Particles which go around a track and are forced to "tunnel" through a barrier have been timed moving faster than the speed of light, since that speed is not a single velocity, but a distribution.
Moreover, many cosmologists look for telltale signs which might indicate the existence of particles moving faster than the speed of light.
Natural laws aren't laws. They are a search for consistency and predictability in observations. Of course scientists jump on popular theories. We're social animals. But that doesn't affect the underlying logical tests. Einstein said that God doesn't play dice and nowadays there's barely a physicist who would believe that - but there are, so even quantum physics is under attack from radical String theorists and such.
My whole point here is that the idea that science is a place with more dogmas than the liberal arts is crazy. Science is about confirming theories, but COMPETING theories. And even confirmations have to compete. And in the process of confirming, the most Kool-Aid-drinking of the scientists will over-reach, his results will be questioned and BANG! a new theory starts.
On 10/9/06, Charles Brown <cbrown at michiganlegal.org> wrote:
> boddi :
> Okay, let's just remember that there is a skepticism built into the
> "receiving communications" process, okay?
>
> ^^^^
> CB: Sure, but there is affirmative belief built into it too, okay ?
>
>
> even though "Natural laws" are laws ,and laws are "meant to be broken." :>)
>
> ^^^^^^
>
> That's really the point of the scientific method, that when results
> are offered, they are considered observations which are seen to have a high
> likelihood of confirming a hypothesis - not a fact, not a dogma, certainly
> not a truth - a hypothesis.
>
> ^^^^
> CB: Some hypotheses are spoken of as having attained the status of laws of
> nature, which expresses the certainty aspect of this. It is not just
> "skepticism".
>
> For example, there's nobody talking about going faster than the speed of
> light. There's a lot of certainty today that that's a limit beyond a
> reasonable doubt.
>
> No, there is not just skepticism and uncertainty in the posture of
> scientists toward many principles. There is a degree of affirmative
> certainty too. It's a unity and struggle of opposites.
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>