discipline second.

What one has believed as a truth of nature is one issue, what is the truth is another issue.

William Carpenter (1830-1896) published "A hundred proofs the Earth is not a Globe" based on his consistence description logics and reasoning that were supported with direct observations as evidence on Earth is not a Globe. Galileo might not have had understood those ancient navigation techniques correctly in fine details than a skipper who had adopted the belief that Earth is flat, therefore in one of the critiques with description logics against the spheroidal Earth postulation in a rhetorical manner it was refuted by these experts whom were in the field of navigation; Galileo's spheroidal Earth model in such manners were deliberated as nonsensical in the flat Earth era. In the very obvious of hindsight, the flat Earth model is fundamentally incorrect, all proofs for Earth is not a globe are fallacies, these were caused by localized perceptions not knowing there is a transcending level and ignorance to a paradoxical effect of nature. See topics on "A flat world event" and "Logic and belief systems".

A flat Earth model

Consequently, any theory extrapolated from a belief system based on false fact (such as the flat world model) would be fallacious.

According to the Big Bang model, the Universe expanded from an extremely dense and hot state and continues to expand today. In the expansion of space every celestial object in 13.7 billion years reached their current time dilated location in a timeline according to the trajectory of the celestial object in its expanded space. The furthest galaxy Abell 1835 IR1916 is observed near the CMBR boundary is believed to be a sight when the Universe was merely 500 million years young, this is a scientific evidence that at 13.2 billion years ago that furthest galaxy was already at that location and it had developed to a galaxy of significant size. 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 primodial galaxy at 500 million years young would not be able to appear at that location in that 13.2 billion year timeline; the Big Bang model that suggests Universe was created in an explosion from a small hot ball is logically fallacious. This Big Bang model postulation is inconsistence in its logical framework, although in its hypothetical construct it is mathematically valid, it is logically erroneous, and therefore is unthinkable; no thought experiment could work for such scenario. Put on a logic thinking cap and ask the question on how can the time dilated image with a 500 million years young scenario of that primodial galaxy appear at the 13.2 billion year timeline in a Big Bang expansion; it is simply impossible. Although one can present in analytical logic with mathematical proof that it could take 500 million year for that galaxy to travel at superluminal speed to a distance of 13.2 billion light year in the expansion of space, this is not what it has been empirically observed in the Universe; this reasoning is not logically valid at all in a reality check. "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. It is only logical to think that at 13.2 billion years ago, that distant galaxy was already formed there at that location. In absolute time it would have travelled to a further location according to its trajectory. The concept-based expansion of space in the Big Bang theory is logically fallacious. Qualitatively, the assumption that space expands is invalid, but how could such fundamental of the natural phenomenon be overlooked? The majority of scientific elites in cosmology are holding a dogmatic belief that modern physics is a study with rigor in quantitative measurements using mathematical equations; the empirically observed natural phenomena could only be evaluated and validated in mathematical constructs through deductive analysis. However, the concept of a hypothetical model that is not qualitatively evaluated (such as the concept in Geocentric model that Sun takes twenty-four hours to revolve around the Earth) could still be mathematically deduced to be valid, but does it mean with mathematical proof that quantitatively predicts the observation successfully could validate the concept? It is obviously not so. “I don't believe in mathematics.” - Albert Einstein See UVS topics on "Vortically expanding Universe", "Qualitative evaluation on time dilation", "Reviews on Michelson-Morley experiment" and "Universal Vortical Singularity clarifies the concept of gravity".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disclaimers: The above revolutionary discoveries and conjectures based on an unheard-of hypothesis of Universal Vortical Singularity with radical ideas are unconventional, the explorations of the uncharted at fundamental stage might not be thoroughly covered, bound to have shortcomings, loose ends and errors, many details and assumptions have yet to be further researched, probed, evaluated, validated and proven. Many of the explanations forwarded are in informal manners for casual understanding of the topics presented, any term or statement if offensive in any manner or whatsoever is most regretted. Links to other sites do not imply endorsement of their contents; apply appropriate discretion whenever necessary.

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

References and links:
Natural science - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Cosmic evolution - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Scientific model - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Intellectual - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Enlightenment - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Modern science - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hypothetical constructs - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
History of science in the Renaissance - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Inductive reasoning - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Geocentric model - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Applied science - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mathematical model - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deductive reasoning - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reality - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Inference - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Philosophical identities - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Scientific method - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Scientific consensus - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sunrise - 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
Apparent retrograde motion - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Celestial sphere - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Diurnal motion - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Celestial coordinate system - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Galileo - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nicolaus Copernicus heliocentrism - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Venus - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Galileo's validity analysis on Venus - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Phases of Venus - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mathematical physics - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Facts - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Myths - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Theoretical physics - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
LINEAR MATHEMATICS IN INFINITE DIMENSIONS - U. H. Gerlach
A hundred proofs the Earth is not a Globe - Flat Earthism
Description logics - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Flat Earth - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ancient navigation techniques - PRISM; Arizona State University
Big Bang model - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Galaxy Abell 1835 IR1916 - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Timeline - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Cosmology - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wobbling spheres animation - ThinkQuest Library
Image of Flat Earth - Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania
An animated simulation for phases of Venus - Physics Flashlets by Michael Timmins