Impossible is a bad word to use, not exactly what I meant. As usual Photon explains it far better than I. The difference between the problem we were talking about and the example you were using is the difference between quantitative and qualitative differences.
But he already mentioned that bending the rules or passing the speed of light MAY be possible in the future. And yes, I guess anything is possible.
'Going faster than light is a qualitative difference to every single fact (observation) ever anywhere.
That doesn't make it impossible, but it does put constraints on and tell us, if it were possible, what it can't look like.'
As for science being wrong, it's not the science that's wrong, it's the people conducting it. Problems with the experiment or the conclusions that were reached. But we have come to laws and theories that will never be wrong. They may be added to, but they can't be wrong.
As usual I'm probably explaining it a little wrong, maybe Photon can do it better. I don't want to give out wrong information.
|