On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 7:22:41 PM UTC+1, [email protected] wrote: > > > On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 6:07:27 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 06 May 2014, at 18:08, [email protected] wrote: >> >> >> On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 4:59:12 PM UTC+1, [email protected] wrote: >>> >>> >>> 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? >>> >> >> by the way, you wouldn't be the only one to be unclear what a prediction >> is supposed to be. No one much understands it these days. The guy with the >> major theory on this list, Bruno, thinks his ToE is falsifiable on >> the basis as a ToE it has to describe the forces of nature and everything >> else, and if that doesn't happen at some point in the future then his >> theory is falsified. >> >> >> You seem to have clearly missed the point Gibbsa. UDA just leaves no >> choice (except reifying matter with a magic ability to select a >> computation). >> >> I didn't miss this, I answered it Bruno. It's not falsiability. This is the sort of argument religions come up with. For it to be genuine that no choice is left, every possible unhandled assumption has to be squeezed out. Not just in what you do, but your starting position and everything about that. But you acknowledge, you don't do any work on the starting position. It's church thesis. But...you do acknowledge that, and you do say your work is based on that...saying yes to the doctor. This isn't the same situation as leaving no choice. Science wouldn't just rely on something being correct, that wasn't itself hard science. Unless there were going to be hard predictions. Hard predictions sweep everything else away. But you do not ever make a hard prediction Bruno. And you say falsifiability - in the past - is based what your theory will do in the future if it is correct. And I have said endlessly that this is not falsifiability.
> UDA explains why we have to translate the mind-body problem into the >> problem of deriving physics from arithmetic, and AUDA makes the >> > > translation constructive, indeed we can already test the logic obeyed by >> the observable. >> > -- 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.
