Mordred

Ok let's try this argument try fending off a predator with a stick or branch for a club when your mode of travel is on all four limbs. When your confronted by a dangerous animal you don't want anything to affect your ability to dodge blows or flee.

Yes but the other detail is not to discount other evidence out of hand. A truly robust (strong lasting) theory needs to be able to account and address as many pieces of evidence as possible into a collective and complete theory. I don't know how many times I've heard "But that's not my theory" arguments brought up in the Speculation forum in response to counter evidence Needless to say simple denial is a poor methodology. There is no denying innovation can certainly aid in survival. That's not the problem. The problem is can innovation cause evolutionary effects ? This I seriously doubt. You don't design tools that aren't designed for how your body functions.

Willingness has nothing to do with logic or science.

Sticking to your will and belief in the face of other scientific evidence isn't logic it's blind faith.

Logic also needs to consider all possible factors and doesn't discount any factor out of hand. So far this thread you have denied any other possibility except the need to use tools causes man to evolve to a biped. You refuse to consider factors before man developed tools. It would be impractical for man to develop a spear before he could walk or carry the spear.

Well it will definitely be something that will be difficult for the MWI interpretation to deal with. MWI doesn't deal well with probability density functions. For one thing then Aharonov Bohm effect was in strong contention as to whether [math]A_\mu[/math] was strictly a mathematical object without any physical effect. This paper shows otherwise.

Here is the arxiv article https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.03369 Hrrm how to simplify this. Ok let's give this a shot. In classical physics you have the E and B fields for electromagnetism however in QM those fields are replaced by the probability potentials [math]\phi[/math] and [math]\mathcal{A}[/math] now in regions where the E and B fields are zero you can still have potential via the wavefunction that the [math]\phi[/math] and [math]\mathcal{A}[/math] are non zero This tells us that the QM and QFT subsequently treatments is more fundamental than the classical treatment in that it is more complete in the information of the EM field. In essence the paper helps confirm that the probability wave functions do have a physical and measurable effect through their potentials. For example it's also a key aspect to how a particle wave packet can go through two slits at once.

True but it's much harder to spot a lion with your head below the grass isn't it. There is no perfect adaptation. It is whatever slight advantage you can gain it won't work every time but if it increases your chances all the better. Water buffalo has poor eyesight compared to a human. You should really look at the importance of an animals senses and how it detects danger for its primary sense instead of rattling off situations to counter the advantages of elevation to sight. It doesn't mean it works every time it just means it increases your chances. An animal with the strongest sense of smell can still be ambushed it just means the animal has a better chance.

Lol sounds like your both arguing the same side. You both agree time dilation is real. My human frame is unique only I have my reference frame 😈😈😈😃😃😃

Right so let's look at prehistoric man. His diet would only rarely consist of meat. Previous to tool development. He would have eaten largely roots, bugs such as ants worms etc. His meat diet would probably be in the form of small rodents. Large game would be a very rare luxury. He wouldn't be able to preserve meat so largely wasted. If anything he may be a scavenger hence a larger pancreas. Much like the diet of apes and monkeys we see today. One big distinction is our young cannot hang onto their mothers so the mothers would have to pack them. That's difficult to do when your walking on all four limbs. Particularly if you have to flee from danger. We don't have a strong sense of smell so rely mostly on our sight. Being able to see farther for early warning is a huge factor. If a predator is stalking you. He already knows your there. Hence standing upright allows us to see at a better elevation. We can't smell danger like a typical herbivore nor can we hear as well as many animals.

Not as many as I would like but consider this a wild animal typically looks for the easiest and most risk free meal. Hence wolves weed out the weak and young. Adult seals have chased off predators from their young even though the seal couldn't possibly win the fight. Nature is full of examples where simply implying a risk of injury is sufficient. No predator risks unneeded injury, a simple cut can get infected. Predators look for those easy meals unless starved to aggressive levels where the risk of starvation outweighs the risk of injury.

Don't judge ppl today to ppl that existed before all these inventions. You would be amazed how much food exists in every forest or even in grasslands. Desert and artic survival is tricky but possible. Being alert and sleeping in a safe area such as a tree. Grizzly bears can't climb trees and mountain lions are a rare occurrence. The biggest danger is wolves. That was for timberland survival. Every area has its own challenges.

