Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!harpo!decvax!cca!ima!ism780!jim
From: jim@ism780.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: Re: Death Star weapon. - (nf)
Message-ID: <190@ism780.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 21-May-84 00:25:45 EDT
Article-I.D.: ism780.190
Posted: Mon May 21 00:25:45 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 22-May-84 07:44:32 EDT
Lines: 36

#R:sri-arpa:-1253700:ism780:14200007:000:1782
ism780!jim    May 19 22:15:00 1984

> My, my, my! Such vehemence! I guess we have discovered someone that
> does not know that it is the THEORY (hint: !law) of Relativity.

You have a false notion of what a theory is.  I suggest you check the
dictionary.  No matter how well validated, the theory of relativity will
never be called a law, yet almost all astrophysicists accept it.

> I thought that one of the basics of the scientific method was that
> theories can (and must) be changed to fit newly discovered facts.
> If something is discovered that contradict the THEORY, the theory
> must be changed to cover the fact.

Fine, but no one has offered any new facts to contradict the General Theory
of Relativity.  And there is not even the faintest sign of a theory
which can account for all observed evidence (another basic of the scientific
method: a new theory must subsume the old theory; anything explainable under
the old theory must be explainable under the new theory) and yet does not
accept the speed of light as a limiting factor.

> ALL you can say is that the
> theory appears to describe reality fairly well.

The GR explains a great number of interlocking, otherwise very peculiar
observations in a very natural fashion (the theory itself is structurally
simple and free of ad hoccery, such as "tired photons", if you have been
following net.physics), and has accurately predicted (ability to predict is
another fundamental of a theory according to scientific method) many
phenomena.  This goes way beyond describing reality "fairly well".
The fact of the matter is that the odds that GR is correct are very high,
and romantic notions such as FTL are just that.  As Carl Sagan has said
(about ESP and such), "it would be *wonderful*, *if* it were true".

-- Jim Balter, INTERACTIVE Systems (ima!jim)