We can travel faster then light

[Gilles]

Hello everyone

Since you're all so confused about the universe, and I actualy understand what Einstein had to say, i got a nice one to think about for you here.

As you know, approaching the speed of light, increases our mass, and decreases time. It's logic, cos mas goes slowly (1st law of newton). Clocks will tick slowlier if they have a higher mass, and so will every biolological process lose speed. Our consience, being 5-dimensional mass, will do it aswell.
If time inside us goes slower, but it stays the same outside, it means that we go faster (!). It's not that hard to see, is it?
Light, actualy has an unlimited speed, but, close to mass, it goes slower than far away from mass. Seen from our earth, someone going faster then the speed of light, would go with the speed of light. Going much faster than that speed, would make it useless to return to earth, cos earth wouldn't exist anymore, once you came back, to much time would have passed.

Don't try to catch up with time, though, that would reverse the biochemical processes in your body, and you wouldn't remember that you've been in the future. That means it doesn't make sense to do it, and that it might happen every moment of our life.
Travelling in time, would bring your conscience to an altered state, where you don't remember you actualy did it, so it makes no sense.

By the way, the fourth dimension is just evolution, and if you want to draw a 4-d cube, draw a cube within a cube, and connect all the cornes, so that every corner spits out 4 lines.

Mathematicians, check that last thing, it's true according to the number of lines(32) , corners(16) and surfaces(24) needed for such a figure. The growth from the smaller to teh bigger cube, is the 4th dimension.

By the way, if any one of you wan't to know the truth, it's inside yourself, and only there...

[Gilles]

O yes, by the way, if your mass (energy) increases, so will the mass of your fuel, so there won't be much of a point.
You just need enough fuel to accelerate until the speed of light under THESE conditions.
Don't accelerate to fast though, you wouldn't like the feeling of the g's on your body

[jinydu]

As someone who has studied some Relativity, I can see several flaws in your logic.

Hello everyone

Since you're all so confused about the universe, and I actualy understand what Einstein had to say, i got a nice one to think about for you here.

As you know, approaching the speed of light, increases our mass, and decreases time. It's logic, cos mas goes slowly (1st law of newton).

Actually, approaching the speed of light does not increase your mass or decrease time in an absolute sense. According to the second postulate of Special Relativity, all inertial reference frames are equally valid. Thus, you cannot say that your absolute mass increased, because there is no such thing as an absolute frame of reference from which to measure your mass.

The correct statement is that if you are moving close to the speed of light, relative to an inertial observer, that observer will measure your mass as being larger than it would be if you were at rest with respect to the observer. In addition, he would observe your clocks as running more slowly than they would if you were at rest with respect to him (this is known as time dilation). But note that this is a symmetrical situation. If you measure your own mass and look at your own clocks, you will not detect anything out of the ordinary, because you are at rest with respect to yourself! But if you look at the observer, you will claim that his mass is larger and his clocks are moving slower than they should be.

Clocks will tick slowlier if they have a higher mass, and so will every biolological process lose speed.

Again, you won't see anything strange happening to yourself. Only an outside observer would detect such changes.

Our consience, being 5-dimensional mass, will do it aswell.

Relativity is a theory that aims to describe the physical universe. It has nothing to do with consciousness in a spiritual sense, and certainly doesn't claim that it is 5-dimensional mass.

If time inside us goes slower, but it stays the same outside, it means that we go faster (!). It's not that hard to see, is it?

Again, there is no universal frame of reference. Outside observers say that time is going slower for me. I say that time is going slower for outside observers. It is a fundamental postulate of Special Relativity that, provided we are both inertial observers, it is impossible for one of us to disprove the other.

Light, actualy has an unlimited speed, but, close to mass, it goes slower than far away from mass.

This contradicts the first postulate of Special Relativity, which states that the speed of light is always constant for any inertial observer (in fact, General Relativity extends this by saying that the speed of light is constant for all observers), and that moreover, light always takes the shortest distance between any two points.

I think you're confusing this with a feature of General Relativity, which states that the prescence of matter causes spacetime to curve. The greater the mass, the greater the curvature. But although light no longer travels in a straight line, it still stays at the same speed.

Seen from our earth, someone going faster then the speed of light, would go with the speed of light.

Certainly not. In fact, if we did observe someone travelling at the speed of light, something would be very wrong. Special Relativity predicts that the person would have infinite momentum.

Going much faster than that speed, would make it useless to return to earth, cos earth wouldn't exist anymore, once you came back, to much time would have passed.

This is also not true. If your entire journey, from rest, to greater than light speed, and back to rest, was short enough, negligible time would have passed on Earth. Of course, this neglects the impossibility of such a journey.

Don't try to catch up with time, though, that would reverse the biochemical processes in your body, and you wouldn't remember that you've been in the future. That means it doesn't make sense to do it, and that it might happen every moment of our life.
Travelling in time, would bring your conscience to an altered state, where you don't remember you actualy did it, so it makes no sense.

It is meaningless to "catch up with time", since time is not a physical object that is moving through the universe. Furthermore, as I have already stated, there is no universal frame of reference. Neither your body, nor any instrument in the universe, can distinguish between absolute rest and absolute motion, since neither of these exists, according to Special Relativity.

By the way, the fourth dimension is just evolution, and if you want to draw a 4-d cube, draw a cube within a cube, and connect all the cornes, so that every corner spits out 4 lines.

The fourth dimension is a space where it is possible to draw four mutually perpendicular lines through any given point. It is certainly not a process, any more than stacking sheets of paper on top of each other is the 3rd dimension. If you think about a cube being extended in a direction perpendicular to all of its sides, then this is the process of extending the cube into the fourth dimension. It is certainly not the fourth dimension itself. The fourth dimension is a description of the space in which the former cube resides after this process is complete.

Mathematicians, check that last thing, it's true according to the number of lines(32) , corners(16) and surfaces(24) needed for such a figure. The growth from the smaller to teh bigger cube, is the 4th dimension.

Your numbers are correct, but your description of the 4th dimension isn't. See above.

By the way, if any one of you wan't to know the truth, it's inside yourself, and only there...

Mathematics is about starting with a certain set of assumptions and definitions, then deriving conclusions from it. It is not about vague and mystical ideas.

The mathematical study of four dimensional space begins with the assumption that it is possible to draw four perpendicular lines through any given point (or some other equivalent assumption), and from there proves other propositions. It is not concerned with answering the question: "Does such a space exist?" Instead, it asks: "What would happen if such a space were to exist?" In mathematics then, the definition of dimension is very precise. If you don't believe me:

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Dimension.html

Hope this helps

[Gilles]

Hi Jinydu

It's the way of our approach that differs. I assumed that people on this forum were quite comfortable with the idea of the theories around relativity. I can of course understand that you beleive what you read in scientific books, and not what's ritten on forums by random people, and so i accept (and thank you for) the fact that you've read my story critically, but I'm afraid our opinions don't differ the way you think they do.
If I didn't write that it depends on who's watching all the time, it doesn't mean I don't see that, that's just the obvious thing of the whole theory.
What I didn't realy make clear in my last text, is that even the speed of light itself depends on the observer. Therefore, it's possible to travel faster then 300 000 km/s, but, as you stated it, not faster then the speed of light.
If i say that biochemical processes slow down, it means that we slow down, so we don't notica any difference, as you said.
Our approach of the 4th and 5th dimension are a bit different. You do it by a mathematic way, i do it in a metafysical way. I see no problem in that. The only thing I can tell you about mathematics, is that it's a language used by mankind, which is understood by just a fraction of those who use it. The process of evolution, wich i state to be the 4th dimension, is just an abstract figure to you. I try to combine both the abstract figure, and the process. That's all. I think mankind can't get further by thinking in maths, time is comming for us to actualy understand this shit. And as I said, the way to do that, is to find yourself. Don't forget that the whole idea of molecules is just a bunch of tested metaphysics. For "real" there are only vibrations. The rest is just an interpretation, allthough even the vibrations are.
Anyway, I'm looking forward to your reply

[houserichichi]

If I may jump in here too...these aren't attacks, just constructive criticism

If I didn't write that it depends on who's watching all the time, it doesn't mean I don't see that, that's just the obvious thing of the whole theory.

It's not at all obvious that "who's doing the watching" is important, this is why relativity theory completely revolutionized the way humanity does physics. That's one of the postulates - something they didn't know until 100 years ago.

You do it by a mathematic way, i do it in a metafysical way. I see no problem in that.

The problem with metaphysics is that it is a form of philosophy - something that cannot be proven wrong. Philosophy is based on logic and if the logic is sound then so is the theory. Physics, while based on math (and hence on logic), requires experimental evidence, something that metaphysics lacks. While there's no harm in thinking along those lines, if you can't back the theory up with experiment it's not science. Metaphysics is not a science. Physics requires very advanced math to understand and make predictions - but if the math doesn't fit the experiment one of them is wrong. You don't have that with metaphysics.