So you claim yet part of my survival training had me in the timberland for a month with nothing but a soap dish of food and two jerry cans of water. Though we did have a radio for emergencies. Yet I survived just fine without any weapons. I didn't even bother making a spear. Their wasn't a single day I couldn't find something to eat. (Though 90 percent of the time it tasted qrouse)

Regardless those are fundamental aspects to success in the wild. They may not work all the time but that's part of the risk. Spears and arrows or even guns aren't always successful. You can come up with whatever scenario you want to every situation to counter the points we make. Doesn't change the details that a percentage of the time in the right circumstances you can have success. Much like you think a bunch of humans can't cause a stampede of Bison when we can do so today. The points raised by numerous members has validity and are possible aspects of why humans evolved to walking. You should seriously consider each one instead of coming up with circumstances that any smart human wouldn't try. Good example is your lion scenario in the last post. There is a big difference between driving off a lion and driving herbivores. Yet villages in Africa have to deal with lions on a regular basis. They have their success rates. I grew up in Grizzley bear country, I lost count of how many bears I have run across alone in the woods without any weapon. They usually saunter off unless you threaten them or endanger their cubs.

What is needed to explain? You move to a location that offers a ready supply of food, that meets your hunting requirements. You find a source of water. Which rivers provide cut banks. You look for areas that provide the required stones for cutting flints and obsidian tools. Just so happens many of those demands of immediate access also correspond to water supply. That in and of itself will bring game and vegetables to that region. I fail to see why I would need to explain as as something as fundamental as moving to a location that maximizes your advantages due to that location. A human looks small if on all four limbs, but stand him up and suddenly he appears larger. Add the ability to wave objects around with the only limit is strength and suddenly he appears far more threatening than on four legs. Examine what the advantages are in bipedalism as opposed to being in four legs. A) tool use B) carry supplies C) spot predators and game D) it's actually more energy conservative (there are studies that show this) E) you can reach better F) you appear larger and more threatening G) you have better endurance follows from D.. There is a huge range of advantages to walking on two limbs freeing those two limbs from simply getting from point A to point B

Man migrates to locations that provide terrain advantages ie near river banks

Never corner a herd animal. You give them room to run and they will when provoked. They also have poor enough eyesight they won't see a cliff till it's too late. Animals would rather run than fight they don't take unnecessary risks

I've done it with three dozen other people. I lived in an area that has very rare but ocassional bison. Back before I moved to a city. Little hint identify the Alpha male then drive him. Making lots of noise is a must but also waving objects tends to make you look bigger to animals with poor eyesight.

Definitely makes you look bigger than you really are. Good example why do bears stand upright when confronted

Humans today can drive herd animals without weapons. So why would this be surprising when those same animals run from a large number of humans back then.

Nor really, it's only strange if you think particles as billiard balls. However as shown light can interfere with itself by the dynamics of the wave equations in that link. Light does interact with light in terms of interference. Interference is an interaction.

Here is a factor to consider. Humans need to carry their young. With chimps and apes they can cling to their mother thus freeing up the mothers hands for travel. Human babies don't have that kind of strength. The ability to carry resources as well as infants is one advantage of bipeds.

Start with the FLRW metric. You now have the start point for Planck time. With that you should be able to get your minimal scale factor a. (Lol within a rough approximation after all how many Planck lengths are in an Mpc hehe.) Even worse how many Planck time units in a Gyr ? [math]d{s^2}=-{c^2}d{t^2}+a({t^2})[d{r^2}+{S,k}{(r)^2}d\Omega^2][/math]

Fair enough your still within the correct orders of magnitude for each calculation. A little side note. If you recall the LCDM model starts at [math] 10^{-43} s [/math] That value is identical to Planck time. This isn't a coincidence the cutoff point for the temperature, time and volume are Planck units. Ie Planck length (for corresponding volume ) Planck temperature and Planck time. Before that time is the singularity condition.

Yes you can use that but it's handier to use the reduced Planck value Planck energy is [math]E_p=\frac{\hbar}{t_p}[/math] if you use the normalized formula with the mass energy equivalence in normalized units e=mc^2 simplifies to e=m. Then you can employ the following formula for the reduced planck energy. [math]E=\sqrt{\frac{\hbar c^5}{4\pi G}}=7.8*10^8 J[/math] See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_energy