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.