The only thing I can tell you about mathematics, is that it's a language used by mankind, which is understood by just a fraction of those who use it

Which is why most people don't actually understand physics, as hard as it is to accept. One doesn't understand nature until they understand the language she speaks. We can explain the rubber-sheet method to a laymen but it's not the way things are. Why does the rubber sheet deform? Because gravity pulls the ball down. Well the "pulling down" is supposed to BE gravity, not due to it. (that was just an example of the many "laymen" explanations of modern physics)

The process of evolution, wich i state to be the 4th dimension, is just an abstract figure to you. I try to combine both the abstract figure, and the process.

What do you mean by the process of evolution? Change? In a biological sense? Changes happen WITHIN time and space...they are embedded in our space, not disjoint like you propose. Or did I miss the point entirely?

I think mankind can't get further by thinking in maths, time is comming for us to actualy understand this

Math is a tool to explain things. How do you propose we explain nature if we don't use math? Not everything can be explained in words, otherwise everyone would know physics. I propose the math is the ONLY way to move ahead...that is why scientific theory was so poor 500 years ago.

[jinydu]

What I didn't realy make clear in my last text, is that even the speed of light itself depends on the observer. Therefore, it's possible to travel faster then 300 000 km/s, but, as you stated it, not faster then the speed of light.

As I said before, the speed of light is a universal constant. It does not depend on the observer.

http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theor ... ivity.html

[Gilles]

Hi guys,

I don't have a lot of time this morning, but the thing I want to say, is that I think it's a bit weird to be sure of the fact that light speed is a universal constant. That may have been proven on earth, but I can't recall tests done on light speed far away from here.
And as for the science part: It always starts with philosophy, the construction of a hypotheses, is not more then that.
So here you have the hypotheses that the speed of light is flexible. The relativity theory states it's constant for all observers. But as time isn't, and speed is dependent on time, I don't even see a problem in this statement.

[jinydu]

Yes, relativity does show that space and time are not absolute. However, it does assume that they vary in such a way as to keep the speed of light constant.

For further (theoretical) reasons on why you should accept the constancy of the speed of light, you would have to look into Maxwell's theory on electromagnetic radiation. There, it is possible to prove that the speed of light is constant for all observers, provided that we assume the truth of Maxwell's four basic equations, from which it is possible to derive all of Maxwell's theory. So in some sense, you could say that Maxwell's equations are even more basic than the constancy of the speed of light. However, while the principle of constancy is simple to state, Maxewll's equations are quite complicated and can't be taught until one reaches university level physics.

[houserichichi]

I said it in a previous post somewhere (can't remember which) that the speed of light is a constant because it is the invariant velocity in the Lorentz group (that which describes spacetime locally)...it's a necessity.

[Gilles]

A Maxwell's equations are to difficult for me to understand, you leave me with the fact that light speed is a constant thing, whereas space and time are variables.
Am I correct here?

Now I wonder, if the speed of light is 300 000km/s for every obeserver, what would light speed be for someone traveling with half of the speed of light?
300 000 km/s, no?
How about someone traveling with 0.99 times the speed of light?
I think we agree on the fact that it's still 300 000km/s. That means that even if you travel close to the speed of light, you're still far away from is, and you still have lots of ways left to try and get closer to it, but you won't.
An outside observer, would not see you reach the speed of light, but you'd go a lot faster then what he calls 300 000 km/s
Am I right?

[jinydu]

How about someone traveling with 0.99 times the speed of light?
An outside observer, would not see you reach the speed of light, but you'd go a lot faster then what he calls 300 000 km/s
Am I right?

No, an outside observer would claim that you are moving at 0.99 * 300 000 km/s = 297 000 km/s

[Gilles]

How about someone traveling with 0.99 times the speed of light?
An outside observer, would not see you reach the speed of light, but you'd go a lot faster then what he calls 300 000 km/s
Am I right?

No, an outside observer would claim that you are moving at 0.99 * 300 000 km/s = 297 000 km/s

For the outside observer, yes, but not for the one traveling

Edit by iNVERTED: fixed your quote

[houserichichi]

The one travelling near light speed would still see light travelling 300,000km/s faster than he was. In his own eyes he can never catch up to light. To the stationary observer, the guy chasing light has almost attained light speed but never reaching nor surpassing it no matter how hard he tries. They're both correct in their measurements - it's basic special relativity.

