I find the OP very biased, closed minded and arrogant.
Many here brought up good points, but you seem to cherry pick whom to answer, and you usually do when you actually think you have something to
argument back in favor of your viewpoint.
I'll try not to sound like the rest by comparing how similar people like you said certain things in the past which were proven wrong in our present
times. Although its a solid argument on its own, I'll try a different approach. You claim that the difference between scientists few centuries ago and
scientists today is that we have a lot more thorough, solid, understanding of things (they thought that way back then too, but .. nevermind),
especially in the filed of physics/astrophysics.
It depends on how you view these 'laws' that you keep bring up as your strongest argument. What is a law actually? Is it an impenetrable barrier?
Uncircumventable constant? A 'fail-safe' of some sort?
I think those are just problems, challenges, waiting to be overcome. And we are problem-solving species (and I doubt the only one, or the best in that
category for that matter). These laws are things that limit the mutual exposure and interaction between self-aware forms of life. From a given 10.000
intelligent species that form various forms of civilizations (or whatever analogue to that you can think of), probably only one cracks the problem.
The FTL problem in this instance. Or wormholes (whatever you find more problematic to exist or happen).
There are observed phenomena that defy these laws (like some quasars shooting energy several times the speed of light). Also, in the case you pull
that "that could be a result of faulty observation and perception"-card, I'll remind you of the quantum world. Common physics is at odds with whats
going on on the quantum level. A particle being capable to exist at two places at the same or two particles co-existing in the same time, at the same
point in space (and many, many other very mind-boggling things). Quantum entanglement offers possibilities of FTL communication. If FTL communication
is possible, I don't see how the door can be without any doubt closed for FTL travel.
We limit ourselves only by the limits we impose on each other. And this is exactly that. This is not a case of
'laws-shmaws-we'll-get-there-its-a-matter-of-time-thing'. Its a better understanding and open thinking about this that may get us close to solving
this problem, or solve it entirely, whoknows? If every single intellectual thought the way you did, when stumbling across something thought to be
impossible at the time, we wouldn't have even budged from the Stone Age stage. And your skeptical attitude doesn't help at all with this.
The real problem happens when we accept absolutes and put boundaries on ourselves. A scientist comes across facts A,B,C. Fellow scientists analyze,
interpret and accept them, together they form a theory based on those facts. Another scientist then comes across facts L,M,N,O. They are analyzed by
fellow scientists, and they seem to fit the previous theory, filling more gaps that were in it (a direction occurs). Then, a different scientist comes
across X,Y,Z facts. During analysis of this by other scientists, controversy rises, these facts don't fit the accepted theory. In fact, they
contradict it, and move into a totally different direction! Scientists have a choice - they would have to give up the accepted theory, and form a new
one, based on all the available facts in place, or they can twist the interpretation of the controversial bunch, to fit at least mildly in the already
established scientific viewpoints. Of course, they spent time formulating the basics from the ABCLMNO facts, so the XYZ will be subject to more loose
interpretation and integration in current models. That's what's going on in science today. And we already consider something a "Law", without going
through the rest of the alphabet A-Z. For some reason, you think we have found the bulk of whatever the universe has to offer on physics basis. I say
you are wrong, we have barely scratched the surface of an iceberg.
The problem is, we think too linear, too one-dimensional. That's why facts are at odds with each other sometimes in science, because our
interpretation is faulty, and the directions these models take are in two different sides, and cannot be unified. The most gracious attempt at solving
this problem that I have seen today in physics is the M-theory, or theory of everything, or the unified filed theory. We'll see how far we go with
that, maybe it will be the "Amen" moment we waited for, maybe we are going wrong about it again, as we have in some many instances before.
on 25-3-2013 by Basqiat because: (no reason given)