Andrew W wrote:
casag... wrote in message ...
As we know the speed of light is broken all the time.
Not by any moving matter.
Everything is made of energy, including matter, and can change its state.
Modern scientists have already done it. They have teleported particles.
You are safer sticking with some kind of wormhole. They are at least
theoretically possible and "guarantee" you might get from A to B
much faster than light going around the long way.
The latest thinking is very skinny wormholes -- another solution of
the General Relativity field equations -- might allow photons
and even electrons to get through without collapsing. I.e. information
from the future may be all around us, if we have the wit to find it.
~ ~ ~
The great thing about positing something is possible (no matter what) --
you are on the side of the angels.
Proving a negative is well-known from grade school to be at best fraut and
most likely in most circustances "impossible".
"You can't prove a negative" says the old saw. For good reason.
For this reason science sticks with saying what is possible, not
trying to prove what is impossible. As some of scientist said one time
"if someone looks at the evidence and says X is possible they may be right;
if someone looks at the evidence and says X is impossible they are
Hard to believe, I know, but psychology predicts certain personality types
are "attracted" to statements about the impossible or things not being true.
"I am not a crook" said some old guy. Immediately anyone with a working
knowlege of how people operate would realize that guy COULD have
said "I am honest" (it's even shorter and a better PR soundbite!)
and would suspect there is some internal conflict going on there.
Maybe the guy WAS a crook and trying to lie without appearing to lie
because he had a history of being caught at it. If you say things in
a certain way it's possible when what you said is later shown to be false
you can allays claim it was a big mistake and noone can prove nuthin!
I notie if you look around (what's left of
USENET you see from some nyms
hang their whole online personality as being "not X". Straight away
the sign in the back of your head marked "shill" or "dishonest" should
be popping up.
Of course, being generous, we can also ascibe people stuck in
allays trying to demonstrate/argue/prove negatives as hillbillies that
jus don no eny better.
If you want to be generous...
It's been said scientists fall into 2 broad categories -- "extroverted
thinkers" (so-called "ET"'s) and "introverted thinkers" (you guessed
it -- "IT"s).
Psychology sees "thinking types" as people that value reason over
emotions and sensory impressions, "extroverts" as mostly concerned
with the external world, while "introverts" are more interested in
their own thoughts.
The distinction colors the work and career of scientists. ET's like
Gauss and Thomson/Kelvin are undoubtedly brilliant. But they proceed
based on what they learned in the early stages of their career and
then appear to "burn out" and are not able to learn anything much new
after the age of 40. If their work was brilliant enough they rise to
prominence where, unfortunately, then tend to become an impediment to
further scientific development because they disallow anything that is
not consistent with their learned world view. E.g. Gauss blocked
ideas in what was then non-standard mathematics, and Kelvin was
notorious for loudly disbelieving in "modern technology". ET's that
work in academia are well-known as having short tempers and being
unable to work with others, especially students. The prototypical
"mad scientist" or "Dr Frankenstein" is another example of an ET.
OTOH the introverted thinking is concerned about the "essence" of
things rather than their surface appearance. They want to know how
things "really" work rather than how they simply appear to work. IT's
typically gravitate toward philosophy or psychology rather than
physics and chemistry. But there are many notable exceptions.
E.g. Einstein was an IT and valued imagination over knowledge any
time. A prototypical IT is the reputedly mad recluse that lives in a
cave in the woods and cobbles together crazy inventions.
The career danger for IT's is becoming so involved in the inner
workings of their own ideas they become irrelevant. Their work tends
to become more and more abstract and complex over time and they can
end up working on things of little interest to anyone but themselves
and/or unrelated to the universe the rest of us live in.
Interestingly, Einstein was unable to accept many of the basic ideas
from Quantum Theory because it clashed with his preconceived ideas
about how the universe "should" work. A touch of the ET in there.
But unlike a full-blown ET Einstein's gentle and reasoned objections
only spurred on new developments in the area.