Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles; site ea.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!ea!mwm
From: mwm@ea.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: Re: unbreakable laws - (nf)
Message-ID: <11700011@ea.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 31-May-84 22:08:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: ea.11700011
Posted: Thu May 31 22:08:00 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 6-Jun-84 05:20:57 EDT
References: <1080@sri-arpa.UUCP>
Lines: 15
Nf-ID: #R:sri-arpa:-108000:ea:11700011:000:540
Nf-From: ea!mwm    May 31 21:08:00 1984

#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.