John R Ramsden

Przemyslaw.Gruchala wrote: > > We ARE in speculations section ALREADY.... We are in one thread of the Speculations section. You see the button just below that says "Back to Speculations"? Well pressing that takes you to the Speculations thread list, where _your_ thread is among those listed Now please, take your ball and climb back over the fence into your garden! Sigh! Regards John R Ramsden

@ydoaPs Yes ViXra is a mixed bag I know; but by no means all submissions are complete garbage, although discernmentis needed to separate the sheep from the goats! It is also a useful way to establish a reliable submission date for an idea. @Przemyslaw.Gruchala I have reported you for spamming a thread with a totally unrelated material. You started your own thread for your Proton pair idea, and this looks quite active. So it is totally out of order and quite uncalled for and pointless to pollute another thread with more of the same.

Hi all I just posted a paper on ViXra, http://vixra.org/abs/1212.0163 , with title as above and will be very interested in any constructive criticism etc (which mayl be acknowledged by name in future versions, unless otherwise requested). Evidence for the model would be a formal proof that the basic tenets of QM can be derived from it, which I believe should be possible and is something I am currently considering. Note that emphatically nothing in the paper is intended to suggest that QM is in any sense "wrong", quite the reverse. It is merely an attempt to discern and sketch a realist or "operational" underpinning to QM. It is fairly short (10 well-spaced pages) and, I am pleased to think, logically presented as far as it goes and to the extent the tentative nature of the model permits. So do your worst ;-P ... Regards John R Ramsden (jhnrmsdn@yahoo.co.uk)

In a slightly roundabout way, I had an idea about one possible explanation for the emergence of bipedalism among our apelike ancestors, and a related reflex that might persist to this day. Of course there are several well-known explanations for bipedalism, based on its obvious advantages, and many ape species today walk upright, with varying degrees of alacrity and persistence. But as many of the benefits are gained only when bipedalism becomes a fully formed habit, it seems there's room for all these ideas and more besides, especially a new idea (as far as I know) which confers a big benefit on sustained bipedalism in its earliest stages. Given that our earliest ancestors after the split from chimps were only about 3 feet tall at most and slim by all accounts, it seems reasonable to assume that they, and even more so their young offspring, would have been vulnerable to aerial attack by eagles. Furthermore, as everything (besides our ancestors!) seems to have had variants twice as large as any corresponding species today, for example elephants and lions and bears, it also seems plausible that there may have been larger and more menacing eagles than those around now. If so then these eagles would have been an extreme and ever-present danger to any troop of hobbit-sized "apemen" who ventured the smallest distance out of dense forest. So how, one might ask, could a small apelike creature, without weapons or even claws or large teeth, defend itself on open ground against a huge voraceous eagle? Well if you can't use force then trickery is the next best thing, and the obvious trick is to disconcert and confuse the eagle by constantly waving and swinging your arms. In summary then I propose that arm swinging, and hence bipedalism, started out as a survival mechanism to deter eagles, and that due to the extreme consequences of failure (sudden death!) it quickly became ingrained and instinctive, whereupon other benefits of sustained bipedalism were also gained. That idea then suggests an explanation for why so many armies, from classical times until the present day, have used an eagle as their battle standard or logo. There were the Romans, and in modern times the Russians, the Germans, and the French in Napoleon's time, and of course the good old US of A today! Well perhaps some copied the Romans, in the hope of emulating their martial prowess etc, but then the ethnic Americans or Red Indians (or whatever the PC term is these days - not sure) had eagles on their totam poles, and if I'm not mistaken so did various ancient Central and South American societies. I suggest the explanation is that the sight of an eagle nearby overhead triggers some remnant of this arm-swinging instinct even today, and subconsciously bolsters marching soldiers. As further circumstantial evidence for this, I can cite a friend who is rather tall with an imposing military bearing and somewhat stern looking countenance. He told me the other week how he had noticed that many people in the street seemed to increase their arm swing as they approached him and walked past. As the same happens even when he is sitting in a car, it appears to be his aquiline face which triggers the behaviour. He says not everyone does of course, his friends and acquaintances for example, and men and sometimes women who from their build and face might plausibly be guessed to be "tough" in one way or another. So that is what started me thinking about this. If some psychology or behavioral science student, looking for a project, has patiently ploughed through all the above, might I suggest an experiment - Stick a large poster of a scary/starey looking eagle high up on a public wall or building on some pretext, and I'd bet a month's salary that gait analysis of passers by would show a clear increase in arm movements near it. Also, if there isn't a name for this impulse, as I believe there isn't, might I modestly suggest it be called the Ramsden Reflex? ;-) Cheers John R Ramsden (jhnrmsdn@yahoo.co.uk)