Big Bang Theory: The difference between the current academic model and the Matrix/DNA model

August 31st, 2017




Big Bang Theory

The debate below is a brief resume about this difference and it was extracted from:

Setekh says: ” Big Bang Theory is the best  explanation we have so far and its predictions turn out to all work. Show me a better theory that has any predictive capability that helped us progress in science and our understanding of how the universe works.”

Louis Morelli: There is other theory, The Matrix/DNA Theory, which has a better explanation and has predicted thousands more details that works. This theory was elaborated by a different approach, the reverse way that current academic standard Big Bang theory: while this was elaborated by Physics+Math and from the past to the future, Matrix/DNA was elaborated starting now and from the Biological perspective regretting to the most past time possible. Then, Matrix/DNA arrived to an universal initial event that could be called “Big Bang” also.

But the interpretation of the event is very different and as result, ir produces a very different world view. The initial moment of your own body was a tiny big bang explosion when broke the membrane’s spermatozoon at the center of an ovule. After that event, the genetic formula inside the genome ( the DNA), tunneled the world inside that ovule for producing your body. Think about that…

Understanding why not the Milk Way, but its essence, produced us

August 25th, 2017


Teorias sobre Origens da Vida

My comment below explains the perspective of Matrix/DNA Theory about the “origins of life”, posted in the debate at this link:


luvdomus luvdomus - 8/25/2017

If living matter which is made from atoms and molecules, didn’t come from non-living matter, also made from atoms and molecules, where did it come from? Out of empty space?


Louis Charles Morelli Louis Charles Morelli - 8/25/2017

luvdomus: Forget the word “living”, which is antropomorfism, and things becomes clear. From Nature perspective, must say “systems”.

You are thinking in “atoms and molecules” as portion of organic mass coming from non-organic mass. Of course, a biological system can not comes from non-organic portion of mass. But, see that portions of non-organic mass can belong to a natural system, like atoms, galaxies. Now we has a better question: biological systems came from a non-biological system?

We need think about the jump in complexity, which would be very big. And what could happens in the process of transition for such mutation. The most complex non-biological system must be a galaxy. Making comparative anatomy between the first complete working biological system ( a Eukaryota cell system) and a galaxy, it seems impossible the jump. But,… maybe we are not knowing what a galaxy is. Maybe our theoretical model, the nebular theory, the spontaneous and random formation of bodies, are so wrong as when we were believing that Earth was the center of Sun’s system.

That’s what lead me to recalculate this models from the perspective of a cell system and calculating reverse evolution. The results – called Matrix/DNA Theory – shows a theoretical model of – not galaxies – but, building blocks of galaxies, that are equal to the building blocks of DNA. So, like the essence of an organism is not the organism but its DNA – it is the DNA that is transmitted to offspring, not the organism – is possible that the essence of this galaxy – the Matrix, its kind of non-biological DNA – was inserted into terrestrial atoms, driving them to biological organization and finally, composing a working system, due water and its production: organic chemistry.

So, we still have only theories, to be tested. But, now, after fixing this mistake caused by anthropomorphism, we can suppose that it is possible: biological systems were produced by evolution inside and by galaxies, which building blocks are half-biological/half mechanical described by Newtonian’s mechanics. Welcome to the new Milk Way, our physical grand-grandmother. Now, about our consciousness, its origins, I make no idea… Again the jump in complexity from the human brain to consciousness is not astronomic… maybe is universally ex-machine.

How random molecules got information for becoming life? Scientists has news about

August 24th, 2017


New computational model of chemical building blocks may help explain the origins of life

“… it has remained a mystery what actions could then prompt short chemical polymer chains to develop into much longer chains that can encode useful protein information. The new computational model may help explain that gap in the evolution of chemistry into biology.”

Read more at:

My comment posted at Phys.Org article:

TheMatrixDNA - 8/24/2017
From Matrix/DNA perspective, we would trying to insert light ( preference for natural light ) somewhere into the computational simulation. What informations does have these initial polymers? If not about themselves and maybe, the random event producing them? When growing to foldamers, it means acquiring more atoms: which information has the foldamers if not ” information about themselves plus information of atoms, which probable they already have? At this point they are still non-biological organization of matter. They are at the same level of minerals, rocks, sand… How could them to jump from here to an astonishing new complexity?
We have a model of the building block of astronomic systems and a theoretical mechanism that makes possible the information from these systems being transferred to terrestrial atoms through stellar energy, cosmic radiation, etc. It happens that the configuration of this astronomic system is exactly the configuration of a lateral base-pair of nucleotides. So,…

(not published due final of characters) … information from this astronomic system are enough for that jump, since it drives the foldamer polymer to assembling as a working system.

