sharp@kpnoa.UUCP (05/30/84)
OK, for anyone interested, switch to net.physics, net.astro and net.astro.expert
for further discussions. Basically, all comments I have read here are over-
simplifications (and I spent years studying both General and Special Relativity,
ordinary quantum mechanics, quantum field theory and even quantum gravity).
All current theories are extensions of previous theories. Einstein's was a
radical reappraisal, but if it did not agree with Newton's in the limit it
would not have been accepted. Any theory which supersedes GR must agree with it
in the limit (what limit ? any applicable limit). I therefore see nothing
wrong with *postulating* FTL and/or time travel in such ways as hyperspace or
parallel universes or whatever - BUT PLEASE DON'T DRAG PHYSICS INTO IT.
We have NO THEORY that makes such things acceptable. We may, one day. Until
then, stick to the fiction, and dream (like I do).
Finally, we can still use a geocentric theory (after all, relativity - right ?)
and, by a somewhat convoluted definition of flat, even believe in `flat Earth'
ideas. Those people who objected to {flight, sound barrier, rocket propulsion}
were in a minority of usually non-experts, whose objections are only dredged up
when someone is angry. Experts are often right - what about Z rays, hm ?
Everyone needs to read Martin Gardner's books on bogus science and cranks.
--
Nigel Sharp National Optical Astronomy Observatories
Tucson, Arizona (602) 325-9273
UUCP: {akgua,allegra,arizona,decvax,hao,ihnp4,lbl-csam,seismo}!noao!sharp
ARPA: noao!sharp@lbl-csam.arpa