Re: Probability of visitation

Message posted by Chris McDowell on November 02, 2006 at 7:52:28 PST:

True, what you say about Hawking's theory makes sense. I was just trying to cite a recent example; one that more people might have heard of. But I understand your point.

However, I still say that we cannot definitively state that our theories are correct, even to include Einstein's theory of relativity. We feel they are correct, because every test we subject them to confirms them. But I think it's the height of human arrogance to assume that we understand all the limitations of physics, just because we haven't yet come up with a way to disprove our own theories.

And you can't tell me that there aren't a number of young scientists out there who would love to poke a hole or two in the laws laid down by Einstein, Hawking, et al, regardless of the can of worms that would open. So for that reason, I say the book isn't completely written yet on what is and isn't possible.

Even if the GR prohibition of lightspeed travel does hold up in the long run, there could be countless ways of getting around it that we haven't considered, simply because our understanding and knowledge of the universe is so limited. Wormholes right now are the most-cited example of a possible workaround of the GR prohibition. Who can say how many other "shortcuts" are out there?

That said, there are still no UFOs at Groom Lake.

I keep adding that sentence, to make sure that any new members reading the forum won't lump me in with the UFO crowd. :)

Chris M.

In Reply to: Re: Probability of visitation posted by Andreas Parsch on November 02, 2006 at 1:59:10 PST:


[ Discussion Forum Index ] [ FAQ ]