Quantum entanglement and parallel worlds - стр. 13

Chapter 7. Flight of Reason

Infinity has everything in it, yes. And if we have presented an infinity where there is everything but no repetition of this moment, which is now happening, then it means only one thing: we have presented a still limited infinity. Difficult? Unbelievable? Einstein wasn't understood by everyone either, even in the scientific community. Someone will answer me: not everyone understands, and not only Einstein.

While collecting material for this book, I read the reasoning of a very intelligent person on the net: "…Imagine that in ancient Rome there is a man convinced of the existence of atoms. Notice that he is right! But what happens if he starts searching? He will demand to be given diamond hammers and hundreds of slaves to crush rocks to the smallest particles, and then he will ask for giant sapphires to polish them and make huge lenses to view atoms. Clearly, the outcome of his quest will be negative…" That's the comparison.

Such examples can be given in different interpretations. For example, the sphericity of the Earth was known in the ancient world. Here is a reference: "The earliest theory about the Earth's sphericity was put forward in the 6th century BC in Greece. The philosopher Aristotle was a student of Plato. He gave three examples to prove the sphericity of the Earth: 1) the farther you go north, the higher Polaris is; 2) stars are visible in the south that are not visible in the north; constellations on the equator are high; 3) the shadow of the Earth falling on the Moon during a lunar eclipse is always round."

Even now, many people can't make scientific sense of his arguments. I will say more: even when it was technically possible to check it, when it was possible to improve the fleet to the appropriate level and realized a voyage proving it… not everyone believed it. What then, there are "unicums" even now. But the fact of proof became a fact not because of the fact that there were powerful ships compared to the ancient ones, but because they developed the science of navigation, invented appropriate instruments. So now we think that for flights into deep space we need, though improved, but still the same devices and technologies that we already have. However, something fundamentally new is needed. To give an example I can say that at that time, when they started to heat houses in cities with coal, they drew a picture of the future, where the elevator raises coal to the upper floors. And science-fiction writers, and not only them, outlined the future transportation problem as a problem of cleaning horse manure. Or for comparison we can take a vacuum cleaner and a broom: the function is the same, but the technological difference is fundamental....