Re: Faster Than Light Travel

Chris McCurry writes:
@:) 
@:) >>Would I be wrong If said that even energy has to obey Einstien's
@:)  >>speed-of-light speed limit and that this energy transmition
@:)  >>method would not be considered "Fater" than ligher travel?

  No.  Although, since this is SF we can always assume a faster than
light signal (subspace or whatever).

@:) This is true but you must always consider the fact that maybe
@:) Einstien [sic] is wrong...???
@:) 
@:) hmmmmmm?
@:) 
@:) Great people have been wrong before you know...
@:) 
@:) think about it...

  OK, I've thought about it.  The probably that Einstein's theories of
relativity are wrong is extremely small.  Likewise, it is incorrect to
suggest that Einstein's theories invalidate Newton's theories.
Newton's mechanics were not wrong, they were only specific to a
particular set of conditions (in particular they only work for
relatively slow-moving objects).  Actually Ptolomey wasn't really
"wrong" either, although people like to laugh at his epicyclic
explanation of planetary movement.  In reality he came up with a
pretty good tool for predicting the locations of the planets.
Copernicus and Kepler just had fancier math.

  These kinds of statements turn up frequently on the various
sci.space.* newsgroups and become very aggravating after a while.
People compare the light barrier with the sound barrier, they say new
science invalidates old science, they think that impossible things
must be true just because it would be nice.  But that's just not the
way things work.

  Hope this message doesn't sound to mean-spirited, but this topic
really irks me.

-joachim