Impossible isn't impossible

So again, you're saying that it's impossible that anything suggested to be impossible actually is impossible? IMPOSSIBLE! You can't just suggest that because I gave very discrete examples of things in science that my argument is voided because I used science and you really want to violate the speed limit (670,616,629 miles per hour, it's not just the speed limit it's the law)? Other than suggest that you really want faster than light travel you gave no examples of impossible things and why they are really possible. Science is zooming in more and more on what is and isn't possible. It isn't possible for a photon to turn into a baseball. It isn't possible for a baseball to blow up the planet (just create a big hole). Further, science has some times in the past ended up with completely different predictions as to what the universe would do. One of them has to happen and both were possible and the reverse impossible. For example, avoiding the Big Crunch was thought to be impossible at one point in time. It was thought that all the matter in the universe would start sucking each other in and cram together. Now we think the Big Crunch is impossible and the universe will simply expand forever due to the acceleration of the expansion of the universe. Somebody has to be right. Is it impossible the universe will come back together. Is it impossible that the universe will stay apart. -- These are the only two possibilities... and like it not one of them is correct. Your suggestion that it's impossible that impossible things actually exist is self-refuting. Science expands all the time and clarifies its position. Certain it has in the past been over zealous but there are completely absurd things which actually are impossible. Science typically expands the realm of the possible rather than the impossible. Without science there wouldn't be any idea that we had a need to fly close to the speed of light in order to travel the 24 billion miles to the next star. Science has in the past stated that the only two possibilities for something were both impossible at different points in time. One of them has to be right. I don't see why I should reduce our understanding of the world into philosophical terms. I might as well reduce it into theological terms if I'm reducing what we know into blathering nonsense. Science isn't right because of the "infinitely expanding nature of the universe" -- in fact, you stole that from science and tweaked it. Also, very well might not be true. The idea of saying that science isn't wrong or right while on a computer running through fiber optic lines and unto servers is rather amusing. Sorry, but science got that right. You rest your argument on infinite universes and infinite dimensions on the grounds that everything has to be correct somewhere? First off, scientific prediction of the impossibility of things are made locally. You don't get to suppose it's right in some other universe (regardless what string theorists say). Further, you're assuming science is right about those infinite number of universe and that seems to perhaps be a sketchy view of quantum mechanics. The idea of those universes actually existing rather than being potential has always hit a raw cord. It doesn't matter how big the universe becomes muons aren't going to start decaying into basketballs (they decay into electrons). That's impossible. Sorry.