<html><head></head><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif;font-size:13px"><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1500481557954_3567">Wolf, Viv, Albrecht:</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1500481557954_3568">We're approaching the philosophy of physics. I suggest physics is studied to be useful for humankind to survive. To be useful, the knowledge must reflect observations - the workings of the universe (nature). Usefulness is demonstrated by prediction. A game changing prediction is one that rejects current models, also. So the questions for any new model is "what is the prediction" and "did the observation happen after the prediction". </div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1500481557954_3569">Humanity doesn't know how to build a universe. Therefore, our science is flawed. </div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1500481557954_3570">Ancient Greeks suggest the eyes had fires in them. These fires illuminated the universe (a few thousand light years in diameter) upon opening a person's eyes. That is, emitted photons sent out from the eyes, interacted with the universe, were reflected to the eyes, modified something in eyes, which sent signals to the brain. Now, the prevailing opinion is the eyes are passive receptors that receive photons that modify the chemicals in the eye cells. I suggest the definition of "observation" is the crux of the discussion - seems you each are using different different definitions.</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1500481557954_3571">So, Wolf, what game changing predictions?</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1500481557954_3572">Hodge</div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1500481557954_3573"><br id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1500481557954_3574"></div></div></body></html>