Quote:
Originally Posted by renormalised
Yes, Steven, I know all about that...simple physics. What I am saying is if we accept that (for the sake of argument) that these craft are coming here, then there's some aspect of physics which we have no knowledge of and/or what we think we know about physics is not completely correct. All the particle accelerators have done, so far, is confirm what we think we know about physics. It's like doing a series of experiments to confirm a theory when we know what the outcome of those experiments are going to be beforehand. What we need to do is step outside of that box and try some things which may seem to be heretical as far as physics is concerned. Even if we ultimately prove that they don't work, we may learn a few things which we might not have found out otherwise. It may even point to unique and unusual answers to questions we have about other areas in physics (and maybe other fields in science).
|
Carl,
We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that physics (science) is based on experiment and observation. If a theory predicts a particular outcome which is supported by experiment or observation then why bother contemplating alternatives. That is neither physics nor science as it contradicts the scientific method.
The primary objective of a particle accelerator is to smash particles, the fact that SR is confirmed is coincidental.
The beauty of experiments is that the outcome is the same irrespective of whether the objective is to confirm a theory or to develop a theory.
Regards
Steven