On 13 May 2014 11:29, John Ross <[email protected]> wrote:
> I don’t believe I have claimed that my theory is “superior” to existing
> theories or that it will “work better” or that it is an “explanatory
> improvement” over existing theories.
>
Then what motivated you to come up with it?
>
>
> I do believe it is closer to the truth than existing theories and that it
> is a simpler and easier to understand theory as compared to existing
> theories.
>
OK. That is essentially a rephrasing of "superior", "explanatory
improvement", etc. A theory should (in theory!) satisfy some criteria to be
accepted as scientific ...
* it should explain ("retrodict") all the existing observational evidence
* it should predict the results of observations that have not yet been
made, preferably making different predictions from existing theories.
(Preferably ones that are surprising!)
* it should preferably be simpler than existing theories
* it should preferably have a broader scope than existing theories (which
should be demonstrably approximate solutions limited to, for example, lower
energy or slower velocity domains.)
>
>
> I would like to send you a copy of my book since you have shown the most
> interest in my theory even though you currently believe it is wrong and
> unnecessary. I won’t even ask you to read it.
>
>
>
I am happy to receive unsolicited gifts, so please do. (I may even read it,
if it's actually sitting there on the bedside table...)
--
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.
