Science Forums 2

[CraigD]

In response to this question

Originally Posted by CraigD

[list][*]Does your theory make any testable predictions different than well-accepted theories, such as standard particle physics or classical mechanics and electrodynamics? If so, what is such a prediction?

jerrygg38 replies

Originally Posted by jerrygg38

JG: I just explain the theories by my dots. My theory does not replace the other theories. I just add into them.

yet here

Originally Posted by jerrygg38

The sun is continuously converting kilograms of matter into photonic energy. In the process many protons and electrons themselves are reduced to pure photonic energy. Thus the main engine of the sun is the destruction of the protons and electrons into photonic energy.

contradicts the widely accepted and strongly experimentally confirmed theory that the energy generated by the sun is the result of nuclear fusion with.

A compelling body of evidence supports the theory that stars are powered by fusion, among it the confirmed spectroscopic observation that as sun-like stars become older, they contain decreasing amounts of hydrogen, and increasing amounts of helium. To replace this theory with a very different one, this theory must at least make predictions that match observed data. To replace an accepted theory, an alternative theory must make some prediction different than those to which it is an alternative, and those predictions confirmed.

Jerrygg38, your claims do neither of these. Nothing you have posted to date at hypography makes any experimentally verifiable prediction, but rather you have stated such things as

Originally Posted by jerrygg38

Firstly my studies involve the smallest subparticle in the universe, the dot. This means it cannot be measured.

A claim that asserts itself to be un-testable is not a scientific theory, but rather in the class of statements Pauli termed “not even wrong”.

It’s not my intention, Jerry, to be harsh in my criticism, but with such deficiencies, your writing has nearly no scientific worth. You appear to have spent a lot of time and effort on it, but to have done so without the guidance from yourself or others necessary to inform you of the vital importance of not just writing ideas that appeal to you, but considering how to test them. If you hope to write acceptable, science, let alone science so compelling that it results in engineering proposals attracting billions of dollars in investment and solving important practical problems, you must I think start over with this critical principle in mind.