[Gilles]

That's what I thought,

So basicaly, we could go very very fast if we really wanted to

[wendy]

A Maxwell's equations are to difficult for me to understand, you leave me with the fact that light speed is a constant thing, whereas space and time are variables.
Am I correct here?

Now I wonder, if the speed of light is 300 000km/s for every obeserver, what would light speed be for someone traveling with half of the speed of light?
300 000 km/s, no?
How about someone traveling with 0.99 times the speed of light?
I think we agree on the fact that it's still 300 000km/s. That means that even if you travel close to the speed of light, you're still far away from is, and you still have lots of ways left to try and get closer to it, but you won't.
An outside observer, would not see you reach the speed of light, but you'd go a lot faster then what he calls 300 000 km/s
Am I right?

Maxwell did not "prove" that light was the fastest speed, nor that it was the same for all observers. He did not even prove that light was electromagnetic.

There is a measure, we might call the electromagnetic velocity constant, which says that L/T is constant, for example, that the electric force of two wires charged with Q/L, is the same as the magnetic force when charged to Q/T. This does not imply that charges travel at L/T. It's just a conversion factor.

Weber measured this constant in 1856, the year before Maxwell's paper, to be 310,700,000,000 mm.

What Maxwell showed in calculation, is that electromagnetic waves exist, and they would travel at the velocity of the EM velocity constant. He then went on to compare Weber's measurement of EMV with a recent measurement of the speed of light, and assumed that thet were equal: specifically

"light travels in the same aether that electromagnetic waves travel in".

Because the EM equations are not newton-relative, it ought be possible to find the aetherfer (the newtonian frame of reference where light was equal).

This is the Michaelson-Morely experiment's aim. Its failure to find a frame of reference led to a number of hypothesis:

1. The earth drags along aether with it.

2. That length is contracted in the direction of travel. (fitzgerald contraction)

3. That time is dilated in the direction of travel (lorentz-dialation).

Einstein started to think of the EM equations in terms of a different newtonian frame of reference (viz one that travels at the speed of light), and from another newtonian-relativity point (ie we must be travelling in this frame of reference that belongs to some source), concluded that newtonian relativity does not apply at this speed.

The conclusion that things can not travel *faster* than the speed of light remains unproven.

W

[houserichichi]

Again, the speed of light is the invariant velocity as required by the Lorentz group which describes local spacetime. Am I missing a point here or is that not a direct requirement for c to be the "maximum" speed locally attainable by any- and everything.

[Gilles]

Nice hypothesis,

Don't you guys think it a bit to coincidential that nowaday scientists talk about the Aether, while buddhists have spoken about Prana for years, and the New Age movement adores the Universal Energy? Plato mentioned it aswell.
Use it, guys, it's good for you.

[jinydu]

Nice hypothesis,

Don't you guys think it a bit to coincidential that nowaday scientists talk about the Aether, while buddhists have spoken about Prana for years, and the New Age movement adores the Universal Energy? Plato mentioned it aswell.
Use it, guys, it's good for you.

Did you not understand the posts about the Michelson-Morley experiment? Einstein interpreted the results to mean that the Aether does not exist and proposed an alternative explanation that is now accepted by almost all scientists. Nowaday scientists do not talk about the Aether, except as part of the history of science. Furthermore, the Aether (before its existence was disproven) was regarded as a universal frame of reference with which to measure the speed of light. It was never seen as some kind of vague, undefined energy that could never be defined or measured, since such a thing would never belong in science.

[Gilles]

I don't really remember having read about a nicholson-morley experiment.
What I do know, is that it's hard to disprove the Aether, of whatever name you want to give to it, simply because it exists to some people, and they work with it. As for myself, I see it with my very eyes, and because of a lack of better, i trust what I see.
Ok cya

[jinydu]

I don't really remember having read about a nicholson-morley experiment.
What I do know, is that it's hard to disprove the Aether, of whatever name you want to give to it, simply because it exists to some people, and they work with it. As for myself, I see it with my very eyes, and because of a lack of better, i trust what I see.
Ok cya

Well, from a scientific point of view, the Aether, for all intents and purposes, has been disproven. Quoting from the second paragraph of Einstein's 1905 paper, On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies:

"Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the ``light medium,'' suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good.1 We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the ``Principle of Relativity'') to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. These two postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple and consistent theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies based on Maxwell's theory for stationary bodies. The introduction of a ``luminiferous ether'' will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an ``absolutely stationary space'' provided with special properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place. "

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

If an Aether did exist, Nature would have to be very good at hiding it, because every serious experiment done so far on this subject has upheld Einstein's view that the laws of physics work equally well in all inertial reference frames, whereas there is no evidence to suggest that a universal Aether exists. If there is an Aether, there is no objective way of determining that it exists, in which case, science is not interested in it.

