Strange

Ah, I see what you mean. As in: "Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die."

This. Like so many people with their "pet theories" (er, basically all of them) because their theory is based on "visceral/intuitive knowledge" they know they are right. That is why no amount of contradictory evidence will ever change their minds. Your confused ramblings certainly give that impression. Well, philosophy doesn't progress because it doesn't do anything useful. Applied science (which is generally known as "technology" by the rest of the population, remember) does progress. Which is totally different from scientific knowledge.

There is no "universal now".

And that is exactly why I think it is different from scientific knowledge. You talk about knowledge which is learnt and, importantly, consolidated through experience or practice. That is the opposite of scientific knowledge which is a purely intellectual understanding based on mathematical models and data, not experience. It is also provisional and subject to change so you need to make sure it does not become consolidated in the same way as experiential learning.

All the examples I can think of where the past forms are the same as the present, all end in 't' (cast, hit, split, cost, let). That might be something to do with the phonology of Old English .... Or maybe coincidence. Because it should be "will put"?

So now you are saying that scientists won't accept your theory because they will die if they do? That sounds like almost the exact opposite of knowledge obtained by the scientific method. But what do I know.

Can you explain what you mean by the word "visceral"? You will also have to explain how your theory relates to the other afroasiatic / semitic languages. And why the same arguments do not apply to other language families.

Is the "Quote" button really beyond you? There is no particle with the planck charge. Electrons, which have the fundamental unit of charge, have a charge of about 1/12 Planck charge. But you still haven't explained what "violation" you are talking about. (Charge is not energy, by the way.) There is no reason that any particle should have the mass, charge, size or any other property with the value of 1 Planck unit. And none do. Again, you are wrong to assign any such meaning to it. As far as I know, all theories that quantize space and time do it at scales much smaller than the Planck length. http://www.askamathematician.com/2013/05/q-what-is-the-planck-length-what-is-its-relevance/

If we accept, for the sake of argument, that you have evidence then your conclusion is a "theory" not a "simple fact".

I don't think that is true. If it were, it would mean that there is objective evidence for the existence of God or aliens. One person can be mistaken/deluded/dishonest and so can one million. Yep, wave your hands and the objections disappear. Pointing out that there is no evidence is not irrelevant on a science forum. No. I am just pointing out that you are making an unsupported assertion. That is all. As it is unsupported by "facts" or logic, there is nothing to refute.

It is not a "simple fact". It is an opinion. It is an assertion unsupported by any evidence. It is a belief. (But I suppose I am only saying that because I am "unable to see The Truth" - which only makes you sound even more like a preacher.)

But what would those building blocks be made from? Building blockettes? But what would they be made from ... It has to end somewhere. Or maybe it doesn't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preon

I did not do it to discredit him (he doesn't need my help with that ) but to characterise his behaviour. If you behave like X and therefore someone says, "you are behaving like X", then if you think that X is a Bad Thing, then you have two choices: get offended because your behaviour has been identified or adjust your behaviour. Your choice. Is English a second language? (*) Maybe you need a better dictionary. Courts, scientists, engineers and, I suspect, most people use evidence to mean facts that support an idea. (*) Edit: some people take that question as insulting. I'm not sure why.

I appreciate the effort, as Ophiolite says. However, the analogy is flawed in a couple of ways. Firstly, it isn't clear (to me, at least) what part of the description is supposed to represent creation and what is supposed to represent evolution. Secondly, it assumes that there is a final goal (the image on the screen) that is to be achieved. That is not how evolution works.

