studiot

It is your hypothesis which is why I asked you to derive the specific classical equation from your premises. It is not enough to state "the new theory makes the same prediction as classical theory", you need to prove this.

How do you explain the waveguide equation (experimentally verified many thousands of times every day) ? VpVg = c2 Where c has its usual meaning as a constant Vp is the phase velocity Vg is the group velocity

Let me repeat this and underline the word different. You misunderstand the word general. For instance the general theory of heat engines is applicable to steam engines, petrol engines, gas engines and diesel engines, but not to electric engines.

Perhaps you and Ghideon are talking about different things ??? Consider three bodies A, B and C. They have masses mA, mB and mC all different with mA>> mB >mC 1) The force of gravity exerted on B by A is equal to the force of gravity exerted on A by B, 2) But this force is different from the force between A and C or between C and A 3) However the acceleration of B and of C towards A are equal. (at the same distance apart) I think you are talking about (1) and (2) Ghideon is talking about (3)

I haven't replied to your previous post because I cannot separate the quotes from your replies. But you seem to have this under control here. Rest assured that everybody finds the input editor here a real nuisance. So well done for coming to terms with it. As to the content of your post you seem to misunderstand some basic Physics. The (gravitational) force between two bodies is equal and opposite. But yes it has less noticeable effect on a larger body. Galileo's comment (although he did not talk about acceleration) was that the acceleration felt by different small bodies towards a very very much larger one is the same.

I'm not sure why you are concentrating on African animals. One of the interesting things that has come out of the many wildlife televesion programmes is the behaviour of african animals around a water hole in times of shortage. The hostility between species that normally fight on contact is suspended. Many more good points showing just how complicated and varied life forms are, leading to complicated and varied activity. Howsois, I say again there is no simple answer to your question, nor did any transition happen suddenly. Further we are still a long way from having enough evidence to fit the jigsaw together.

Yeah. +1

Yes but did I not say that sometimes there are opposing factors to balance? And if you are to defend yourself when caught by a more powerful predator, having a weapon is better than no weapon. And weapons can only be used ( I would say wielded here) by standing on two legs. Please try to look at all my points, just as I have tried to look at all yours. Thus you did not answer my question how many lions or wolves are there in the jungle? Another opposing factor is Do these animals hunt by sight or sense of smell? Whatever, when dealing with these animals, humans have learned to cooperate. That is another factor.

1 Of course they used branches. It is likely that pointed sticks, sharpened and hardened in a fire, wire* were used before stone tools/weapons were made. Edit* 2 Yes that's true. Why is this relevent to the question of why they walk upright? 3 I have already pointed out one advantage. They can see further from the increased height. How many lions or wolves are there in the jungle?

I do not have a view because I think that 1) Your hypothesis is about a time after any spread to the savannah and much of your argument is about the time after hominids had mastered tools. I think they may well have been walking upright before these times. Clearly one cannot hold and use tools very well when one is on all fours. 2) As I have pointed out we do not have enough information as to what hominid we are descended from and cannot therefore say whether that ancestor was upright or not. 3) I think the process of was a regenerative gradual process. Some ancestor(s) found advantage in standing upright sometimes. Evolution suggests that they will prosper. Further evolution improved their uprightness and perhaps altered their physiology a little at a time to adapt. So they stayed upright for longer periods. and so on. It has been suggested that this happened to the dinosaurs, ending in the tyrannosaurus. 4) Of course there is the question of when (and why) did humanoids loose their tails? Was this part of the standing upright process? You might also like to contrast my suggestion about standing up to see better with other creatures. Some developed long and mobile necks. Some developed better eyes.

You seem determined that your hypothesis is the only possible chain of events. And whilst there are some logical parts to your hypotheses, There are many gaps in our knowledge and there are many considerations and factors, some of which oppose each other. Balancing such opposing factors is most often the way of the world. So a good test of ideas is to answer why you considered and rejected altenative hypotheses. Another useful avenue of enquiry is to look at animals that sometimes stand up, but also work on all fours. Bears, for instance stand up to fight and appear more imposing. They also stand up to reach up trees to get at desired objects. Soem also stand in water an fish with their front paws. Now consider is their visual apparatus set up to see best (look straight ahead) when they are standing up or on all fours? How does this compare with say dogs or pigs? Dogs are interesting because they hold bones with their front paws ti gnaw at them. You mentioned the use of tools. To make tools man needs to sit or squat. Even today workers are often hunched over their work say a lathe. You don't chip flint arrowheads standing up. But you use weapons standing up, the spear or bow and arrow. As regards to food, It may not be a pleasant thought to our modern ways but it is logical that early man ate a lot of worms, grubs, insects and the like. In a way like badgers. Evidence for this can be obtained by studying the evolution of our teeth, which is determined by the food we eat. Talking of swamps, marshes and other very soft ground, There is no evidence that early man did not occupy these. This could be because the timescale is not long enough for genuine fossils to have formed from those lands, as we have for say dinosaurs. But bodies will have decayed completely. Our evidence is based on remains rather than fossils. And the sort of semi arid regions or cooler caves are the best bet for preservation of remains. It is also true that neolithic Man lived and built substantial communities in swampland. The lake villages of Somerset are a fine example. Today tourists go for excursions in replica dugout canoes. But remember the time period of your transition / migration is really before the stone age proper. It's the time period that led to the stone age.

