Critiques of scientific method - The cognitive paradox fallacies

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

IMHO, for the advancement of TOE (physics), this is a critical issue needs to be seriously reckoned with.

Let the following presentations be the basis for starting the dicussion of this issue here. Inevitably I would be assuming a daunting position that is probably against the entirely colony of astronomers, astrophysicists, cosmologists, Earth scientists and etc, but I hope all would understand this is not a personal attack on anyone, any prefession or any establishment.

Although all the content presented here were available from my website on "Overview of UVS", this version is posted here as it was recently compiled, so the content in this original vesion that is being discussed would always be available here, whereas the version from my website might be updated from time to time. Nevertheless, readers can always visit my website for its hyperlinks or explore further. However, I would like to keep the discussion limited to the issues as raised herewith.

Without further ado, here goes:

Critiques of scientific method - The cognitive paradox fallacies

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

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

“As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain,
and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.” - Albert Einstein

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

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

See external links on "Foundational crisis" that elaborates on the attempts to provide unassailable foundations for mathematics that were found to suffer from various paradoxes, and "Proof theory" that is syntactic in nature and its philosophical logic is based on syntactic entities whose properties may be studied without regard to any meaning they may be given, and, in fact, need not be given any; syntactic entities are merely assumptions that are not needed to be referred to reality.

“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

cont...

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

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

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

A scientific theory in its mathematical construct that was proved to be analytically true could be unwarily misled by a cognitive paradox of nature, if so it would have been established on a fallacy in its delusion and ignorantly refers to its observed complexly inversed illusion of nature as its reality; this is an erroneous perception of the reality in its shadow of truth. Any law of physics with foundational crisis would paradoxically distort the perception of reality by making conclusions with validated quantitative predictions in the shadow of truth that was rendered with its cognitive paradox fallacy.

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

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

cont...

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

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

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

Ptolemaic elements

Image above 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).

“Knowing how to quantitatively predict a phenomenon would work is one issue,
how does the phenomenon actually work qualitatively is another issue.” - UVS inspired

The apparent retrograde motion of a planet could be solved mathematically with the deferent and epicycle of the planet based on geocentrism. Although epicycle system in a mathematical construct developed through the observation of the apparent planetary motion in the celestial sphere 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 could be empirically observed from Earth; the fallacy is caused by a cognitive paradox of relative motion illusion in a passive transformation of celestial coordinate system. The mathematical construct of a hypothetical model that could consistently work in applied science with accurate quantitative predictions cannot qualify its hypothetical assumption through circular definition by self-referencing; this is a wrong scientific theory that could pragmatically work.

Apparent retrograde motion of Mars

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

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

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

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

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

cont...

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

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

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

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

See an external link on "Phases of Venus" and an animated simulation for phases of Venus.

The orbit of Venus in relationship to the Earth.

Ever since mathematical physics with the fundamental concepts of transformable space or reified time that are based on deductive analysis for the studies of quantitative measurement has dominated as the mainstream of natural science, the theoretical physics for phenomenology that are based on inductive analysis for qualitative evaluation has been discreetly sidetracked.

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

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

The physics of natural science should be the qualitative study of natural phenomena as the primary discipline and then its quantitative study follows as the secondary discipline, for without the first, it cannot be certain that its quantitatively validated proofs are true.

“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

cont ....

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

The cognitive paradox fallacy in Kepler's law 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.

“All celestial objects revolve in vortical motion.” - UVS inspired

It is an immutable fact that all celestial objects including planets and stars are moving in helical paths through space and this could be visualized from an external reference frame in their transcendental views. For the resolution of this issue one have to let go the Kepler's laws of planetary motion in its mathematical construct for the model of satellite orbital motion that was disseminated and printed on all the books for astronomy; this is merely a localized perception with incomplete view and in its negation it would not reflect the actual celestial mechanics for planetary motion.

Star HL Tau and its protoplanet HL Tau b

The above image to the right at the center is a newly formed star HL Tau within Milky Way. From the UVS perspective, it is still at infancy stage of a star birth that is coalescing in vortical motion with a protoplanet HL Tau b (small circular bright image at slightly after one o'clock position) also in the process of forming as a gaseous planet in its resonance of vortical motion.

See UVS topics on "Orbit of satellites" and "Vortical motion of planetary moon" for further elucidation on vortical motion of planet. See also a link on "The Universal Helicola" that presents a marvelous and immutable illustration for spiral motion of Earth's path in space on page 269 in figure 13.1, it was elaborated qualitatively, analytically and quantitatively. Watch video clips on "Earth Rotation & Revolution around a moving Sun" that illustrates with an external perception for the helical motion of Earth in a moving Sun and "The solar system's motion thru space".

Although the proposition of heliocentrism is correct on planets are revolving around the Sun in the Solar System in its inertial frame of reference, its postulation that the Sun is at the center of the universe was falsified in the twentieth century astronomy; Kepler's laws of planetary motion was based on this incorrect assumption that renders its cognitive paradox fallacy. Any extrapolated theory that was based on this incorrect assumption to profess on any natural phenomenon would be fallacious.

