Mordred

One of the problems ppl have when they present ether based theories is the assumption that the tests have stopped at the more commonly known tests. There have been dozens of different tests looking for an ether that all show null results the latest that I am familiar with was done in 2009. This test looked for Ether at the quantum level with its extreme precision. [math]\Delta c/c=1*10^{-17}[/math] for the precision level. Still absolutely no indication of an ether. @Op your going to need some incredibly strong evidence well beyond any mathematics your papers indicate to account for how these null results can occur with your theory. Quite frankly without extremely accurate precision tests you really don't have much hope in competing with the overwhelming evidence against you. Here is the relevent arxiv to the result above https://arxiv.org/abs/1002.1284

Well I for one have no confidence of validity from what I have read thus far. Too many inaccuracies in the paper in terms of what is involved in stated experiments. Good example being the M$M experiment where the frame dragging aspect of an absolute frame is ignored as one example. From what I can determine non standard use of the terms phase and group velocities. Though quite frankly having an absolute frame using wavefuctions makes absolutely zero sense under vector symmetry treatments. Particularly one being emitted from a moving source. You would still require time dilation and length contraction to keep the phase velocity constant.

I realize that Studiot but quite frankly I am unclear if he truly understands the difference between a phase velocity and a group velocity. So I gave an example. Relativity also does little to define a particle as per wavefunction states. Yet this is important to understand why relativity doesn't deal with phase velocity but the group velocity. Ie an earlier statement the phase velocity does not describe the particle velocity the group velocity does. This relates back to the following question if you think about it. If the OP sets the phase velocity as constant and equal to c then the group velocity must equal the phase velocity to satisfy the equation you posted. In the case of a massive particles who's group velocity is less than c the phase velocity must exceed c. You must apply both the massless and massive case under relativity but the OP clearly doesn't understand why the group velocity is the particle velocity.

Phase velocity varies depending on its wavelength in a dispersive medium. The only time it can be constant is in a vacuum. However group velocity is also constant in a vacuum. If you have a paper showing otherwise please post it (preferably arxiv) I'll bet there is some medium involved in those papers. In essence in circumstances where w does not equal ck. However your still missing one key problem. [math] the group velocity and not the phase velocity describes the velocity of a particle [/b] Good example the QM or QFT superposition particle state is described via its group velocity.

I too look forward to seeing how the OP is defining group and phase velocity as none of his descriptives match the mainstream definitions.

I would also suspect an absolute frame would have additional ramifications for GW waves. Even in gravitational lensing there is no indication of a refractive index you would distortions that are not present on observation. Not to mention CMB distortions or lack of.

You obviously didn't read or understand a single formula I posted if your still declaring this to be a problem. In a vacuum the group and phase velocity are both constant. A vacuum isn't a dispersive medium. Perhaps you need to understand that first. As mainstream science already does. Not that phase velocity has anything to do with particle velocity. Which is also important to understand. It is the group velocity that is important to redshift. Redshift isn't due to dispersion. If it was it would have some funky side effects on spectronomy measurements of the hydrogen 21 cm line

When In a vacuum the following electromagnetic relations for phase and group vecocities [math]\omega=ck [/math] [math]v=\frac{\omega}{k}=\frac{\partial\omega}{\partial k}=c[/math] The group velocity will equal the phase velocity both will equal c to all observers. The constant c is frequency independant. See dispersion relations given here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispersion_relation

Unfortunately the OP isn't using any of the correct formulas to properly correlate phase velocity or group velocity in terms of the energy momentum equation. The phase velocity is not the velocity of the particle the group velocity is. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_wave Group velocity (equal to the particle's speed) should not be confused with phase velocity (equal to the product of the particle's frequency and its wavelength). In the case of a non-dispersive medium, they happen to be equal, but otherwise they are not. you can read further on that link but if you ever do the calculations you will find that for any particle less than c the phase velocity will always exceed c. However that is a product of its frequency and wavelength as noted by that link. It does not represent the velocity of the particle even in the case of photons. edit one side note phase velocity is not a true velocity but an apparent velocity it will not allow superluminal communication even if it's value exceeds c. You are dealing with group velocities in redshift equations whatever of the three primary types and not the phase velocity for the reasons above. Primary reason is the phase velocity carries no energy. Which is why it doesn't violate causality. (In a vacuum the phase velocity and the group velocity of light is equal) particularly since a vacuum is NOT a dispersive medium with a refractive index. Phase velocity has nothing to do with your claims above in point of detail a dispersive medium is precisely when the phase velocities become distinctive from the group group velocities. (As different wavelengths respond differently with the refractive index) primary example a prism.

It's more accurate to not think of evolution as being caused by some factor. Rather the adaptations that best suit an environment is the more successful. There are also unsuccessful adaptations that do not suit an environment those get weeded out by survival of the fittest. The problem is thinking innovation can cause evolution, or the advantages an evolutionary change as being a cause regardless of what that advantage is. In essence evolution is the result of successful adaptations or mutations. No advantage gained by bipedalism causes the evolutionary change the advantages are the result of the successful changes.

This is something the OP never seems to accept. Here is a pertinent question. Does evolution ever require a cause ? or does evolution simply result from miniscule changes that aid in survival advantages

Maybe you should study the endurance running hypothesis based on fossilized records of human evolution. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endurance_running_hypothesis

There is also studies showing that bipeds are more energy efficient and as a result have higher endurance. You also appear larger and more threatening Lol another question could be asked why did the tyrannosaurus rex walk on two legs it certainly wasn't for innovation reasons or use of its hands.

And yet you simply refuse to accept any other plausible factors.

There is an advantage being able to spot predators early enough to run and flee in the right direction. That is undeniable a predator stalking already knows your location. I have repeated this numerous times now at what point do you listen to other view points ? It is a provable fact that many animals not just human will look to find their enemy. Nature is full of examples where sight is used to spot predators. Higher ground is a key to spotting predators early on as opposed to your eyes being blocked by foliage. That is literally common sense. What you refuse to understand is that there is never any single contributing factor in evolution. It is always a combination of miniscule advantages. Evolution is a slow gradual process

Your personal viewpoints means nothing in science try supplying evidence. I can quarantee if you hear a threatening sound you will try to see the source. It's in our very nature to identify the location of a threat.

How many experiences in the woods have you had ? I grew up in a small village in Northern Canada in grizzly country. That was one of the reasons I joined the Navy to make enough money to pay for my degrees. I've had numerous encounters with dangerous wildlife in my life. If you think hiding will help your wrong bears can smell you from several km's away and can locate you from scent alone. Your far better off spotting them as soon as possible. If a predator is stalking you he has already located you and getting into position for the kill.

Good thing your not trying to survive in the woods. The predator most likely already knows your there. They have other senses than just sight ie stong sense of smell. If you don't stand up to spot the predator to know where it is when you catch it's scent or hear it you won't know which direction to run. I believe we already covered this ground difficult doesn't mean impossible. Every mammal or bird lifts their heads from grazing to spot predators why would you decieve yourself this doesn't apply to standing up if possible. Just watch some nature shows you will see this behavior in too many numerous animals to count Example gophers But hey go visit Africa and keep your head below the grass if you honestly believe that will protect you or increase your odds. As for myself it's far more important to see the potential threat at a distance so you can stay clear of the threat. Seeing that threat early on such as grizzly bears is one reason reason I am still alive.

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.

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.

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.