Article View: alt.games.warcraft
Article #353320Re: Lightspeed constant... <--off topic on an off topic thread.
From: tyr...
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 00:00
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 00:00
45 lines
3308 bytes
3308 bytes
> > My example cited a KNOWN exception, division by 0. What if there is no
> > known exception? CAN we assume that there won't be an exception? If
> > there IS an exception, whether or not that exception is known, it's not
> > really a proof, is it?
>
> 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.
Einstein's assumption that light in a vaccuum is constant. Where and
when did he have the chance to observe THAT.
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.
That particular idea has already been disproved; simply: we're not in
contact with sticky tape, and we're not 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..."
Why should we study this? For the sake of knowledge. I didn't say
they'd be wrong, I said they'd have no way of knowing ("proving") that
they're right! Admittedly, proofs for a certain "application range"
(credit given to whoever said this), but real proofs don't exist!
Of course, one way to "prove" that they're right is to continue working
on it....sorta like limits for functions that don't exist at that limit:
we'll never get there, but we can get closer, and closer, and
closer.....
Once again, I'll say: "We can't prove anything, we can only disprove"
-JAmes
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<32936902.7A82@mail.sgi.net>Path:
mbox-mo1.pugleaf.net!unknown!not-for-mailReferences:
<568aoj$mrr@news.Hawaii.Edu> <328A56BA.45F3@uclink4.berkeley.edu> <328B864D.233D@mail.sgi.net> <328BECB9.3677@uclink4.berkeley.edu> <32927C03.4A3D@mail.sgi.net> <329267BA.5217@uclink4.berkeley.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
From: tyr...@mail.sgi.net Subject: Re: Lightspeed constant... <--off topic on an off topic thread. Date: 1996/11/20 Message-ID: <32936902.7A82@mail.sgi.net> X-Deja-AN: 197674825 references: <568aoj$mrr@news.Hawaii.Edu> <328A56BA.45F3@uclink4.berkeley.edu> <328B864D.233D@mail.sgi.net> <328BECB9.3677@uclink4.berkeley.edu> <32927C03.4A3D@mail.sgi.net> <329267BA.5217@uclink4.berkeley.edu> organization: Stargate Industries, Inc. mime-version: 1.0 newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.os.ms-windows.win95.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.win95.setup,comp.multimedia,comp.graphics.animation,alt.games.doom,alt.games.descent,alt.games.warcraft,comp.graphics,comp.graphics.animation,alt.fan.bill-gates,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.object,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.security.misc,comp.security.unix,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,news.admin.policy,fr.comp.windows.drivers,alt.windows95,soc.culture x-mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win16; I) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit