Strange

For someone who is obsessed by language (but apparently completely ignorant of linguistics as a science) you are very poor at expressing yourself. Do you really mean your computer runs by magic? I assume not. Exactly: applied science. That is just philosophy. It might use information from science and technology but is is not itself science or technology. (It is, arguably, one of the rare instances where the disciplines learnt in philosophy can make themselves useful.)

I did. And it wasn't. The point still stands. Technology is applied science. But there is no applied metaphysics/philosophy/theology. They may be entertaining but they are not useful.

Sorry, I thought we were talking about science. I don't know what individual options about the existence, or otherwise, of god have to do with it. Nope. Science is based on evidence. If you have evidence that some theory is wrong, why not present the evidence? Who is being rude? You keep saying people are calling you names, but no one is. You have mentioned it in almost every single post. For example...

"Silly science" works. Metaphysics doesn't.

I analysed your sentence and determined that (a) it appeared to be factually incorrect and (b) had no supporting evidence and © is contradicted by evidence. Therefore I explained to you that it was wrong and why it was wrong. Your continual repetition of baseless assertions with no support, and which are contradicted by evidence, is getting rather tedious.

Both of you keep saying this, with no supporting evidence, despite being provided with evidence to the contrary. And you wonder why people treat you like crackpots. Actually, I don't think you ever said that. Yes, you need confidence in your idea before discussing it more widely - to avoid embarrassing yourself. The way to achieve this confidence is not by "believing in it" or the usual crackpot strategy of "I thought of it so it must be right" but to take a scientific approach and TEST the idea first. About 99% of the so-called theories presented on science forums can be shown to be wrong with about 30 seconds work. Why is the proposer of the idea unable to do that initial calculation or comparison with evidence? Because they are convinced they are right. If they started out with a degree of proper scepticism and self-doubt then they could check their idea themselves (and save the embarrassment).

You refer to a hypothesis but refuse say which one. You write a series of statements including undefined terms and references to things that don't exist. Then when I ask for clarification, it is my fault that what you write makes no sense? Why not simply: 1. State which hypothesis (of Hawking or whoever) you are referring to, so we know what you are talking about 2. Define what you mean by "clear" matter 3. Explain why you think a black hole is "negative" 4. Provide references/evidence for negative energy and anti-gravity. Then we might be able to have a discussion.

The original suggestion was that an engineer would assume that a new idea is correct, otherwise they would not pursue it. I pointed out that that is a dangerous approach. You might hope that the new idea will work, but you should work on the assumption that it won't and start doing calculations, models, tests to disprove that assumption. I have worked with people who had a "no, I'm sure it will be OK" attitude. It never ended well. They ended up getting a lot further through the development process before finding the flaws, and hence wasting time and money. It has turned into a bit of a distraction, I think...

Yep. One of my lecturers would throw out anyone who talked in class. Sometimes permanently. Quite right too. If you don't want to listen to the lecture, leave the room.

I'm afraid your joke went right over my head.

You didn't define the "true nature of science". If you think you did then you obviously have no idea what science is or what it does. The difference is that some ideas are supported by evidence and some are just fantasy. There is no reason why "better thinking" (whatever that means) correlates with correctness. The only thing that determines correctness is testing against observation and measurement. I am an engineer and have no interest in metaphysics. I don't believe you. I haven't seen any name calling so what can I say. Wrong. In general, the scientific resistance to new ideas is a deliberate, planned, conscious part of the process. It is one of the reasons that science works.

Which hypothesis? There is no evidence of negative energy that I am aware of. Please provide a reference. In what sense is a black hole negative? It has positive mass and therefore positive energy. I have no idea what "clear matter" or "clear antimatter" means. Why can't you just explain what it means? There is no evidence for antigravity (clear or otherwise). Complete gibberish as far as I can tell.

Nothing to do with me. Tell the moderators. There is a big difference between a rational (and required) reluctance to accept changes to well-tested theory and refusing to acknowledge that your idea is baseless and wrong.

In engineering, anyone who took a chance for the "pleasure in their minds" would soon be out of a job. "What do you mean, you committed the company to $200 million manufacturing costs because it felt good!?" We tend to rely on objective evidence. Not that different from science.

I haven't called you any names. As far as I can tell, you have never provided any reason to consider your ideas. No supporting theory and no evidence.