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

By confining within the Kepler's laws of planetary motion on the ground that it was based on scientifically proven fact and in its mathematical construct these laws had achieved scientific consensus, taking it as it was propositioned and therefore would not seek further inquiry for its transcendental view, in its cognitive paradox, one could maintain its mathematically deduced conclusions were empirically valid; this was merely a misconception of nature that was perceived from its inertial frame of reference.

This resolution have significant implications for a better understanding of an underlying celestial mechanism that hitherto has been overlooked.

See UVS topics on "Sunspot" and "Solar System alignment effect" that elaborates on how some significant discoveries that are leading to substantial qualitative knowlege were unfolded and these could be asserted with this resolution.

This is how the laws of physics could lie with the deductive inference in its mathematical construct for its empirical observation when it gets to the reality of nature; in its concept from its localized perception it negates the reality and in its delusion it results in its illusion of knowing with its deductive proof.

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

cont....

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

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. The model suggests in the expansion of space every celestial object in approximately 13.7 billion years has reached its current time-dilated spatial location in a timeline according to the trajectory of the celestial object in its expanded space.

"WMAP definitively determined the age of the universe to be 13.73 billion years old to within 1% (0.12 billion years) -as recognized in the Guinness Book of World Records!" - excerpt from "Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe".

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

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

"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.

Nonetheless, the furthest observed galaxy Abell 1835 IR1916 in the constellation of Virgo (located at northern celestial hemisphere) has been observed near the boundary of the observable universe and this is believed to be a sight when the Universe was merely 500 million years young with a redshift factor of z~10.0, it has an angular diameter distance of 2.86 billion light year (Gly) when the galaxy emitted its light; this is a scientific evidence that at 13.2 billion years ago that furthest galaxy was already at that spatial location and it had developed to a galaxy of significant size.

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

Put on a logic thinking cap and ask the question on how could the time-dilated image with a 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.

The Big Bang model propositioned that the boundary of the observable physical universe in every direction is a view at 13.7 billion years ago when the physical universe was in its primordial form, but this is absolutely contradicting in its three main aspects to all extends; the extremely small, dense and hot state of the nascent physical universe in its isotropic form is currently being empirically observed in its time dilation image of 13.7 billion years ago to be having an extremely large radius of 13.7 Gly in an extremely sparse and cooled state. This is a self-referenced mathematical construct that creates a fallacious cognitive paradox of the most extreme physical extends in its mathematical realm and it does not refer to reality.

The postulation of expanding space in the Big Bang model is inconsistence in its logical framework, although in its hypothetical construct it would be mathematically valid and could be analytically understood, in logical empiricism it is erroneous, and therefore is unthinkable; no logical thought experiment could work for such a scenario.

It could be abstractly postulated that the Universe is an open system in the Big Bang model with mathematical proof such that it would take only 500 million years for that distant galaxy in the expansion of space to relatively travel at superluminal speed to be at the angular diameter distance of 2.86 Gly. Although this could be analytically understood, it was not coherent to what has been empirically observed and it would also violate Einstein's special relativity for the galaxy to be observable. The abstract moot reasoning deduced to be valid through such mathematical construct is not substantiatable at all in logical empiricism when it is referred to reality; this is merely a baloney of a mathematical realm.

Note: It does not even need to mention the furthest observed galaxy cluster JKCS041 is located on the southern celestial hemisphere (this is opposite to the northern celestial hemisphere where Abell 1835 IR1916 is located) at about 10.2 billion light-years away in the constellation of Cetus; this would also render the Big Bang model to be fallacious from another logical aspect. Stars were formed in every direction at timelines of more than 13 billion years ago in a background temperature of 2.7K; this suggests that the primordial Universe was spanning for at least billions of light-years across and it was as cold as it is now. In logical empiricism, the conclusion of the Big Bang model on the Universe has expanded from a small ball in extremely dense and hot state is fallacious.

Qualitatively, the concept-based expansion of space in the Big Bang theory was an erroneous assumption at the fundamental level and its propositions would therefore be logically fallacious. The assumption that space expands is absurd, it is a wonder how could such fundamental of the natural phenomenon be overlooked.

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

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

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

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

“I don't believe in mathematics.” - Albert Einstein

For further elucidation, see UVS topics on Michelson-Morley experiment reviewed with UVS" and "Qualitative evaluation on time dilation".

cont ...

.

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

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

Animated raisin pudding model of the BB expansion

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

Logically, limited by the speed of light, the empirically observation of the physical universe on receding galaxies in their frame of reference would be apparently negated by timeline and time dilation effect; a timeline negation effect. Hence, in circumstances of decelerated recession of the galaxies in the physical universe, those distant galaxies that are apparently observed in their further timelines from Earth would therefore paradoxically appear to be receding at increasing velocities than a galaxy at a nearer timeline. This would render an optical illusion as a result of timeline and time dilation effect with a scenario that the physical universe is apparently expanding in acceleration. If the physical universe is expanding in acceleration as it was propositioned in cosmic inflation, the effects of timeline and time dilation would paradoxically render the observation of the physical universe to be apparently expanding in deceleration instead. This natural cognitive paradox fallacy is caused by timeline negation effect.