New computational model of chemical building blocks may help explain the origins of life

Ken Dill explains the computational model that shows how certain molecules fold and bind together in the evolution of chemistry into biology, a key step to explain the origins of life. Credit: Stony Brook University Read more at:

Read more at:

Universal Systems Model : Academic perspective x Matrix/DNA perspective

August 24th, 2017


At the academic team, there is a field called ” Universal Systems Model” and they has a diagram model:

Input > Process > Output > Feedback > Input > Process > ….

Notice that this is resume of the Matrix/DNA’s formula diagram, where:

Input = F1
Process = F2,F3.F4,F6
Output = F7
Feedback = F7>F1

The meaning difference is that the Matrix/DNA diagram is related to natural systems, which works moved by the life’s cycle force, while the academic diagram is related only to mechanic systems and automatized operations machines.

A second difference is that ( as we can see in the text below), the academics refers to ” open loop” and ” closed loops”, where the system begins with the open loop and the component “feedback” constitute the closed loop, in a clear reference to the states of opened systems and closed systems of Matrix/DNA formula.

A third difference is a curious one. The academic model missing the function 5, which is responsible by the reproduction of natural systems. But, when they inserts the function “feedback” they gets the recycling of the system. This difference is lots of food for thought. First, we need to define the difference between the natural reproduction and the human made machine/recycling. Is there a difference? It seems that, while natural reproduction includes entropy and death, the mechanistic recycling can avoid them. But, it seems that natural reproduction saves more energy than mechanistic recycling, due the natural reproduction using half of its energy at grown state for to feed the production of a new system, while at mechanistic recycling, the component “feedback” always comes with a new charge of outside energy. So, maybe we could change the academic model to:

Input (information + energy) > process (when half of that energy is driven directly to the input) > output > feedback (without new charge of energy) . It would produce a revolution in modern technology! So, let’s go searching a way to do it.

Matriz Universal: Software de Sistema Fechado

The Matrix/DNA Formula as Closed System

The MatrixDNA as Astronomic Closed System

We will need studying the academic texts, as well the technical names, etc., for to search ways of interactions between the two models, with the goal for applying the Matrix/DNA formula to optimizing the technology.

Then, the first step will be ” googling” “Universal systems model”. As beginning, I am posting here the link to a PDF:
Technology Competencies Problem-Solving
Fundamentals of Technology
Where we can read:
Explain the universal systems model
• Explain the components of the universal systems model
• Explain systems models in the context of the systems of technology such as communication and transportation
• Explain the elements or resources of technology as inputs to systems
The universal systems model is an attempt to graphically depict processes of all sorts. Viewing something through the scheme of the universal systems model is an attempt to simplify something that is relatively complex. The model typically includes a look at system inputs, processes, and outputs for open loop systems and a fourth component, feedback, is included in systems that are perceived to be closed loops.
These are often referred to as the “resources of technology.” System Inputs • People • Information • Tools and Machines • Materials • Energy • Time • Capital
Processes vary depending on the area of endeavor. For example, one of the main processes for a manufacturing company would be secondary material processes: separating, combining, conditioning, forming, and casting. However, a communication company would be encoding, storing, retrieving, transmitting, receiving, and decoding information. Outputs generally include certain eventualities such as expected, unexpected, desirable, and undesirable. For example, a manufacturer expected to make a profit, and this is desirable. However, the company did not expect to pollute the water when it accidentally spilled chemicals onto its loading dock. This output is undesireable.
Systems experience entropy.  Entropy is the degradation of all systems whether man-made or natural.  For example, the fuel system in an automobile malfunctions over time. Systems and sub-systems are interdependent. For example, in order for the automobile’s fuel and electrical systems to work together, the engine must be correctly timed.
Component Systems of Technology
The component systems of technology are:
B. Communication Systems – Systems that change information into messages that can be transmitted.  These systems include a sender, message, receiver, and feedback.
B.  Structural Systems – Systems that use goods and materials to build structures that will resist external force, support a load, and hold each structural element in a relative position to other parts.
C.  Manufacturing Systems – Systems using materials and processes to produce usable products.
D.  Energy, Power and Transportation Systems – Systems that convert energy into mechanical, fluid, electrical, radiant, chemical, and thermal energy.