This has little or nothing to do with science. You are talking about religion or philosophy (or maybe pseudoscience). It also requires evidence. There is no point expecting a "new perspective" when you have zero evidence beyond your own imagination. (Unless the new perspective is "believe this story I made up".)

I haven't looked in detail at your ideas. From what I remember they were without any evidential or theoretical support (i.e. just stuff you made up) and contradicted by evidence. Like others, you refuse to acknowledge this. If you assume it is wrong, then you will make every effort to validate it. You will discover the flaws, fix them (test it again, and repeat) and your bridge might stay up. If you assume it is right, you won't bother and the bridge will fall down. When I was a test engineer our motto was "if it isn't tested it won't work". Now, obviously, it might work; but you can't rely on it so you have to assume that any untested feature will not work. That is the only safe option. The question is: who is most likely to have untested features in their design, the engineer who assumes he is right, or the one who assumes he is wrong? Because you refuse to accept you might be wrong. You deny this is the case, in the same way that other "personal theorists" deny that they have been shown the evidence that contradicts their theory or the math that proves them wrong. If you spend time in speculation/pseudoscience forums you see a common pattern emerging: A. Here is my theory ... B. That is incorrect for the following detailed reasons ... C. Furthermore it is contradicted by the following evidence ... A. So if no one can show why my idea is wrong, it must be correct. B. No it is wrong as stated above and furthermore ... C. There is more evidence against your idea ... A. I don't understand why there are all these personal attacks. Why can't anyone just show why my idea is wrong? etc. Look around on this forum. You will see this happening all the time. (Perhaps in this very thread...) Of course there is always doubt. Scientific theories are never proven, just not disproved (yet). Engineering solutions are never guaranteed correct, just tested to a high enough level to give confidence that it is worth spending millions of dollars or it is safe enough. And yet they seem to do it. Weird. It is almost as if you are wrong. Your continued denial of the fact that your idea has been shot full of holes is what makes you appear similar to all the other crackpots out there.

If you assume your idea will work then you will not be as critical of it as you need to be in order to test it to destruction. That is the problem with most people who post their "personal theories" on forums like this; they don't just assume their idea is correct, they are absolutely convinced they cannot possibly be wrong and will reject all evidence to the contrary. As a scientist (or engineer) you learn to start by saying, "what could be wrong? how can I test it? how can I eliminate other possibilities?" Most new ideas probably get rejected within minutes, after a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation shows it to be wrong.

Right. That is why we have never had any scientific progress. Scientists are creative and inquisitive by nature, and are trained to look at things in new ways to find unexpected results.

As I have lived through several paradigm shifts in different areas of science I assume you are not referring to me.

Quite. The premise completely ignores potential. It also ignores the nature of the things that have been achieved. If person A's "achievements" are theft, rape, genocide and getting full marks in Psychopathy 101 then it makes A sound pretty worthless. If person B's only achievement is a combined cure for cancer and solution to world peace then they might be the better person.

Does it? I doubt it. Although, as it is the only example we know of, it is the only form that we know what to look for. No it doesn't. From the description of that book, I see nothing to support the idea that plasmas could sustain life. Do you have any evidence to support this diea, or is it just random speculation? Then where is the evidence of this? What should we be looking for in order to identify this hypothetical form of life?

From: http://math.hawaii.edu/wordpress/fortran-3/#double And: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/8434820/what-does-mean-10-d00-in-fortran

Feel free to show how Newton's third law can be derived from your equation. But as you have so far refused to show how anything can be derived from your equation, I won't hold my breath. There is a lot of math and science that is over my head, and I am happy to admit that. I don't think basic primary-school arithmetic and algebra are over my head. But you seem to be confused by it. Don't you think it would have been sensible to create some supporting evidence before claiming to have a "theory of everything"?

Language is defined by usage. So if something is widely used then it is hard to see how you can say it is "incorrect". It may be dialectal or specialised jargon or even non-standard, but "incorrect"? As to the original question, because English verbs have no future tense form a variety of auxiliary verbs are used to express future intention or action. (1) You seem to be objecting to this standard usage on logical/etymological grounds (that "to go" should mean a change in position). However, there is no reason such an argument should be valid; language is not defined by logical rules (there is no logic in etymological as someone put it). (1) This isn't actually necessary (2) but it is the way it is done. (2) Japanese, for example, just uses the simple non-past form to express future events.