I was reading Stephen Hawkings.
I've always thought that not being able to go faster than the speed of light was a bunch of huey.
It isn't. A simple explaination can be said in a question.
If light is the fastest thing known to man, what could you use to power something faster than light?
Imaging the current in a river is the fastest thing known to man.
If you were floating down that river, you could use a paddle to make your boat flow faster than the river.
If you did that, then your paddle would need to go faster than the river and it would be the fastest thing known to man.
Here's my question:
If light is the fastest thing known to man, and its photons are found to spin like all other particles
and they can spin in the direction of their travel, wouldn't one side of the photon be going faster than the speed of light?
Something that makes up the photon must be going faster than the speed of light, right?
Hawkings said some things that just sounded like common sense to me.
You don't need a lab to figure this stuff out, just a brain.
1-Time Travel is probably not possible because...
If it were, we'd have seen time travellers, right?
If time travel were possible, you could go back and kill your parents before you were born. That doesn't make sense.
Maybe there's a Time Cop Agency or some other reason that hasn't been discovered in our future yet.
If it were just you travelling back in time, you'd be taking matter from the current universe and adding it to the past universe...and the past universe would be more than its whole. That doesn't sound likely.
Everything I've seen in this universe seems to be reasonable.
2-It may be possible to send signals back in time.
We may not have the equipment to pick up those signals yet. This I might believe.
3-No one has seen UFOs from another planet because...
If they existed, why would they hide? Why would they live in an RV-sized saucer? Why would they conspire with our government? Why would WE be a threat at all? If they could zap across the universe using technology we only write about in science fiction, why would they hover over farm houses? Lastly, why hasn't anyone taken a decent photo of a UFO?
If UFOs do exist, they would most likely be an unmanned probe.
#1 We've sent probes out.
#2 Our probes rove around, observing other planets. Thats what we've designed them to do. 
#3 Ours probles collect information, then send it back to us.
Our Surveyor was sent to Mars. It is roving around exploring the planet.
If it had an auto-mission that it carried on without Earth's delayed instructions,
it would be roving around seemingly without purpose. It wasn't design to give information, just collect it.
If the surveyor were built well, it could out-live our civilization.
If it were smart enough, it would be programmed to escape being trapped.
If UFOs do exist, then they were probably sent out millions of years ago by civilizations that may or may not exist.
Now that, I can believe.
Euclidean Geometry cannot describe the universe accurately.
#1 It uses points that doen't exist in a moving universe. They would exist if you could freeze time, but you can't.
#2 It uses straight lines, based on those points.
#3 If points and straight lines don't exist, then the x,y,z dimensions are wrong too.
#4 It doesn't include time in its x,y,z math.
It was at one time, an excellent way to describe the universe.
What we're seeing now is that is was just that, an excellent beginning.
Time is just as unchangable in the future as it is in the past.
You don't read this very often. It makes people upset. The argument here is, that theory would negate free will. 
In a sense, this article I'm writting right now, had to be written and you had to read it.
Everything that is happening, has already happened 100 year from now.
I've read a bunch of really silly theories about time.
One was, you can't change your past, however, you can go into the future, then come back to your time and can change the future you visited...now aint that just weak!
That just wreaks of 'stupid', but....a PHD wrote it. I'd be embarrased if I wrote that.
Keep in mind, that PHDs don't have to be smart, they just have to be able to afford that title. Most of us aren't in that club.
I've been reading materials written by PHDs
They all seem to have a pattern. They talk normally until they get into a complicated thought, then they resort to long words and formulas. It takes months to decode these words and formulas and figure out they make no sense.
In other words, professors seem put an intimidating spin on science when they are confused.