All 101 of my “predictions” are predictions. I looked up “prediction”. It means: “Something foretold or predicted”. Many predictions turn out to be false.
I think the issue is, “How many of my predictions will sooner or later be recognized by the scientific community as true and how many will be recognized as false”. For some of my predictions, we may never know for sure whether they are true or false. I believe there is a significant probability that they are all correct. If any of them are proven incorrect, I will eliminate the incorrect predictions or correct them. So far no one has proven to me that any of my predictions are wrong. For those “predictions” that cannot ever be proven right or wrong, the question would be whether my prediction is more likely to be correct than other explanations dealing with the same issue. I predict that tronnies are the source of the Coulomb force. And that each tronnie has a charge of plus e or minus e. And that the electron is comprised of two minus tronnies and one plus tronnie and that the positron is comprised of two plus tronnies and one minus tronniie. I also say that entrons are comprised of one plus tronnie and one minus tronnie and that there is one entron in each photon. These are all predictions that most knowable people would disagree with. However we know that a 1.02 MeV gamma ray photon is required to produce an electron and a positron and that electron – positron annihilation processes creates two lower energy gamma ray photons. This is pretty good evidence that electrons, positrons and photons are made from the same things. Those things are tronnies. I explain that there are two additional photons (that scientists are not aware of) involved in the pair production process and that one additional photon (also undetected) is involved in the annihilation process. The question is: “Am I right?” From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 5:49 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: TRONNIES On 6 May 2014 07:00, John Ross <[email protected]> wrote: Here are the first 14. You can see more of my model at Amazon.com. I don't wish to be contrary, but most of those aren't predictions. A prediction has to involve something that can be observed and / or measured. Most of the 14 "predictions" are concerned with describing the elements of the theory; they aren't testable predictions that can be derived from the theory. In Frank Tipler's book "The Physics of Immortality" he described a theory and made several testable predictions based on it. For example, he predicted that the mass of the Higgs boson would be around 220 GeV. Since the Higgs' mass has now been measured as around 125 GeV his theory has been shown to be wrong (well, the discovery of the accelerating expansion of the Universe also made the Omega point somewhat harder to achieve). I would consider a "prediction" to be something similar to Tipler's. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
