Quote: Originally posted by yoho on Jun 8, 2013
I'll tell you what my honest intentions are. At first, I tried to be polite and just disagree with your statements, but you seem to keep pushing them, implying that I am somehow denying the truth despite something "deep inside me resonating with your truths" (quote modified slightly).
I keep stressing that I don't know enough about physics for the benefit of certain people, who seem to feel that if I don't say so, that I am superior to everyone else. I have no idea why they feel such a way, but being the nice person that I am, I try to bring conflicts to a minimum. That said, I am an imperfect person, and I do get angry and end up saying things that are not so nice, when they are so unreasonable.
Now, what is my intention? I admit you are a good writer. But you simply can't try to use some scientific facts and then extrapolate however you like. It seems to me like the reason you use physics is to make your ideas seem like they're somehow scientific, but they're most certainly not. If I misunderstood your intentions, I apologize. But the fact remains, that just because you use some scientific facts in your arguments, does not make the whole argument and your extrapolations science.
I personally feel that because of your writing skills, you write in such a way that is really misleading. The use of "one" was one example. There are many others, but I am not intelligent enough to accurately point them all out, one by one.
Basically, your theory is unfalsifiable. It's like saying there's an invisible, undetectable unicorn in my pocket. You can't prove that it doesn't exist, since it is, by definition undetectable.
In such cases, you need to support your argument with hard data, proofs, calculations or any other supporting evidence. You can't just say it might be this way, so you're right.
Let's see if I understood this correctly: Let's push away all that useless stuff and "One energy" and whatever. That doesn't have anything to do with your actual purpose and argument, which is this statement:
It is possible to predict lottery numbers based on past results.
Am I correct? I mean I understand you said all that to support your argument, but in the end, everything you said can be summed up thus, right?
And when I mentioned the wisp of wind in another galaxy, your response means something like this:
Even if the wisp of wind affects the lottery numbers, we don't need to know how it affects it. Because if you take all past, present and future draws, and look for the pattern there, the affect of that wind is already included.
Did I understand that correctly? If so, I disagree with this statement. To see a pattern in something, you MUST know all the variables. If there's even one unknown variable, you won't be able to see the pattern in the first place.
I understand that you don't want to share your research and methods you mentioned for pick 3. Because it seems like you got some positive results. That's perfectly understandable and reasonable. I'm not going to ask you for your system and methods. I'm just going to trust you to answer honestly on this one question:
Taking the past results (let's say from 2000-2010) of any pick 3 game, how often can you guess correctly the numbers from 2011-2013? Is it really a higher probability than a purely random method?