On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 4:32:38 PM UTC+1, John Ross wrote: > > 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?” > About the prediction matter you are right in the sense you describe. In that sense a theory is, itself, a prediction. While also many predictions, for each distinctive step of its construction. The sentence I just wrote is also a prediction, and so is this one. This one, however, is not a prediction. This is the falsification of the sentence, because it said it wasn't, but anything that asserts, predicts. Not taking the mick John - I can see you've done a serious piece of work. The serious point here is, a 'scientific prediction' is a special case of the generic 'prediction'. There are contexts in which your predictions would be scientific predictions. If for example, your theory was that all things correspond to the fractal z=exp(1/z) or whatever...and from that you derive the tronnie and its properties, maybe. But anyway...regardless of that......a biggie here is the two slit experiment....so would it be ok for you to explain your take on that, based on the tronnie?
-- 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.
