The Lounge is rated PG. If you're about to post something you wouldn't want your
kid sister to read then don't post it. No flame wars, no abusive conduct, no programming
questions and please don't post ads.
If I remember correctly, it was Einstein who said that impossible things remain such only until someone comes up with a trick to make them possible.
That's often the case with new discoveries and advances in science. While things may technically remain impossible, there can be "tricks" to bypass the impossibility. As in your example, FTL travel could be made possible not by travelling faster than light (which *may* remain impossible), but by warping the space around you etc. etc.
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, but not in practice. - Anonymous
A computer is a stupid machine with the ability to do incredibly smart things, while computer programmers are smart people with the ability to do incredibly stupid things. They are, in short, a perfect match. - B. Bryson
I'm so sad that the world is a mundane place, free of swashbuckling space pirates and magic wands. I've even apologized to my children that our world is so boring.
Will we make significant strides in all branches of natural science? Sure, you betcha. Will we discover new physical laws that make miraculous new things possible in shirtsleeve environments? Kinda doubt it. Will we discover new chemical elements dilithium, unobtanium, and adamantium*, with miraculous properties? Not in this part of the universe. Will we explore the planets and maybe even the stars? I don't doubt it. Will we get there at Warp 8? Don't be silly.
The really annoying thing about scientific progress is that it doesn't just tell us what is possible. It also tells us what is not possible.
*What does it mean that my spelling checker doesn't mark dilithium, unobtanium, and adamantium as unknown words?
Given enough time, the probability of any event occurring increases; and quantum mechanics is all about probabilities.
One (current) theory is that the speed of light is not a constant; and that it was "faster" at the "beginning of time" (Big Bang) in order to balance Einstein's mass / energy equation when all there was was "energy".
Does particle entanglement operate at the speed of light? Or is it "instantaneous"? Should be able to prove that at some point.
"(I) am amazed to see myself here rather than there ... now rather than then".
― Blaise Pascal
I just read the entire thread and what keeps coming back to me is this one fact that flaws most of the argument that is present here. That is that the basis of measurement used for calculating what may or may not be faster than light is in fact light itself. Anything that is faster than light we don't have a reliable means of measurement of to determine its movement if indeed it were passing through space at a rate greater than the speed greater than the speed of light. Perhaps the speed of dark is many times faster than the speed of light? We would never know because we would never have a way of determining that or if there were such a thing with the current state of our knowledge and technology.
I'm never willing to say what we can't do or technology wise, short of those things that I consider the providence of God Himself. He's crafted us as wonderfully creative beings and their are very few limits to what we are capable of building or discovering.