studiot

these equations are very concerning since they imply that space is neither isotropic nor homogeneous. The situation is even worse when we extend it to 3D since in your model when we are aligning the x and x' axes and considering V directed along these, we have y= ct z=ct

Thank you for a response deserving serious consideration. It will certainly receive that. Meanwhile a couple of quick first impressions. This implies a discontinuity at x' = 0. unless we add these equations (equivalent to taking the average) 2x' = 2ct x' = ct This is, of course identical to the equation for observer1 viz x = ct You seem to have finally correctly identified the necessary second postulate of SRT. If this is your replacement postulate it doe not provide the means to numerically evaluate the apparent change of position. Where do your formulae come from?

This is in no way consistent either with the very clear and simple scenario I outlined, Nor is is a possible equation unless the light source was modulated by some sinusoidal signal, something I most definitely did not say. Furthermore I definitely specified the position of the second observer. I did not say that there was any separation between the observers. and everything that follows is completely and utter rubbish and thoroughly discouraging to any sensible discussion. Good night. Are you just being plain akward or what?

So you are saying that your postulate is that if the light source and the observer are one and the same, there is an apparent change in the zero difference in position between source and observer? This must lead to my equation for what observer 1 sees to be incorrect. So what is your version of the 'correct' equation and how may it be tested. I ask for tests because, to my knowledge, no one has ever observed this effect. I am still waiting for a mathematical description of the light front surface for observer 2. Why are you so hung up on wave motion or the ether ? Einstein did not use any particular form of motion in SRT. Have you read the paper? In it he specifically refutes the ether. In fact a contemporaneous paper (The photoelectric effect) he resurrected Newton's corpuscular theory by proposing the photon. Have your read this paper? In fact in that same paragraph he introuces his postulate you have taken issue with, But it again does not say what to attribute to Einstein. Actually this shows you have not read the SRT paper. because the phenomena you mention (and others) are purely theoretical deductions from Einsteins actual postulates (not your misstatements of them) It does not make the postulate that the speed of light is constant for all observers The presentation in the 1905 paper actually deduces from Einstein's own postulate, given on page 1. The idea constant for all observers idea came later and has been used since to develop SRT as it leads to easier mathematics. I will say it again. There is no requirement in SRT for light to be a form of wave motion.

Are you planning to answer my question, now asked several times ?

Now that we have reached this point let us review your beginning. Consider two observers in relative motion (which might be zero) v between them. Observer 1 is located at the origin O of the coordinate system x,y,z,t. Observer 2 is located at the origin O' of a second coordinate system x',y',z',t'. As the second system origin O' passes through and is coincident with the first system origin O, it happens that observer 1 emits a pulse of light. Observer 1 sees a spherical light front travelling out from his source in all directions and obeying the equation x2 + y2 + z2 = c2t2 Where c is the velocity of propagation of light as measured by Fizeau et al. Now the questions arise What does observer 2 see? And what is the resulting equation for his observation? And how is this connected to what observer 1 sees along with his equation. This is where any hypothesis must introduce a postulate and you say the postulate introduced by Einstein is incorrect. So my question to you is What is your alternative hypothesis and what conclusion (equation) does it come to? Note that so far c is just a symbol for a constant in the equation distance = speed x time It is nothing more than this and at this point has no special significance nor can it descibe the mechanism of travel.

Thank you for your response to my question. You very clearly mean quite different things in your use of the words group velocity and phase velocity, and even perhaps velocity. Do you offer any sort of base definitions? I have disentangled your statements of your own theory from you statements of misunderstanding of conventional Physics Conventionally we do not derive the wave nature of light from the wave equation, nor have we ever done this. The attribution of a wavelike nature comes from two directions Historically the first clues were experimental, diffraction effects such as appear the umbra and penumbra of shadows and many others. Then along came this guy Maxwell and his famous four equations concerning electric and magnetic fields (none of which are wave equations) and he further discovered that if he played around mathematically with them as simultaneous equations and applied a bit of calculus he could combine them into one differential equation which had the same mathematical form as what we now call 'The Wave Equation' That is he discovered that combined electric and magnetic fields have the capacity to produce and support the coupled oscillations of wave motion. He further noted that such motion would have the same characteristic speed as recent (to him) measurements indicated light travelled at. He therefore proposed in the mid 1800s that his oscillations and light were one and the same. We now know that that is not enough, but it was pretty good for his time. Half a century later, Einstein carefully considered the relationship between light, regardless of how it works or is propagated, and both Maxwell's laws and the laws of Mechanics and came up with his first theory of relativity which included a velocity which was also had the same value as that measured (by then more accurately) and predicted by Maxwell. We now call that velocity c. Since you have not fully answered my question about the difference between phase velocity and group velocity in a vacuum (have you now dropped this requirement, you didn't mention it lately). Conventionally according to Maxwell they are both the same and both equal c in a vacuum. It doesn't actually matter in Relativity since the mechanism of propagation is irrelevant to relativistic considerations.

Me too, which is why I posed it as a question (more than once) rather than stating the result. The stated aim is to offer an alternative to relativity that results in the same mathematical consequences, but for different reasons. Therefore we must work from the initial postulate through the derivations to see if this is the case . This has prooved rather slippery and elusive. The OP appears to want to jump from postulate to final conclusion without the intermediate working, offering instead just assurances.

Don't you think QM in any form is irrelevent here? The OP has not introduced it. The OP's description is about purely classical and continuum matters, viz the velocity of light and (special?) relativity. He has also failed to see that the mechanism of propagation of light is actually irrelevent to relativity. (Although I am not saying that relativity has no consequences for those properties of light)

It is very clear from your answers to several responders that you have confused others and not made yourself clear. In particular this sentence is just plain wrong. I accept that I may have misunderstood your meaning but as it stands it is wrong because An individual mass may have any (valid) charge independent and regardless of the rest of the universe and any other masses or charges in it. In particular it may possess that charge when isolated from the rest of the universe. But A body has no gravitational acceleration when isolated from the rest of the universe. The term is then meaningless. Therefore the one case is not similar to the other, but quite different. So would you please rephrase what you really mean in unambiguous English so we can all stop wasting time on a futile argument.

Forgive my niggle, but there are similarities as well as differences. But they are most certainly not the same.

But this is not true. 1) For gravitational attraction the force depends upon the mass and is independent of any charge. 2) For electric attraction the force depends upon the charge and is independent of any mass. 3) However for both the acceleration depends only upon the mass since acceleration = Force/mass. That is you must first calculate the force between the objects, then calculate the resulting acceleration, not the other way round. I believe it was this thread where I have already pointed out that the electrostaic force between say a lithium ion and a chlorine ion is the same as the force between a cesium ion and a chlorine ion. But the acceleration imparted to the lithium ion by the chlorine ion is 19 times a great as the acceleration imparted to the cesium ion.

Thank you for attempting to reply to my question. I'm sorry you side stepped the issue, but OK let us concentrate on light in a vacuum. First problem (and it is a big one) There is no such thing as a perfect vacuum anywhere in the known universe. So any of the experiments you are referring to as supporting your proposition must automatically be ruled out if you insist on only considering a vacuum. Second problem. Can you explain to me the difference between the phase and group velocities of light in a vacuum? I ask because you apparently wish to substitute one for the other in conventional formulae. I look forward to your explanations

Which is why I asked the OP to develop the formulae using his hypothesis and to see if he comes up with the same formula - as he claims he will, but I don't think so. Are you saying, "I have a replacement universal theory for relativity which only works in a vacuum" ? The theory has to work everywhere! Or are you claiming that the phase velocity in a homogeneous medium is not constant, even though we all agree it is not c ?

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.