See external links on "Accelerating universe" and "Cosmic scale factor" that elaborate on how the accelerated expansion of space was observed.

The mathematical treatment to illustrate that space accelerates exponentially with the postulated proper distance for the calculation of optically observed deep space objects that were moving in a frame of reference on different timelines would not correct it from its natural cognitive paradox fallacy of timeline negation.

The observation that the Universe appears to be expanding at an increasing rate with proper distance at proper time, which had concluded with the cosmic scale factor a(t) has a positive second derivative, did not address or account for the timeline negation effect; it merely creates a mathematical cognitive paradox fallacy with its mathematical treatment that misleads people with a misconception to believe it had accounted for the timeline negation effect.

The conclusion of the revised Big Bang model with cosmic inflation on exponentially expanding space is fallacious, this was simply because its mathematical construct was based on the natural cognitive paradox fallacy.

“Without realizing the cognitive paradoxes
that negate to cause delusions in the Universe,
for centuries, the paradoxical effect of nature
had fooled even the very brilliant people.” - UVS inspired

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

Sunrise

What we have perceived a natural phenomenon as it is might not be what it is, an example is the perception of the Sun rising in the east from below the horizon. This is a scientifically understood relative motion illusion that its natural negating effect is caused by localized observation in a perspective on a rotating Earth; a known and understood cognitive paradox. However, in this paradoxical effect, a majority of people even in the nowadays world are more often unwarily dwelling in delusion of this direct perception from a localized reference frame that the Sun rises, being unaware in a casual manner are always not able to register this known cognitive paradox in a perception that observes the Sun rises in the east, until being reminded that the Sun does not rise; this is merely the perception on a rotating Earth that renders this paradoxical effect of relative motion illusion in its delusion.

See an external link on "Sunrise" that elaborates on several illusions related to the Sun.

All of us now can comprehend without a slightest doubt in general acceptance that Earth rotates and it revolves around the Sun, however, in the past, for millenniums, not knowing the paradoxical effect, the majority of people all over the whole wide world were generally misled by its paradoxical effect and therefore could not understand the fallacy.

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

It was said that Copernicus and Galileo had lived in an era when religious authority was ruling, the postulation of a spheroidal Earth that is not the center of universe at then was treated as heresy and an act of nihilism, therefore the huge disparities in their communities for not being able to understand or accept their great scientific findings.

In the general scenario of modern scientific era, there is a firm belief that we are now in a modern physics age that is ruled by scientific realism, with knowledge analytically understood systematically in modern science and through proven scientific evaluation method, all scientific proofs were rigorously confirmed, so there would be no such disparity. Unwarily, in a state of delusion, this firm belief delves in its illusion of knowing.

“The entire universe is apparently paradoxical.” - UVS inspired

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

The cognitive paradox fallacy in Michelson-Morley experiment

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

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



With the assumption that a celestial object moving in a static medium of luminiferous aether would experience a drag, an aether wind should be detectable. In a simplified illustration, Earth revolves at approximately 30 km/s around Sun, the Sun (carrying an inclined Earth on plane of the ecliptic) 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 with a lower limit of approximately (232-30) 202 km/s and an upper limit of approximately (232+30) 262km/s, or between (552-232-30) 290 km/s and (552+232+30) 814km/s if the movement of Milky Way in space relative to Cosmic microwave background at approximately 552 km/s is considered. If there is such an aether wind at all it should be easily detected with the interferometer. However, in all Michelson-Morley experiments, measurements of such expectations were not detected at all, it was thus concluded that the postulated static luminiferous aether does not exist at all; the postulated static luminiferous aether would have been detected by the Michelson-Morley experiments if it exists.

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

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

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

This is simply a formal fallacy of affirmative conclusion from a negative premise in a hasty generalization, and null hypothesis can never be proven.

As an analogy for the null hypoethsis with null result, it would be similar to setting up an experiment to measure electrical power with the assumption that the electrical energy of a running system is run by a direct current, and after the direct current meter measured nothing, it concluded that there is no electrical power in the system.

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

By assuming that luminiferous aether is a static medium, one could maintain a fallacious self-referential cognitive paradox with strawman argument to assert that aether was scientifically proven to be nonexistence; this is merely a logical fallacy of affirming the consequent.

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

It is merely a dogma in the belief system of mathematical physics that asserts aether does not exist, the conclusion was deduced with self-fulfilling prophecy by self-reference in its abstract mathematical constructs based on the absurd assumptions of transformable space or reified time to conclude aether does not exist.

“It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is
than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.” - Carl Sagan

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

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

“False facts are highly injurious to the progress of science, for they often endure long;” - Charles Darwin

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

The above posts in this thread are now organized into on "one web page" that has a section on glossary and loaded with hyperlinks to facilitate any reader who wants to scrutinise the content.

Please feel free to post your comments here.