The arguements back then were "pretty strong" as well. It is equal.

iso documentation of your claims or quiet down. unfounded generalizations are boring.

who said flight was impossible ?
are you seriously trying to equate a laymans unsubstantiated opinion with an experts proof ?

experts have proved that nothing moves faster than light
just where are your experts that proved that flight couldnt happen ?




really ?
they had mathmatical proof that also agreed with all observations made as well ?
im calling bullshit

This post was edited by Matao on Oct 17 2011 02:04pm

Are you actually disputing this?



Who said they didn't? You did. You must be how many hundred years old without a bank of knowledge so vast. You don't know what you're talking about. Just because we don't have the technology to do it, doesn't mean it's impossible. They haven't proven that something can't go faster than light, they just hadn't seen anything that has yet. Mathmatical proof my ass, scientists refuse to talk in maybes, it's yes or no. The "proof" that nothing travels faster than light is the same proof that we couldn't go to the moon, or fly, that people now consider absurd. That's what happens when people prove something wrong. The reasons for why become silly and become "a laymans unsubstantiated opinion" instead of an "experts proof"

It's a theory, not a law.

This post was edited by Caedus on Oct 17 2011 02:27pm

yep the Earth is the center of the universe, the Church said so, observations said something else, but hey lets ignore observations and listen to arbitrary judgements.

You're looking at it from a modern perspective. Look at it from a 15th or 16th century perspective (Or before) and it doesn't seem so silly. Back then, the "proof" for why the heliocentric model was false was pretty substantial. Things change, man became more advanced, perspective changed. Who's to say that something is impossible because some "expert" said so? If (and when) certain theories that we hold as fact fall apart in the future, how do you think people like you will think of us in the future? We ignored "obvious" things right?

This post was edited by Caedus on Oct 17 2011 02:31pm

because arbitrary statements compared to statements based on empirical evidence are much stronger, am I right?

people thought the Earth is flat and that sailing too far will eventually make you fall off the edge of Earth, but evidence suggested (confirmed) it was round.

This post was edited by Ocen on Oct 17 2011 02:34pm

Do you know how to read or are you just going to keep replying without any intelligence put into your posts?

you're clueless
just lmk when you're actually willing to respond to what i said

okay so you took it to the personal level, good job?

since this was initially about speed of light, lets get back at it; the empirical evidence suggests that the predictions based on the universe having a finite speed limit are true. If I were you I'd get myself educated on special relativity before I would comment with something that doesn't weigh anything. Secondly, you're playing the "we never know for sure" card, which basically ruins the whole point, but whatever lets play with your rules. We can never know for sure if there is a speed limit just as much as we can never know whether there isn't one. But we have evidence for the former, and unfortunately not for the latter.

This post was edited by Ocen on Oct 17 2011 02:43pm