swansont

No. SR has no ether, and predicts no fringe shifts. It doesn't "make up" for anything. Aether theory, as described in the late 1800s, predicted a speed of 30 km/s through the aether. The M-M experiment excluded that result by a very large margin. What part of c being invariant assumes an aether? An "aether frame" is an oxymoron, since the aether was the rest frame. As in The Highlander, there can be only one.

Also my questions

Um, no. The peaks and troughs are the maxima of the E & M fields of the EM radiation. I don't see how that is "ether thinking" There are also experiments that rely on these fields existing.

Acceleration is a behavior and mass is a property, so the former statement is saying there is a behavior which is not dependent on the property. Charge is another property, so the latter claim is that these two properties have some relation, but that relation does not actually exist, and the statements are not similar. The statement isn't even true. I can pick a bunch of different particles with different masses and with different charge. (e.g. a neutron, a proton and an electron)

Speaking of the hydrogen 21 cm line: I suspect that if there was an absolute velocity then a hydrogen maser would undergo a frequency shift if the maser was in motion relative to the absolute frame. And Cs beam clocks would see a frequency shift for different orientations of their beam (and Rb fountain clocks as well)

Why is this not 50 MHz? If I send a signal down an optical fiber, would I see similar results? (Optical fiber is a much more common method of sending a signal) And instead of just sending pulses, what if I sent an analog signal at, say, 5 MHz? Its frequency would change, right? See above. (Though I don't see how GPS would work if there is an absolute speed.) You might want to get in the habit of providing links for experiments you cite. It will save everyone the trouble of having to ask for them. And, of course, an explanation of how they support your hypothesis. But the key is finding an experiment that would be able to show your idea is wrong, if it is indeed wrong.

Thank you for admitting your earlier claim was wrong. I asked for numbers. Is it consistent with all phenomena? You have to come up with an experiment that would show you to be wrong, if you are indeed wrong. Not just ones where you could accidentally be right. So, no theoretical framework to present? His work has been discredited already. Why? Shouldn’t a timing difference occur for any orientation, as long as the angle to the direction of absolute motion isn’t the same? Some orientations would yield maximal differences, to be sure. I asked for numbers. Let’s see your predictions.

You can't. Self-consistent theories are only invalidated by comparison with experiment. No, the argument is that classical (i.e. Newtonian) physics fails to match experiment, and relativity succeeds. Is this consistent with experiment? Such as absorption and emission of resonant light when there is relative motion between and atom and the light source? What experiment will show that one is at absolute rest, or determine one's absolute velocity? So your idea contradicts actual experimental evidence? Then why do they behave otherwise? How do you get a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution and basically uniform intensity from this? No. Especially without a theoretical framework to back this up. Massive amounts of evidence is required, too. Over the course of a day, this alignment will change. We should see diurnal effects. And we do a similar experiment (with clock measurements), and don't see this effect. (If we had data that showed relativity to be in error, people would jump at the chance to publish it) How big should it be if you sent signals, say, 100m? What fractional frequency shift or timing shift would you expect between orthogonal directions of light travel?

That’s valid if you have eliminated the scenario where Belichick is a better coach than most, and the Patriots have amassed better talent than most other teams. (In part because they work well within the salary cap limitations)

A serious flaw here is that you are thinking that you can come up with a strategy that perhaps 50 other professional head coaches have not been able to devise, along with the reality that strategy (and its success) is impacted by talent. The best strategy, it seems, is to make the Patriots play in Miami against a Dolphins team that isn't historically bad (i.e. not this year's incarnation) Brady was 7-10 in Miami going into yesterday's game

Still not game theory.

Obvious BS, no evidence Fast is not quantified Since when are vegetables “prey”? You don’t hunt fruits and vegetables So walking upright gives an advantage that is not due to carrying a club for defense. Congratulations! You have rebutted your claim.

Already addressed. It’s about the same for chimpanzees. It’s not the same for humans. But nobody is here has claimed that this is the cause of bipedalism. It was presented to rebut your claim that carrying a club is the only advantage of bipedalism (which was based on your erroneous claim that the only problem was defense)

Doesn’t seem obvious to the person who started the thread.

I don’t recall anyone saying that this is the case. The only one proposing a scenario is the OP, and it involves walking upright so you can carry a club (and insisting this is the only advantage of bipedalism)

Again, we have a claim without evidence. You don’t actually know this. An interesting idea is not evidence, and science requires evidence. One can come up with multiple plausibility arguments for advantages that intelligence brings that do not involve making weapons. e.g. better decision-making on where to sleep (defense against predators) or to look for food (pattern recognition, understanding issues of depletion a region of resources). Strategies about hunting, as with the previously-mentioned herding animals over a cliff. Presenting intelligence as having a single advantage and that advantage as the lone driver of evolution is ridiculous.

Then ask questions about game theory. That's really not what game theory does. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory "Game theory is the study of mathematical models of strategic interaction in between rational decision-makers.[1] It has applications in all fields of social science, as well as in logic and computer science. Originally, it addressed zero-sum games, in which each participant's gains or losses are exactly balanced by those of the other participants. Today, game theory applies to a wide range of behavioral relations, and is now an umbrella term for the science of logical decision making in humans, animals, and computers." IOW, it's not about strategy or tactics, per se. Football isn't a zero-sum game, and it can't really be boiled down to logical decision-making. That's also not game theory

That's not what you asserted, i.e. the statement "Chimpanzees still live in the jungle and they walk on all fours" is not the same as (or seemingly connected to) "Ancient apes had far less vision than predators" or "when they stood upright, they were only more likely to be found by predators" Further, your observation that chimps use branches as clubs seems to be in contradiction with your premise that you need to walk upright to be able to use a club.

Assertion without evidence. Again.

! Moderator Note Is there any substance to discuss here?

Science must include logic, but logic alone is not science. Survival ≠ evolution These are two separate arguments "Nothing to do with" is not what you proposed. You were arguing that the evolution of humans was solely due to innovation. That it was the driving force.

I am not the one presenting the scenario. I am rebutting the silly claim that the only advantage to walking upright is carrying a club.(and that walking is less efficient than continuing to stay on all fours) Please read the thread

I don’t see where I claimed a future advantage, or that the change was not incremental. Why is this not directed at the OP, who presented the scenario? This contradicted by the Nature paper I cited earlier. And if you can’t see them, but they can still see you? That’s better, somehow?

This does not rebut what I wrote. It's like I am saying "These apples are red!" and you are claiming I'm wrong because they are spherical. Can you actually make an argument that efficient locomotion, by requiring less food, is not an advantage in and of itself (i.e. without bringing other factors into the discussion) when food availability decreases? Same question, only applied to being able to see predators from a distance.

Seeing predators more easily is an advantage the enhances survival probability. Efficient locomotion is an advantage the enhances survival probability.