What’s Science? From Matrix/DNA perspective

August 23rd, 2017


This definition occurred to me intuitively when watching a debate at the link:

and I posted the following comment:

Louis Charles Morelli Louis Charles Morelli

Science had several owners since it was born, although the owners comes and go, Science will continuing walking by itself along the time.
Science has no theories, the very scientific act is solely the observation and experimentation of real facts and events happening in the material world, and the clear identification of what is Science is the accumulation of data got by its acts. So, at Earth, humans are merely a tool, an instrument used by Science. But Science is universal, then, at other planets, aliens are its tools.
Science can not think by itself, it can not elaborate theories, linking facts here and now with supposed facts far away. There are rocks, rocks are subject of Science investigation. Linking rocks with the far away event of life’s origins is merely human business. It is a valid tentative, although, I like human’s theories because has theories that have driven Science to successful investigations, as have others driven Science to nowhere. But, this is how human knowledge advances: trial and error. This painful method would not be necessary if humans decides not be owners of Science, searching for profits or power, only knowledge, as was the goal of the Founding Fathers of the new Enlightenment.
It happens that humans sometimes drives the scientific acts to points of their personal interests for profits or ideologies, like the ancient apostles did and the modern are doing also. Who decides which point, are those “fundraisers”, the big corporations and their apostles inserted into universities, like the big corporation Catholic Church did. Driven Science means repeating acts upon a unique dimension of reality, selecting a line of research and ignoring others, in the way that these acts works as feed back to the prior acts, and only a fake face of Nature is revealed. This is the opportunity for Science applying a painful lesson. “Do you want a mechanistic reality? Science will give it to you, and then, will slaving you inside yours mechanical reality.” That’s why we are going towards the Brave New World under the rules of the Big Brother.
And that’s why I choose to live isolated at Amazon jungle leaving Science working through me, without driven it, without any other personal interest than the search for knowledge, and got the face of an living Universe, described the most by Biology than Physics and Math.
Please, never forget that those that were believing they was the owner of academic knowledge and our schools, were replaced when Copernicus opened the doors to the modern apostles. Who, for sure, will be replaced again… Meanwhile, Science walks free its own way…

Evidence for Evolution: Good Video and Debate with Matrix/DNA

August 23rd, 2017


Whatch the video, see my comments posted at the debate and copied below, and more curious evidences also copied below. Good learning!

What’s the evidence for evolution?


Our debate:

Syed Firdaus Syed Omar Syed Firdaus Syed Omar – 14 hours ago

explain the ability of reasoning from natural selection perspective, their origin?

When you are talking about why you have a trait, you simply need to ask if it helps you survive. The ability for complex thought is the sole reason that Humanity conquered the earth, if you look at our ancestors, you can see our skulls getting bigger over time. Complex thought helped us survive and thrive so natural selection kept it.
Louis Charles Morelli  Louis Charles Morelli – 8/22/2017
Good question, Syed, and as the Viktor answers, they insists to repeat the effects of natural selection, never mind how and why this phenomenon exists. Their thoughts reasonate that ” once time established a mechanism, like a piece well adjusted to a machine, it goes on and on…” If you think about that, this argument is against evolution itself: natural selection does not permit another effect of such machine, so, stopping evolution. Their most important target is to keep clearly that there is no purpose in Nature, evolution is a blind process, each evolutionary step begins with a random mutation coming from error at replication – which means that randomness is the ruler in this Universe, they believe in it. I am suspecting because 2 topics: 1) There is no absolute answer for everything in a world changing under evolution. Random mutation are the answers for everything like God was the answer for everything… 2) I search my own way and after hard work I found my own world view, which is not the right one, but it seems more reasonable. Comparative anatomy between living and non-living systems reveals the existence of a universal matrix formula which Nature has applied by 13,8 billion years for organizing matter (mass+energy) into natural systems. Or, saying it better: a unique formula creating a initial system at 13’8 billion years and this system is coming under evolution. Atoms, galaxies, plants, human bodies, are merely evolutionary shapes of a unique universal system. If this theory ( The Matrix/DNA Theory), is more complete, one difference is that there is a perfect formula which pulls this universal system into its direction – in the way that one day it will be perfect like the formula. So, this would be the cause and the reason for natural selection: it is the pushes towards the perfect final shape. So, if my theory is better than “the machine going on and on”, the normal is purposeful mutations not random: there are random mutations but it can be discarded or kept if it is anticipating what Nature is supposed to do, by any way…
Chris Mohrbacher Chris Mohrbacher 2 days ago

