> There is an important difference here. In the history of technology, "high-level disciplines" may sometimes be "overthrown" and completely be rewritten frequently, making something impossible to be possible. But it rarely occurs in foundation of mechanics. Even it has been revisited multiple times in the past 200 years, things that were impossible in the past is still impossible now, and possibly in the future, at least from a macroscopic scale.

I don't think we are out of the woods as far as the end of physics development. The 1700's is when scientific thought really started to hit its stride, and we've seen rapid overturning since then. It may take another 200 years for the next overturn, that's unknown but we do know there is one likely in the future due to the limits the standard model to explain all phenomina. To say we've hit the end is a bit of hubris since we're still trying to unify QED and Gravity under some unified theory. We know the standard model is close but wrong, and we will likely still use its analogies in the future just as we do for Newton to simplify concepts. Couple this awareness with the quantum weirdness and the apparent links to consciousness, we may very well be on the threshold of a new level we've barely conceptualized and only caught glimpses of. Newtonian Mechanics expected micro-scopic Newtonian mechanics and got quantum physics instead. Quantum physics expects the same as you get deeper and we may end up with something else completely different underpinning reality, opening up technology we didnt think possible, just like quantum computers, quantum encryption, quantum teleportation, etc. It may not even be FTL in the star trek / star wars sense, just appears to be. Fold space, traverse a dimension then pop out, create an artificial wormhole, who knows.

> The mere existence of a nuclear submarine navigating the ocean in 1800s England, as an object, is compatible with the Newton's Laws of Motion. Although nuclear reaction itself violates other known physics at the time, But if compared to Newton's Laws of Motion, they are not as important. And nowadays, Einstenian mechanics have replaced Newtonian mechanics, and it has the same status as Newtonian mechanics had before.

Isn't this the same with a UFO? Its motion in most cases doesn't necessarily violate physics, at least not all the time, but definitely has some form of exotic technology at its core if it can traverse star systems that we have yet to fully conceive on a functional level (concept vs technical approach). Again, who are we to say Eisenstein Mechanics has no successor? Newton = Sailing Ship. Newton + Quantum = Nuke Sub. Newton + Quantum + (?) = UFO

> That is, among all rational conclusions, those that is directly based on the foundation of mechanics have the most "weight" than anything else, so comparing to "640 KiB is enough for everyone", "humans have no means to survive in the vacuum of outer space", "atomic weapons are impossible", "supersonic flights are impossible", "cooling to absolute zero is impossible", "accelerating to c is impossible", the last statement is more likely than other statements.

> This is why I believe "no-FTL" argument has a strong point.

> But well, I lied... It's well-known that general relativity does not directly forbid one to wrap the spacetime to create worm-holes. So I agree with you, the "no-FTL" has a strong point, but it's a non-issue anyway.

Agreed, a strong point in so much as its the most recent and has the foundation of our current understanding of physics to sit on victoriously, while a little bird named CERN wispers "your victory is false". But as you said yourself, not explicitly forbidden. Nor even outside the realm of technically feasible:

https://www.space.com/17628-warp-drive-possible-interstellar...

Especially if we can find a source of exotic particles:

https://www.space.com/25709-dark-matter-hunt-exotic-particle...