studiot

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.

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?