🚀 go-pugleaf

> Oh yah, I forgot about the venerable "what if?" argument.  What if trees
> were made of cheese?  What if our entire existence was only a mere dream
> of a real being?  What if there is some exception to all our rules?  The
> fact is, yes we can ASSUME there won't be an exception.  All of our
> mathematical and scientific reasoning is founded on a small number of
> original axioms (for example: 1+1 = 2).  From these, we have proven a
> great many things.  To show that we can, in fact, surpass the speed of
> light, you must show that some of the basic observations we have made
> about our universe are wrong.  So, hell, if we're to throw out some
> things, why not throw them all out?  Maybe gravity doesn't keep us
> grounded on earth.  Maybe it's just sticky tape that keeps us from
> floating away.  We can only work with what we can observe.  Just
> throwing wild "what ifs" into the field changes nothing.  Seriously, if
> real scientists had your attitude about their work, then we would never
> progress.  They would all just say: "why should we study this?  We'll be
> wrong either way..."


   Actually, I think the "what if" questions push science. I believe
that we have to have faith in our theories in order to accomplish
difficult tasks and enrich our lives, but when something comes up that
doesn't conform to our theories or just doesn't fit into any known
theory, it is the "what if" questions that make us search for an answer.
It is the sense of discovery that drives the "why should we study this"
question.
   Now, there may or may be a way to go faster than the speed of light,
and there is nothing wrong with asking "what if" questions and searching
for a way. But, until someone stumbles upon a way to break the "light
barrier" and the Theory of Relativity continues to support our
observations, we have to go on the "assumption" that we cannot go faster
than light.

Pat