Matrix/DNA Questions and Comments about Kevin Mansfield’s Earth Formation Hypothesis

Science a GoGo’s
Discussion Forums:


Evidence supporting Kevin Mansfield’s Earth Formation Hypothesis.

Matrix/DNA Comments:

Hay Kevin,
Congratulations for the interesting theory and thanks for bringing new ideas about this planet since we need them a lot at this time of climate change.
I am not a scientist and I am into astronomic issues by accident of my job: studying the systems that comprise the biosphere of Amazon jungle. And I don’t know if you can understand my non-native English. I have questions whose answers will help my work.

1) Your theory is a result of applying mathematics – algebraic structures – and topology… and I am a layman in these fields. You began your reasoning about Earth’s formation departing from the axioms given by Physics about the astronomical state of the world at the time of Earth’s formation, is it right? Those axioms are still theoretical, of course. Then, your theoretical model is yours preferred model among all possible models of that given set of axioms. But… your model consists of applying topology also. Then, you have identified properties of planets and tried to calculate the development of those axioms preserving those properties under the continuous deformations of this planet, such as deformations that involve stretching, but no tearing or gluing. Finally your model emerged through concepts from geometry, and set theory, such as space, dimension, and transformation.

It is all right? Or are there more elements involved into your research that I don’t know?

2) We know that in the followed development of Pangaea, appeared here the organic compounds, as molecules and proteins, and from those with left-handed rotation developed biological systems. Then, I think that is off doubt that the state of the planet at that time had the forces and elements that evolved towards properties’ life. Have you searched these forces and elements in yours model? If not, why?

3) Biological systems (aka life) has an algebraic structure also… is it right? I understand that an algebraic structure consists of one or more sets, called underlying sets or carriers, closed under one or more operations, satisfying some axioms. Then I think that one optimal way for you testing your model is identifying the algebraic structure under the first complete biological system (the first eukaryote cell system) and calculating the reverse operations till arriving to Pangaea. The properties such as metabolism, life’s cycle, reproduction or replication, etc., must be there, at the primordial Earth.

Remember that Natural laws, mechanisms and process, resumed to properties, are under evolution, of course, because systems are getting more complexes. Then, the biological systems’ properties must be calculated in a reverse evolutionary way, from the most complexes towards singularity.

I think you have no problems understanding the obligatory mandate that life’s properties were represented in an astronomical and primitive fashion among the processes acting at primordial Earth, since that I think you cannot believe that life arouse here by magic or came from another astronomical body, which then must be explained its differences with this planet. Am I right?

3) Have you any photo or registered fact that in the sky there are collisions among planets or other big astronomical bodies, besides those about smaller fragments of comets, meteorites, etc.? Can you give me the link, please?

The reason of my questions is that I am at the same intellectual boat with you. I also developed a theoretical astronomical model about the first galaxy formation. But I did just that: starting from the first complete biological system, and believing that this solar system alone developed it, I searched the forces and elements at primordial astronomical formations. Now I am testing my model against real facts and doing the calculations in the reverse way, your way, that’s why your job is very interesting for my studies. Our models have no eternal conflicts and the discussions about differences are good for us testing our own models. The biggest conflict is just about big astronomical bodies collisions, since that my models does not accept it, yet.

Besides my questions, below are some comments from my models that comprise the “The Universal Matrix/DNA of Natural Systems and Life’s Cycles” about some of yours topics:

1) The hole in the Earth where the planet Heaven entered, i.e., the north west Pacific.

Matrix/DNA Theory:
The hole could come from: 1) Among dust and debris in rotation of a died star, first appears a vortex, then a conic spiral and then, the body falling into a star’s orbit makes the egg/spherical shape. The vortex will be a hole. But, this is the way Nature creates its systems and parts of systems, which are the most possible approximation of Matrix/formula, which presents a bottom/central hole.

5) The theory predicts a single circular continent with splits, i.e., Pangaea.

Matrix/DNA Theory:
The initial single circular shape is normal around a vortex, every time there is a vortex spiral at formation.

7) Warren Carey’s evidence, is also evidence for this hypothesis.

Matrix/DNA Theory:
Planets are under expansion by the same simplified mechanisms that any vegetable seed begins its expansion after receiving a star’s energy. The expansion is triggered in the nucleus, which forces the peripheral layers to split.


Comments are closed.