Thank you for your response. Please do not answer in that fashion as the quote function on this site cannot handle it properly. There have been heated arguments here as a result of this with members being accused of deliberately falsifying or misreporting the words of others. So please separate your words from those of others as in the examples in this thread. You say this Which directly contradicts your failed answer to this Do you know what the difference in repulsion between a proton and another proton and the repulsion between a proton and a neutron actually is ? Can you draw one of your diagrams to explain how either or peferably both these forces are generated? And yet when I asked the selfsame question with less detail before you said yet now you say you don't understand or are working on it. I respectfully suggest you find out what has already been discovered over the past couple of centuries of human investigation into electrical phenomena, instead of guessing.

I found the link. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-49486980

From this post and because it is clear that you are missing things other say to you I am going to assume your ability to produce written English is better than your ability to understand it. Yes Lucy generated much speculation. But there is also verified hard data. The assertion that there is no other evidence is untrue. I posted reference to new information, published very very recently. The remains found included a complete skull. You have ignored this new evidence. I don't understand this. Whilst I understand that there is a long held hypothesis that "apes came down from the trees to the grasslands" I also understand that the anatomical evidence does not support this. Again I ask those better informed than I to add in to this particular point. No it is not speculation, it is one of the few facts we can be sure of. By definition there are few trees on the savannah If there were lots of trees then it would be something else such as forest or jungle.

I made no assumptions, but offered you both evidence and discovery. If that is all you have to say about it, good luck.

Part of the scientific process is considering and comparing alternative hypotheses Here is an alternative hypothesis. We know that we are descended from smaller members of the ape (?any biologist correct me if this wrong) family. Within the last week, The BBC has reported the oldest ancestor yet found at 3.6 million years ago, in Ethiopia. Previous ancestors, eg 'Lucy' were also found in sub Saharan east Africa. This was no a jungle by savannah. There were/are few trees on the savannah to climb to see further (spotting predators) So perhaps our ancestor stood up to raise the viewpoint? It is also known that our vision is developed for standing upright, as compared to ancestors that has cranial arrangements more like quadrupeds.

It is a pity for your hypothesis that it is at variance with too many observations in the real world. As I understand what you have said, you are hypothesising that electrical charges do not actually exist. Electrical effects are actually some sort of chnage in spacetime. So how do you account for the difference in repulsion between a proton and another proton and the repulsion between a proton and a neutron? Both have essentially the same mass, so why is there a difference in this 'spactime effect' ? You also seem to be suggesting that mass somehow plays a role in electrical effects. Again that is against common experience. Two platinum ions exert exactly the same mutual repulsive force as two hydrogen ions. You say that your article explains the dynamical effects of electricity. How do you explain the other startling difference from gravity? Viz the ability of a moving charge to interact with its own field. In other words I don't see an explanation of Lenz / Faraday's laws or 'back EMF' Finally I would like a proper response to / discussion of my comment on your diagram 2

Your fig 2 implies something dramatically different from current theory. It seems to imply a position of (possibly unstable) equilibrium where m1 and m2 (should that not be q1 and q2 for chrage ?) actually touch! By the way make your images jpegs not pngs. The point of a word doc is that you can past the doc directly into the entry editor here.

Well I look forward to the upload of your drawings. Since you are having trouble with this, look at my uploaded picture (screenshot) It's very easy - I have circled the place to look. Click on 'choose files' and follw the instructions - it will search your computer for your drawings. Once they are uploaded, place the cursor in your text where you want to insert them and just click on the assembled image at the bottom. As regards your idea of comparing gravity with electrical forces. This is already done in very elementary work. But this only gives us electrostatics. All the dynamic effects need an electric theory quite different from that of gravitation. Have you considered this?

So did you actually attempt this? A hint : what sort of phenomenon is ultrasound and what do you know about waves?

Thank you for coming back to tell us what happened. I'm so glad how well it turned out for you. +1 Please give us more notice next time.

Here endeth the lesson for today read by the Cookie Monster.

