On Jan 16, 10:43 am, "Robert L. Oldershaw"
wrote:
On Jan 12, 7:10 pm, (Phillip Helbig---undress to reply) wrote:

Yes, but "falsified empirically" implies some reasoning about what the
theory predicts.

Just out of curiosity: Have you seen any good Definitive Predictions
published in any papers posted to astro-ph or hep-phenomenology or hep-
theory at arxiv.org since, say, X-mas?

Why the arbitrary restriction to the last three weeks and in scope? If
you just want to see examples of "Definitive Predictions", any kind
should do, right?

Nonetheless, even keeping close to your criteria, there are plenty of
examples. Take a look at this arXiv search query of the gr-qc
category, concerning definite predictions of gravitational waveforms
from binary astrophysical sources (which are just a subset of all
possible sources):

http://arxiv.org/find/gr-qc/1/AND+ti.../0/1/0/all/0/1

Once gravitational wave detectors start producing reliable
observations, all of these models will go through an honest weeding,
as they should.

Igor