Ah. That explains your odd use of "evidently" earlier. No, that is not what "evidence" means. It means objective experimental or observation data which can be used to test the predictions of a model. It was deliberate and carefully considered. I do not think it is name called. If someone shows that they have very little knowledge about a subject, it is not name calling to label them "ignorant". Ignorant (when acknowledged) is a good thing: it is an opportunity to learn. When someone repeatedly makes the same unsupported assertions and totally denies that any counter-evidence has been presented (even though any reasonable person could go through the thread and list the posts where the evidence was provided) then they are behaving like a typical crank. When someone behave exactly like a crank or crackpot, then it seems reasonable to use that term to describe them. It is not name calling, it is an assessment and description of their behaviour (based on evidence). A couple of examples, both of which have been repeated multiple times: Cladking: People can't see new things. Various People: Science progresses therefore they obviously can. C: There have been no [recent] paradigm shifts. VP: examples of paradigm shifts in recent decades provided. Anyone in the universe (with the apparent exception of yourself) could browse the thread and find the many posts where these exchnages have occurred (which is why this thread has reached 9 pages). Some of this repetition may be due to your inability to communicate clearly.

You introduced your definition in response to me defining technology as applied science. This is a common definition of technology not one I made up. I pointed out that your definition appeared to be equivalent to "philosophy" and therefore nothing to do with science. As you are simply making up new definitions for words in order to confuse things, I have nothing more to say on the matter. "Visceral knowledge" is another of your made up terms which you have failed to define, despite repeated requests. I have nothing further tio say on the matter. As you seem determined to persist in this deliberate obscurantism -- defining new meanings for existing terms and invoking ad-hoc terminology without defining it -- then there is no point continuing the discussion. So you keep saying. Yet you provide no evidence to support it. Counter evidence has been provided by several people. It is nothing to do with being outside my experience. The evidence shows that your assertions are incorrect. Your smug repetitions of your "unique insight" will not change that You have been shown to be wrong multiple times. Like all cranks you refuse to acknowledge it or dismiss it as "irrelevant". You are treading a well-worn and very sad path here. And now you have gone Full Crackpot with the battle cry of "Prove me Wrong!!"

Several people have already made the same point. (Including me.)

Er, they decay. Producing cascades of other particles. The details are available. Which goes to show that you don't need to spend billions on particle accelerator, you can us the results produced by those we already have.

Well, I certainly missed that. What specifically have I not responded to? I have repeatedly responded to your claims that people/scientists are unable to see new things. I have pointed out the obvious fallacies so many times that I have now given up repeating it. But if you think there is something significant I haven't answered, let me know and I will give it some thought.

You upset at least two people: the one who was annoyed enough tell you to stop and the lecturer (who, perhaps, was too polite to do so). Plus an identified number of others sitting there silently thinking, "why don't they shut the **** up". Perhaps you and your friend should stand up at the start of the next lecture and apologise to everyone present before sitting down at opposite sides of the room.

So you are unhappy with the initial derivation. Meh. It has been derived by others in other ways. It has been confirmed by many different experiments over the last 80 years. So I don't see how it is "flawed". But wait, it is worse than that. All you have done is copy someone else's unhappiness with the initial derivation. And worse still: you quote an obvious crackpot. (*) Do you have any actual evidence that special relativity is flawed? (*) I made the mistake of browsing some other pages of that website. A truly dismal spectacle. Why would anyone want to put their ignorance on such public display? <sigh>

It isn't a personal attack. It is a description of your style of argument. You demand that others should consider your idea (despite the fact it is unsupported and is contradicted by evidence). But when someone asks you to consider their idea, you just say you can't be bothered.

You have said that you think some (unspecified) theory is wrong. If you think it is wrong, then you should have some evidence that shows the theory is wrong. What is that evidence? As this is yet another unsupported claim, and all your other unsupported claims appear to be false, I guess I can be confident that the theories you have doubts about are probably pretty solid.

Are you accusing a member of the forum of being a sock-puppet? That is a pretty serious accusation (and should be done by a report to the moderators, rather than a post in the forum). Or are you accusing someone of calling you names? If so, I cannot understand why. There is still no name calling.

You have now said twice that you think some theories are wrong. Yet you fail to provide any evidence. Do you begin to see a pattern? Your absolute refusal to support any of your claims with evidence, and the fact that you totally ignore any evidence that refutes your claims, show that you are the very antithesis of a scientist.