Ok to make a start on curvature. It's late so I am sorry that the sketch is rather rough. The point is that a sphere is a surface (mathematicians call the solid round object a ball) and is two dimensional. That is we need two numbers to specify any point on it. Conventionally we use latitude and longitude. Both of these are angles. Note that the radius is not needed to specify any point on the 2D surface. The radius takes us into 3D. But a different pair of numbers, representing x and y would give us a plane surface So what is the difference? Geodesics. These are the lines which have the shortest distance between any two points A and B on the surface. In a plane any straight line is a geodesic. Usually the gridlines are geodesics but this is not true of latitude, although it is true of longitude. Geodesics on a sphere are 'great circles' like the equator and lines of longitude. Geodesics also occur in higher dimensions than 2D surfaces, but they are still lines. Why so much emphasis on geodesics? Because they are the path taken by light rays through space and spacetime. Now look at the sketch, showing triangles on the surface of the earth. The 0o and the 90oW lines of longitude, AN and CN intersect at the pole, N, at 90o. The also intersect the equator at 90o, as do all lines of longitude. So the angles of triangle ACN on the surface of the Earth add up to a total of 90o +90o +90o = 270o, rather larger than the 180o for a plane triangle. This is called spherical excess (over 180o) and is dramatically large as the excess depends upon the area of the triangle and ACN is a large triangle. The excess for a smaller triangle, say ABN, can be seen to smaller at 60o. Furthermore if we follow AN to D and BN to E we have a yet smaller triangle, but the apex angle at N is still 60o. So the angles of intersection at D and E must be less than 90o to achieve a smaller spherical excess. So I have set up a real world example, sailing across the North Sea from Brora in Scotland to Kristiansand in Norway, which conveniently happen to be on the same 58th parallel of latitude. From the figures it can be seen that sailing along the parallel is about 1km longer than sailing a true great circle geodesic. Now translating this to the first experimental verification of general relativity (by Sir Arthur Eddington) which is conveniently shown here Light from a star hidden behind the Sun was deflected by the Sun's gravity a minute but measurable amount exactly as calculated by Einstein. There is more discussion of this and possible implications of GR https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/106314-what-warps-space/?tab=comments#comment-993433 https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/114528-gr-and-the-principle-of-reversibility-of-light/

At that time light was regarded as a wave phenomenon. For all waves, including light, the characteristic speed is independent of the speed of the emitter. The emitter is considered as a point source with its own 'speed'. That is once the wave has been lauched it is entirely controlled by the medium of transmission. An observer, travelling relative to the medium will observe a different velocity. So supersonic aircraft can 'catch up' as you put it with a sound wave. Einstein's innovation was to say that for light, the observed speed is independent of the observer's speed or the same for all observers. That is quite different form every other wave. This discussion is not about a transmission medium for light so don't get diverted into that. Now both of these are local in that the emitter and observer are points and they can only measure the speed near to themselves and in relation to themselves. They cannot measure a 'global' speed that is 'for the galaxy' or wherever. So they must rely on a principle such as Einstein's. No. You can see stationary em waves using lecher lines for instance. https://www.google.co.uk/search?source=hp&ei=Y22GXOLOF4GclwTz4oTQBQ&q=lecher+line+experiment&oq=lecher+lines&gs_l=psy-ab.1.1.0j0i10l2j0i22i30l2.826.2804..4822...0.0..0.214.1498.5j6j1......0....1..gws-wiz.....0..0i131j0i22i10i30.JYtj1z6og1w It was, as I said, formulated to recast Maxwell's equations in a form invariant way. I can write these out if you wish but this is a lot of Maths. Remember that our whole basis of Physics and Astrophysics/Astronomy is that the Laws of Physics are the same in Alpha Centauri as on Earth. That is a global statement that forms the basis of Cosmology, which is about the development and evolution of possible/credible universes. If the laws were not the same then we could not rely on spectroscopy to tell us what the stars are made of and so on. Thank you for your sketch. That's good I can do something today.

Given your background and the timescale involved, I would recommend concentrating on the Physics of Relativity, rather than the Maths. The Maths for Special Relativity is accessible to those with high school Maths, Gerneral Relativity is not. So in your essay go into the (Physics) principles of importance in Relativity. 1) The Principle of Relativity, both the pre Einstein version and the updates Einstein introduced. 2) The Principle of invariance of the speed of light to all observers. 3) The principle of equivalence. The first two form the basis of SR adding the third, ugrades to GR. (1) Expresses the desire in Physics to have isotropy and homogenity in space. (ask if you don't know what that means). Another way to put this is the desire to have the laws of Physics look the same to all observers. Well call this ' Form Invariance'. this can be made to work for the Laws of Mechanics (Newton's Laws) but not the Laws of electromagnetism (Maxwell's equations) (2) Is introduced to make Maxwell's equations compatible with Principle (1) (3) The first two are local principles. That is they apply to a small region ( a point) in space. (3) is used to create the Field equations which extends relativity over all space and time. I will post a couple of sketches showing the implications of (3) and the relationship to curvature. Please avoid the 'trampoline analogy'. It is just plain misleading. Is your maths up to knowing that a sphere can be represented by the equation radius = a constant so the position on the surface can be represented by the coordinates [math]\left( {r,\theta ,\varphi } \right)[/math] Where r is the radius, theta and phi are angles?