Of course, if by "disprove", you mean "convience everybody", then of course it is impossible to disprove the Aether. Some children claim that they have an imaginary friend that is invisible to everyone else and can't be detected by any instrument. I would have a very hard time proving those children wrong.

[Gilles]

If there is an Aether, there is no objective way of determining that it exists, in which case, science is not interested in it.

Yes I know, and that's a pity, but saying it's been disproven is a bit radical. It's not been proven, cos time for that just wasen't ready yet, but trust me, that'll come.

[jinydu]

If there is an Aether, there is no objective way of determining that it exists, in which case, science is not interested in it.

Yes I know, and that's a pity, but saying it's been disproven is a bit radical. It's not been proven, cos time for that just wasen't ready yet, but trust me, that'll come.

Some children have claimed that Santa Claus is real, and that one day, the whole world will see the proof. We're still waiting... :wink:

Seeing that the Principle of Relativity has upheld every experimental test, there's plenty of reason to assume that there is no Aether. If such an Aether does exist, it has no measurable effects, thus there is no reason to postulate its existence. Thus, by Occam's Razor, we should not assume that it exists.

[brasileiro]

As someone who has studied some Relativity, I can see several flaws in your logic.

<snip>

Very nicely put... thank you for expounding on that.

[Residue]

Our consience, being 5-dimensional mass, will do it aswell.

Relativity is a theory that aims to describe the physical universe. It has nothing to do with consciousness in a spiritual sense, and certainly doesn't claim that it is a 5-dimensional mass.

I think what he is saying is that our thinking process will appear to move slower from an outside observer so therefore our brains won't be working at hyperspeed compared to our environment

By the way, how do you do that double quote thing? I didn't do it right.

Edit by iNVERTED: fixed your quotes

[jinydu]

Well, based on the rest of his post, I don't think that was what he meant. In fact, I don't think Gilles has seriously studied relativity at all, nor does he seem to understand the scientific method.

Anyway, if by "double quote thing", you mean this: ", then you can type it by holding down "Shift", then pressing the key that is two keys to the right of L.

[Keiji]

What he meant was how to quote more than one post. The easiest way is just to quote one post, select everything and copy it (ctrl+c), then go back and quote the other post, and paste it (ctrl+v). I've tidied up the topic anyway. You can carry on now.

[KayaYautja]

Wow, i'm gonna have to read through all that again lol. Sorry i don't have anything constructive to add, but yea your way out of my league. Fascinating stuff by the way, from the tidbits here and there that i kind of got

[moonlord]

Some children have claimed that Santa Claus is real, and that one day, the whole world will see the proof. We're still waiting... :wink:

This is not written by me, but i think it's fun to read:

