pinball1970

Countries with highest infant mortality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_and_under-five_mortality_rates Lowest LEB https://www.worldometers.info/demographics/life-expectancy/#google_vignette LEB was about 35 in the middle ages so you are better off in Chad today then you were then.

Not in my spare time. I still work full time so I am thinking ahead. I will dip in and out though.

+1 I hope I can get round to reading all of your recommendations!

What it means is that if you do have old people in that population it means you must have a bunch of dead kids. In ancient times that number was high for infants not surviving child birth or making it past five which is what the thread is about. A good comparison would be to look at areas where medical infrastructure and technology are very low today, endemic malaria and other diseases, poor access to clean water.

Since you are a decent poster (Beacon of hope = likes) I will assume we are talking over each other. LEB was not 70 in ancient times was my point, it was about 35, it was about 40 in the UK only 200 years ago https://www.statista.com/statistics/1040159/life-expectancy-united-kingdom-all-time/

Which a significant number of infants didn't hence the low LEB for those times for the reasons given.

Replies one and five. It famously states that Methuselah lived for nearly 1000 years too.

He is regurgitating a known crank on a serious science website. I think that is the max effort we can expect.

Yes as did algebra, number theory, calculus and many other branches of mathematics. No I don't think so. If he follows the stupid nonsense Ken Wheeler writes he probably believes it.

Really? Perhaps you can educate me on that I only know a few of them. Things like, radiation, expanding universe, CMBR, Gravity waves, Higgs mechanism, anti matter, QED, speed of light, vaccines, DNA, Evolution. The guys who contributed were scientists in the field. So what? What you should concentrate on the tests the scientific community have conducted since 1905 and since 1915. Relatively has stood the test of time Einstein was right on that and a lot of other things. My crankometer is glowing blue right now. Which problems? Which work?

Yes I know they are, those definitions make no sense. Just go the library and get out a high school physics textbook. You do not get to redefine technical words, they actually mean something in science. That's because it looks like you read crank nonsense over physics, real science. The rest of your post made very little sense, no sense then proceeded to roll down hill into an abyss of nothingness.

I totally get that

Your other definitions made absolutely no sense, probably because you keep citing Ken Wheeler.

How? You cannot explain MOND or DM models properly without Mathematics. Can you explain GR or QT without Mathematics? What would be the point? It would be like explaining music without actually playing music? It would give a hint at best, misdirection at worst which is what a lot of pop science does.

Good to know.

Your post makes no sense. In terms of Colour blindness, this is pretty well understood, I test for it regularly.

You brought it up, this about infant mortality in the middle ages. Politics, sociology, ethics and philosophy not really my aim in this forum. Feel free to start a thread, I may contribute.

Another thread I think.

High infant mortality is healthy? Not for the infants, they are part of humanity. Or do you mean for humanity in terms of only the robust individuals surviving therefore only "strong" genes are passed on? Say a kid is not great at beating malaria but may have the intellectual capacity to crack fusion, cancer, climate change initiatives or a more peaceful, productive, nurturing and caring world? We lose that kid but at least we get the next top line backer?

Neither, high IM is obviously not healthy and Evolution solved high birth rate with starvation historically. That said the human species has done well, let's see if we can manipulate the resources we have better to children are not dying everyday of preventable diseases, on that note we need to do better. Edit again: it was an addendum not an edit, I added the second paragraph. Are you reading the replies?

Understood and thanks for the refs, I will those out too.

+1 You recommend? How strong is it on tensor calculus? I found Newton easier than Einstein!

Ok got you. The use of Ai has pretty strict rules attached to it on the forum If you follow them you should be ok.

You mean, if we could go back in time and change the past how would that affect the future? How could we know? You have just changed the past. What Newton have done if I could go back in time and teach him Einstein's discoveries? Not sure why you have put this in hard maths.

That's not what "aether" is. Why use a non physicist like Ken Wheeler to define an outdated physics term? This is a thing in physics but not the definition you cited by Ken Wheeler. Why not use a real source from a standard physics textbook?