Stogryn.ES@XEROX.ARPA (05/22/84)
>> The plausibility is the same as for FTL, thiotimoline, >> and the radio in Galileo's day - impossibly small *at >> this time*. Later on, who knows? > <sputter sputter foof> > FTL is *IMPOSSIBLE* DO YOU HEAR ME???? > YOU HAVE A BETTER CHANCE AT MAKING A PERPETUAL MOTION > MACHINE THAN YOU HAVE AT MAKING AN FTL DRIVE!!!! > <foof sputter sputter> > I find it somewhat humorous (in a sick sort of way) that people > who are supposed to be as intelligent as SF readers, can totally > ignore the findings of Einstein -- without even bothering to > read or understand them. > What Einstein discovered, is a new (UNBREAKABLE) law. . . I, on the other hand, find it somewhat humorous that people who are supposed to be as intelligent as SF readers, can shut "their" minds to new ideas - not dream of their possibilities with the expectation that some day science will find a way to over come those incontrovertible facts based on unbreakable laws. Mankind has always made laws and checked them against the facts. ** Man can not fly; it's impossible - try it. You're just not lighter than air. ** The world is flat - just look down or try sailing off in "that" direction and see if you ever come back. ** The earth is the center of the universe - See, the stars revolve around it. These were facts base on unbreakable laws made by and agreed upon by all of the scholars of their time. Steve
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (05/24/84)
> ** Man can not fly; it's impossible - try it. You're just not lighter > than air. > ** The world is flat - just look down or try sailing off in "that" > direction and see if you ever come back. > ** The earth is the center of the universe - See, the stars revolve > around it. > These were facts base on unbreakable laws made by and agreed upon by all > of the scholars of their time. But we're smarter than they were back then and we know what the real truth is... Right? :-) -- "Submitted for your approval..." Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
jdd@allegra.UUCP (John DeTreville) (05/29/84)
Hey great--I have a bunch of great plans for FTL travel, time travel,
all sorts of neat stuff, that are impossible only because of number
theory. But hey, you know, number theory is only a "theory"--nobody's
ever \proven/ it's true, so let's keep an open mind, okay?
Cheers,
John ("Now Let's Hook These Wires All Together Now") DeTreville
Bell Labs, Murray Hill, Anti-Earthmwm@ea.UUCP (06/01/84)
#R:sri-arpa:-108000:ea:11700011:000:540
ea!mwm May 31 21:08:00 1984
The following statement is a good example of bad science:
> FTL is *IMPOSSIBLE* DO YOU HEAR ME????
This sttement is a *hypotheses*. What makes it bad science it that it is
nearly unprovable. You can *not* do it experimentally, you have to do it
with a very broad theory. SR & GR don't say anything about this case,
except to note that time travel and FTL are synonymous. Of course, they
also point out a mechanism for travel through time. In addition, SR refuses
to comment on the case of travelling at the speed of light.
<mike