IS THERE A SANTA CLAUS?
As a result of an overwhelming lack of requests, and
with research help from that renown scientific journal
SPY magazine (January, 1990) - I am pleased to present
the annual scientific inquiry into Santa Claus.
1.No known species of reindeer can fly. BUT there are
300,000 species of living organisms yet to be
classified, and while most of these are insects and
germs, this does not COMPLETELY rule out flying
reindeer which only Santa has ever seen.
2.There are 2 billion children (persons under 18 ) in
the world. BUT since Santa doesn't (appear) to handle
the Muslim, Hindu, Jewish and Buddhist cihldren, that
reduces the workload to to 15% of the total - 378
million according to Population Reference Bureau. At
an average (census) rate of 3.5 children per
household, that's 91.8 million homes. One presumes
there's at least one good child in each.
3.Santa has 31 hours of Christmas to work with, thanks
to the different time zones and the rotation of the
earth, assuming he travels east to west (which seemes
logical). This works out to 822.6 visits per second.
This is to say that for each Christian household with
good children, Santa has 1/1000th of a second to park,
hop out of the sleigh, jump down the chimney, fill the
stockings, distribute the remaining presents under the
tree, eat whatever snacks have been left, get back up
the chimney, get back into the sleigh and move on to
the next house. Assuming that each of these 91.8
million stops are evenly distributed around the earth
(which, of course, we know to be false but for the
purposes of our calculations we will accept), we are
now talking about .78 miles per household, a total
trip of 75-1/2 million miles, not counting stops to do
what most of us must do at least once everey 31 hours,
plus feeding and etc.
This means that Santa's sleigh is moving at 650 miles
per second, 3,000 times the speed of sound. For
purposes of comparison, the fastest man- made vehicle
on earth, the Ulysses space probe, moves at a poky
27.4 miles per second - a conventional reindeer can
run, tops, 15 miles per hour.
4.The payload on the sleigh adds another interesting
element. Assuming that each child gets nothing more
than a medium-sized lego set (2 pounds), the sleigh is
carrying 321,300 tons, not counting Santa, who is
invariably described as overweight. On land,
conventional reindeer can pull no more than 300
pounds. Even granting that "flying reindeer" (see
point #1) could pull TEN TIMES the normal anount, we
cannot do the job with eight, or even nine. We need
214,200 reindeer. This increases the payload - not
even counting the weight of the sleigh - to 353,430
tons. Again, for comparison - this is four times the
weight of the Queen Elizabeth.
5.353,000 tons travelling at 650 miles per second
creates enourmous air resistance - this will heat the
reindeer up in the same fashion as spacecrafts
re-entering the earth's atmosphere. The lead pair of
reindeer will absorb 14.3 QUINTILLION joules of
energy. Per second. Each. In short, they will burst
into flame almost instantaneously, exposing the
reindeer behind them, and create deafening sonic booms
in their wake. The entire reindeer team will be
vaporized within 4.26 thousandths of a second. Santa,
meanwhile, will be subjected to centrifugal forces
17,500.06 times greater than gravity. A 250-pound
Santa (which seems ludicrously slim) would be pinned
to the back of his sleigh by 4,315,015 pounds of
force.
In conclusion - If Santa ever DID deliver presents on
Christmas Eve, he's dead now.
School of Physics, University of Sydney

I think it'll be great if somewhat checked the calculations and adapted them to the general theory of relativity. when the sleight is going at 1/300 of the speed of light, i think the effects are noticeable. I'd do the calcs myself but i haven't got the math backgroung necessary.

[bo198214]

@Gilles

Did you thought about that your ether might something different from the physicist's ether?

For the physicist an ether should behave to light as air behaves to sound.
For example if you would drive in a train with speed relative to the ether,
and you would send a light signal from the front of the train to the rear
of the train, then this light would travel with light-speed plus speed of
the train to the rear.

And this is simply not true (though it is true for the similar experiment with air instead of ether and sound instead of light.) as many experiments
had shown and whole branches of physics are grounded on special relativity which contradicts the ether assumption.

And why do you think that what you call ether (and various other non-physicist call ether - where not even is clear whether all of them talk about the same thing), has this above property (i.e. is to light, as air is to sound)? Did you make experiments? Or is your meaning of ether (which you probably can not even explain to a physicist) the only valid one?

[wendy]

IS THERE A SANTA CLAUSE

1. No species of raindeer can fly

Careful inspection of pictures of Santa's sleigh in full flight indicate that the raindeer are indeed not flying. The sleigh ought be pendant. The pictures of the sleigh in full flight indicate that it is running on an invisible road, not flying in air.

The mechanical advantage of air here is in the order of 12, consistant with the pictures taken of the event.

2. Santa's sleigh is depicted consistantly in the 1/4 to 1/2 ton payload range, this represented by three to five bags, each of 3 bushels. Giving each family some bushel of presents, this represents 9 to 15 loads.

Santa is in essence, a reverse-burglar, entering and leaving things (rather than taking things). The events are consistant that a visit to a household is typically something of the order of 5 to 10 minutes, and 15 all up. This suggests that the actual drop might take of the order of 2 1/4 to 3 3/4 hours for the complete drop.

3. Santa is not affected by time zones, since he is pictured in his house by 9 am sipping on his spirits.

4. The payload is consistant with a half-ton, or pipe, being all together, 120 gallons. This is 5 bags, each of 3 bushels of 8 gallons each.

5. Sydney is south of the border, enough said.

In reality, Santa is a god, and would had been seen as such if not for the christian dictum of 'one true god'. Set Santa in deepest india, and he would be a god in the same sense of Vishna.

In the sense, the Santa that services us is more a kind of shared faith, a focus for amily. We in essence, have our own santa, where we are somewhere in the order of service of his run, usually it is shown as somewhere after the first, and before the last bag.

What the notion of santa does, is open our eyes to the nature of religious belief, of social memes, etc, rather than to make the same fatal errors of calculation, that the famous Physist, Lord Kelvin, did in showing that man would never travel faster than 30 mph.

W