From: anson@netcom.com (Anson Kennedy)
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal
Subject: Re: UFO's
Date: 2 Sep 92 14:13:30 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

jep@phys.uucp (Jason Epel [Computer Consultant]) writes:

>In article <83jn#yg.anson@netcom.com> anson@netcom.com (Anson Kennedy) writes:
>>
>>The analogy of the "light barrier" to the "sound barrier" is erroneous
>>because the speed of light in a vacuum is considered a fundamental limit
>>of space-time.  It's *not* an engineering issue; it's a matter of  basic
>>physics.

>A barrier is something which we make up for the purpose of making
>mathematical equations work.  If we didn't have boundaries, we'd have an
>infinite continuum where almost anything would be possible.  Logically,
>I don't have a hard time comprehending that.  But those of you who do
>insist on forcing others in believing that boundaries exist, but they
>are only boundaries that have mathmatically been made up to hold up the
>'pants of math'..

The limit of the speed of light in a vacuum has been experimentally
verified countless times since Einstein published his theories.  Hopefully,
a physicist out there reading this can provide a better explanation than
I can.

I am not "forcing" others to believe something;  I am arguing that they
should accept the evidence of science rather than stay muddled in a "my
reality isn't your reality" dream world.  I wouldn't have a problem even
with that if they would avoid trying to put their "reality" on the same
level as scientifically verified phenomena while saying that we cannot
use the scientific paradigm to examine those claims.

>So you have absolutely no right to tell someone that the speed of light
>is an absolute barrier and you shouldn't even think of the possibility
>of something penetrating this barrier.  

Please show me where I stated "You shouldn't even think of the possibility
of something penetrating [the light] barrier."  I enjoy science fiction
as much as the next guy.  I just try not to confuse it with science fact.

>You can compare the sound barrier in the light barrier, but in my
>opinion, in one primary way:  regardless of the examples, which at the
>time were PURELY speculative, the sound barrier had people saying "It's
>impossible to break the barrier."  Well, likewise people say the same in
>regards to the light barrier.  It's a barrier that Einstein and some
>others made up.  That's it.  The reason why current theory supports this
>is because the current theory is BASED on those assumptions.  

Tell the person shot with a bullet that the example was "PURELY
speculative."  The difference between people saying "It's impossible
to break the sound barrier" and people saying the same about the "light
barrier" is that in the former it was lay people saying it and in the 
latter it is scientists saying it based on theory and verified by 
experiment.

It's an interesting role reversal, actually.

[And before you start trotting out counterexamples, I will acknowledge
that there were probably some scientists who said you couldn't break
the sound barrier and that there are probably some now who say you can 
break the light barrier.  And both groups are minorities.]
-- 

Anson Kennedy                                                   anson@netcom.com
Secretary of the Georgia Skeptics (but don't even THINK I speak for them!)

"If you don't watch the violence,    \           "If I had been the Virgin Mary,
you'll never get desensitized to it."  \                I would have said 'No.'"
-Bart Simpson                            \  -Margaret "Stevie" Smith (1902-1971)
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal