SamBridge

Biologically humans are omnivores, of course, you can eat both meat and fruit. Originally in jungles such as in Africa where closely related primates lived, it was much harder to get meat and thus most food was vegetarian which explains health benefits of eating a greater ratio of fruit and vegetables to meat because our ancestors were adapted to eat vegetarian food more often. Meat did exist however, especially in bugs which is why we are adapted to eat meat at all.

Again, it depends on who you ask, which only proves there is no ultimate "perfect" or single right way to have a government. To some people, the actions you described were the right thing to do, to others they weren't, but were originally on the right track, to others not at all. This is true for any form of government. The concept of communism and capitalism has existed well before the 20th century anyway, there were plenty of forms of government that were either more community based or individual based, like feudal societies in Europe or Native American tribes, both had their own successes and failures. Nope, communism is merely a form of government in which the government controls all (or most) industries within a country, the government of which is suppose to represent the community as a whole. Of course, it is hard to do something like this without people to make decisions, which isn't purely communism. Communism is more like tribes of native Africa or America where few possessions important are owned by an individual and communities go through struggles together, they have no definite representation unlike the USSR though generally trust elderly people the most since they have the most experience. Also to mention again, evolution is a statistical phenomena, it should have little to do with conscious decisions of large organized structures.

Again, math is a form of logic itself, math does not fail, only out application of it does. If we use position=t^2 to describe something traveling at a constant rate, it does not mean position can never = t^2, it merely means we did not apply the right equation to describe a pattern in a specific situation.

You clearly did not pass high-school English.

Syria was originally against Israel when the UN was drafting a plan to give Jewish people a home, who do you think supplied weapons to insurrections in the Middle East? One of em was the US and another big one was Russia, France and Britain was involved in Asia as well, France more so in Africa. You know the US used Napalm that continues to cause mutations in babies in Vietnam to this day right? I don't see your point, your point only shows the manipulation of a government and actions when countries are threatened, not that the mathematical principals are not sound or that any government is "the best", not that the US is always better just because you happen to call it the "US". The very arrogance you say makes "all communism evil" as exactly one of the things that fuels extreme communists thinking all capitalism is evil. There is no ultimate right way to have a government, period. Any government can be manipulated or help its people. Therefore, countries should be allowed to choose any form of government they want, and some have, even if they want communism or a theocracy. If there is military force involved, all forms of government are guilty of that. In relation to evolution, so what if a particular government conflicts with subconscious neurological processes that you seem to call "human nature"? For most people it's against human nature to stab someone in the back who helped you or to not have friends which you would have to do in a purely capitalistic society, which if you think of it that way it wouldn't be much of a society in the first place if people are so individualistic that there cannot be organization. Besides, we aren't going to stop Earth from being destroyed or ever make it to another planet if we can't even work together in some way, which would lead to extinction. Evolution doesn't care what we do, if we suffer, if we work together or not, it's a statistical pattern of DNA in a population over time in a particular environment, and that's about it.

People seem to not understand that mathematics doesn't "fail", merely our usage of it does. There is never an instance in the universe where 1 doesn't equal 1, or that you cannot count to 3 on a relativistic number line of integers. It's easy to exist without something observing it according to our physics, that would have had to have been true for life to form in the first place. There does not have to be an input and an output because you can't describe the whole of the universe as a single function in the first place. Time did not exist before the universe existed, therefore there was never a time where the universe did not exist, how's that for mind boggling?

Yeah, forgot that food can have a bit of an impact as well. It seems just thinking about it that rural populations that get fresh foods do not have this deficiency in intelligence.

Particles can be logically described as waves of probability which can change localization according to their energy states, using equations such as Schrodinger's Equation to describe those probability waves. If you observe 2kg of mass falling into a black hole, the black hole gains 2kg of mass. What's complicated about that? We can use a computer to project what happens when a probabilistic wave-particle travels into a black hole. Whether or not that's what really happens is in no way related to faults of logic itself, it is related to whether or not we are applying the right logic to black holes and/or particles in the first place.

Sort of, there's kind of an explanation in a way for why it happens which is that your relative coordinate system of objects you observe rotates 4 dimensionally as you travel faster in such a way that the relative distance you measure and the time of your clock change in a way to always keep light constant, called the Lorentz Transformation,

As I implied before, the US is not always the good guys just because it says it is, no country is, which is why groups like the Taliban can gain so much power by using countries like the US as scapegoats for things like installing a corrupt government in Syria and other countries, but if the US was always good they wouldn't be able to get away with saying that, they would have nothing to base it on. There are definitely instances where the US did things simply to gain power or resources. There's nothing wrong with any particular form of government we see today other than that people can manipulate any of them them for their own gain, which is true for capitalism, communism, socialism, theocracies, parliaments, oligarchies, ect. Any form of government will have its ups and downs, good leaders and bad leaders, various countries are welcome to try out different ways of getting resources or negotiating.

Why does there have to be an input? Anyway, one rule of exponents is when you multiply stuff of the same base, you add the exponents. 3^3 = 3*3^2, 5^8 = 5^3*5*3*5^2, ect. X^0 = x^1*x^(-1), which is the same as multiplying a number by the recipracal of that number, like 2 * 1/2, or 3 * 1/3, which is always 1, because you get 2/2 or 3/3.

Or the third option that's way more realistic, firefly. At first glance it doesn't seem like a decrease in IQ to below 100 in the entire Earth population could happen in a short span of 500 years, especially considering the smart people you would need to repair new technology and invent new technology, but I guess it is 14 points over 100 years, perhaps it will either level off or keep going.

The problem seems to lie in distinguishing two main concepts of beauty. One concept is complexity, and the comprehension of expression of deeper meaning in a variety of physics or mental or emotional (or combinations of those) ways that often stimulate platonic interest, while the other type of beauty is more subconscious beauty that is related as previously mentioned to symmetry and likely rooted in evolutionary neurological responses. Obviously people can have more or less of one of these "beauties", but to me they seem to be somewhat different things; so different they should have their own names.

3-dimensional green-houses (http://inhabitat.com/hortus-celestia-vertical-farm-showcases-the-future-of-dutch-greenhouse-industry/), Synthetic protein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_meat), vitamins of course, you can essentially eat parts of rocks if the elements are arranged the right way and toxic elements are removed, there's tons (relativistically literally) of light energy that the sun shines upon the Earth not to mention geothermal energy, the problem with these types of solutions is that they are not (at least not yet) energy efficient and thus not economically efficient at all, like old solar panels, but the energy and resources to re-arrange molecules into digestible food is all around us, kind of reminds me of Tesla. Regarding the first post of the OP, "what you don't know can't hurt you" is not a statement about physical objects, but is related to knowledge and the notion that "bliss=happiness", and thus is should not be taken literally to apply to the physical world. Obviously if you don't know you have cancer you will die from it, but if you don't know someone is dead you may not be as sad that they are gone, which makes the basis to take choices away from people using that notion seem rather silly. Even with that said, there isn't exactly a scientific way to determined that someone has "no willpower" or "no empathy", I suppose someone can have various levels of psychopathic behavior, but often mentally retarded people can learn things such as empathy and various emotions cognitively and through trying to imagine if it doesn't come to them naturally. For willpower though, I don't really know how to quantify that anyway, so I don't see how you could decide for sure if you should take a freedom from someone in the first place. Rationally speaking, if someone has 99.99% the same brain as you, and a=a, which is to say anything equals itself, and a brain is what generates perception and consciousness then in any person (or I suppose other animals), perception is perception, consciousness is consciousness, willpower is willpower, ect, if you have what you call willpower, then your willpower should not be different than the pattern that creates will power of anyone else, and since they have a brain, and are 99.99% physically identical to you, any living thing that can be called a "human" more than likely has the same thing of what you call your own willpower.

I didn't think the movie would be too accurate, but apparently http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/researchers-western-iqs-dropped-14-points-over-last-180634194.html That means this forum is in trouble! Just as a personal oddity, I have more than twice the reaction time of an average person (which I measured in a physics experiment with three different senses), but it takes me twice as long to do moderately complex arithmetic problems even though I practice it in all sorts of calculus problems I do involving expanding or shrinking polynomials, how accurate is this exactly? There has to be different components of what is called "intelligence".

No you would not be catching up with the light beam, if you caught up with the light beam that would imply the relative speed you measure of light is no longer the speed of light, which it always is no matter what inertial frame you measure from. Time is it's own dimension, independent from spacial dimensions, but it always seems to be going forward, and we measure this "going forward" by our relative change in positions and the rate at which they happen, such as a pendulum going back and forth, which is sort of a paradox. If time and position are not dependent on each other, why is it that they seem to be connected? They both constitute a very real topological surface that is the fabric of space but just because I move in the x direction in no way means I have to be moving in the y direction or the z direction. As such, this is not a normal surface, we can't physically comprehend what it actually looks like, all we can do is simply models, such as saying one dimension mathematically equals three spacial coordinates via substituting variables and coordinates which another axis represents time. I think that you can simply all of space as existing as one line, and simplifying all of time as one line on a Cartesian plane, and therefore if you move along the axis of time, you are not necessarily moving along the axis of space in any way, which is why time itself may always have its own sort of "frame of reference", or how coordinates change based on the relative view of the time axis. To time itself, it is not flowing at the speed of light, in fact if you take (change in time)/(change in time) you just get the number 1, but if the fabric of space-time is all one thing, how is it that different objects measure different times? It must be because of localized changes in the fabric of space time, such as rotations of coordinate systems or contracting of space found in gravitational wells or in lorentz transformations but this would seem to suggest each object spatially has it's own interpretation of time regardless of time not necessarily having to depend on spacial coordinates. It's all very confusing. Kudos to Einstein for making any sense out of it.

The only way mathematics can break down is if we cannot conclude any logical pattern from a given set of data. Since this is not true, math does not break down. By definition, the universe contains all that exists, therefore nothing that exists can exist outside of it. Physics describes properties of all that exists, therefore if it is inside the universe, physics is applicable to it, therefore physics applies to all particles no matter what time frame they are in or what position they are in. Math is simply logical statements put into terms of numeric values, since we can do this with just about everything we see in the universe, I don't see a specific place in reality where math breaks down. We can always make some ​logical pattern out of something we observe.

Because matter condenses so much that the electro-magnetic repulsion between atoms forces them apart at a great enough speed with a great enough forces upon becoming super dense as to not be sucked in. I noticed for some reason that someone has something against this logic that they do not have the "heuvos" to disprove.

Let's see; Him and another scientist predicted Hawking radiation which is why scientists don't have to worry about particle colliders creating black holes using qquantum mechanics and relativity, successfully applied general relativity to black holes in the first place in the mid-late 20th century, did work on large-scale structures in space and did work on string theory and multiple worlds theory, I'd say he's done a bit, he's the one who himself proved some of his earlier assumptions were wrong using mathematics, even if some things like strings aren't proven. IF you travel away from the black hole at a speed great enough to escape it, then yes, as long as you are somewhere outside of the event horizon, you can potentially apply an amount of energy to get away.

Except it completely matters how they are doing it. You cannot travel distance over time to escape a black hole, but you can correlate or "teleport" outside of it, which is pretty much the exact opposite of traveling distance over time which we have strong evidence that light cannot do. Besides, unlike you Stephan Hawking actually has a degree in science.

Well until you could prove by being specific that they aren't related, I'll just assume what I'm saying, since I have no other concise basis to think otherwise. So what? That doesn't mean you can't give an answer, and besides there's more than just me who's viewing this topic, there's probably plenty of other people who have similar questions, if somehow in some way you don't know what specifically I am asking, just assume I am a layman who's googled a few things who has passed high-school.

Yes, this is mainly why quarks have color confinement, the amount of energy calculated that you put into trying to separate quarks is exactly the amount of energy needed to create another quark. Without reading I head I wouldn't see how these points pertain to the discussion, the bond doesn't "increase" necessarily, in fact if you add enough energy you can separate the nucleons of an atom to separate quarks to create quark-gluon plasma. This is why I don't like pop-culture, it mis-interprets complicated things or over-simplifies them. From here I would guess that you would later say "because quarks exist out of reality, physics doesn't apply to them the same way". No quantum particle in any way phases through existence in reality and non-existence, their probabilities merely fluctuate, nothing more. Virtual particles in fact still exist with an energy proportional to some coefficient of i, the square root of -1. On top of that, quarks don't have "will", "will" is a property of living things, which last time I checked, quarks weren't. Quarks don't chose anything, their exact location is inherently random, nothing is forcing them to pop-up at a specific point, so their location is by nature is not predictable, though their probability in a given energy state and mode is precisely defined by accurate mathematics. This is not a failure of mathematics at al as we can logically describe probability using logical statements, if math somehow logically described the exact location, it could still say a particle exists in multiple locations at once, which there's nothing wrong with so long as the information does not past between two points equal to or greater than light. The randomness is a property of the probability not being confined to a specific location, and when you measure a particle you localize it to a point-like object that no longer has those indeterminate properties. Math doesn't ever "break down", our predictions do or our equations do not give the results we expected because we did not apply the right equations, math is the culmination of logical statements themselves, there are accurate equations besides Schwarzild's equations that can accurately describe what happens to an object in a black hole based on our current physics. Saying math breaks down is like saying there is an instance where 1 doesn't equal 1. 1 is always 1, and you will never find an instance in the universe where something is not itself.

I can't think of a single country that "likes' to share power. What about Vietnam? The US was trying to prevent it from falling to communism when really it wasn't all that bad for those specific people, in fact it helped them so much that a great deal of them fought against the US as volunteers, no one forcing them to, and then a Buddhist monk even lit himself on fire to protest the US attacks. A problem you have with this is you're making the wrong argument Generalizing millions of people isn't the right way to go, you're just asking to be wrong, the argument you should have choosing is that it is easy for individuals to manipulate communism with military force, which of course ends up being true for any form of government anyway. Look at China now, huge wealth gap, some people at least had homes before it became capitalist. Does that mean all capitalism is bad? No, it doesn't mean always communism is good either, both are imperfect, and any country has the right to choose what form of government they want. If there's a military take-over like when the US sent troops to take control of Nicaragua in the 19th Century, then any country has the right to feel threatened.

There's one connection right there. The thermal spectrum is continuous , energy states of atoms aren't, that's bound to cause some problems. No it's your fault that you were vague and purposely chose not to give any details. If I'm studying meteorology and I ask someone or a book "how do thunderstorms form?" and it just says "there's water in the atmosphere", regardless of my studying meteorology, that's pretty vague. Any knowledge of statistics I have isn't applicable at all in any way because you were so vague that there's no possible way I could tell how to apply them or even what specific statistics you're referring to. A lot of statistics in QM can be described using waves, bell-like curves, or a cross of the two in a sine wave which a horizontal asymtote at x=0 with different modes, light in a box tends to act like a standing wave. UV catastrophe happened when scientists projected that the radiation of a black body object would give off more UV light and higher frequencies as they increased the temperature, and were wrong, I knew that before coming into this thread. Saying "there's new statistics, therefore because I mentioned these new statistics you must now know everything about how those statistics are applied and their meaning and where they came from" is hardly a scientific description at all.

I've done a ton of stuff with my life to, but that has little to due with the discussion at hand. Probability density functions describes the probability of an electron around an atom with one output per input of an x value, which isn't the point anyway. The point is, we think of a logical pattern, then look at observed data to figure out the details of the pattern, or we have observations and make a pattern from it such as linearizing data. Math does not break down in quantum mechanics, in fact quantum mechanics exists practically because of math, particles only exist the way they do because it is not mathematically logical for their existence to be sustained when they have non half integer or non-integer spins or have frequencies with energies that are not multiples of Placnk's constant. If atoms had any other such frequencies, they would not exist, purely because the mathematical logic of the patterns that describe them do not permit atoms to exist those ways. Furthermore, just because something cannot be directly described as a Cartesian function does not mean it cannot be described in math at all. The curve x^2y^3-2xy^2-x^2+y-8xy+5 does not pass the vertical line test, yet it only has one output per input in polar coordinates. Something not being able to be classified as a function has little to do with weather or not it physically exists anyway. Another common misunderstanding about irrational values as well, they are in fact exact numbers that can represent definite length. Look at a square tile on a floor. If you label the length of one side as "1" unit, a line drawn between opposing vertices will have a length of exactly the positive square root of two units, which is irrational, yet this does not mean the line between those two points is infinitesimally shrinking or growing. On top of that, you can label the line drawn between vertices as its own single unit of length making the sides a length of exactly the (positive square root divided by two) units, and It's not changing at all. Both systems are logically correct and describe a pattern observed in reality, it doesn't matter which one you use. Quantum mechanics is a field of study verified countless times by scientific experiments as well, it has physical applications to reality.