comparative anatomy (and DNA similarities) only demonstrates similarity, not causality. Nested Hierarchies also prove nothing as this is just people categorizing things based on the above similarities. They could be categorized in a completely different order and be equally logical. (I’m looking at you Hyena and Mongoose, classified as “cat-like…. things” ) Embryology has been debunked for decades. Species distribution doesn’t really “support” evolution… most kinds of creature has some version spread around the world. The fossil record demonstrates what has lived… not necessarily what came from what. Finding amphibian bones doesn’t suggest that it’s OUR ancestor, or the ancestor of any other non-amphibian. Which brings us down to observable evolution… and yea… that’s science. Selectively breeding dogs to generate a breed of dog with preferable traits is repeatable (science). No matter how many generations we breed, we can not take any number of dogs and breed them into a non-dog. Actual science supports specialization within a species… the idea of universal common ancestry is no less religious faith than the idea that any given pantheon of Gods used magic. Not testable, falsifiable, repeatable…. not science.
Louis Charles Morelli  Louis Charles Morelli – 8/22/2017
To: Chris
Besides the long lists of reasonable evidences, I think that when observing embryogenesis – one shape transforming into other, facing my eyes, here and now – it means that Nature alone can do it, there is a natural mechanism for doing it. The individual nature express the population nature and vice-versa. Meanwhile, there is a observable fact in embryogenesis that Darwinists are ignoring: beyond the field where individual evolution occurs ( inside the egg or the womb), there is a species that triggered the process and is the guide for the process building itself. Why not this phenomena would be projected to the whole biological evolution, or even, the cosmological evolution? Reason suggests this is the case, there is no observable process of evolution without a “shape-from-outside”. This observation could be wrong in relation to cosmological evolution, but, if it is not, a kind of creationists god ( natural and not magical), and a kind of astronomical creator like suggested by Matrix/DNA world view, could be safe. Just comparative anatomy between living and non-living natural systems leads us to calculations of causality where the final results suggests that the building block of DNA is the exactly miniaturized copy of the galactic building blocks. In this case, the species that was outside the womb that nurtured abiogenesis, was just the Milk Way. It seems that each region of this galaxy builds a component of biological system, then, transit of meteorites, comets, etc., makes that all components meets at some places…and… voila’,… we have a DNA… But, then, every process of evolution is really, an inside process of a bigger one: reproduction. It means that there was no origins of life, merely the continuation of a natural genetic process coming from cosmological evolution. And so on…
eeeaten  eeeaten 1 hour ago 

sorry louis, as a biologist this made zero sense to me
No sorry, it is natural. I am a naturalist, my world view was built in the field – the Amazon jungle, yours, in the lab. I applied the systemic method, you applies the reductionist method. And so on, two investigations where all methods are different, it results into two different world views. The difference is that you don’t know mine and I know yours. It doesn’t matter here if one makes sense to the other or not. I think that yours does not make sense since that you have broken universal evolution into two blocks – cosmological and biological evolution – with no evolutionary link between them. So, one need to fit the abyss between the two blocks with magical thinking, like magical gods or magical randomness. Then, one will believe that there was an event of life’s origins at Earth due action of some force coming outside the long chain of causes and effects since the Big Bang. This is the prejudice for academic sciences today. Since I didn’t break universal natural history and found the link which shows that there are no non-living systems before biological ones, I am satisfied with the sense that my world view expresses to me. But, common sense or not is not a good scientific tool. If we want to debate our theories we must be attained at the common known proved facts. So my first question: the transformations of a body under embryogenesis, from the simplest to most complex, is not evolution?

Curious evidences for Evolucao:

( Useful information from our friend, Randall Wilks ) Randall Wilks  Randall Wilks – 8/22/2017

EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION – Vestigial Human Traits
Just as humans inherit characteristics of their nearest relatives, each of us has characteristics inherited from more distant relatives. In the inner corners of your eyes you have what is called a semilunar fold or plica semilunaris. There is a muscle attached to it, but it doesn’t do anything in humans. In many other animals (sharks, frogs birds, your cat), however, that muscle controls a transparent incitating membrane or “third eyelid” that can be drawn over the eye. Proponents of ‘intelligent design’ have no explanation as to why humans have those muscles. They are perfectly consistent with evolutionary theory as vestigial remnants of an ancestral characteristic.
You also have three sets of muscles attached to your ears. In other animals, those muscles turn the ears to focus on the direction of a sound. This ability is found in monkeys, most of which cannot turn their head horizontally. Humans and the other apes can turn their heads vertically and the ability to move the ears is largely lost in those species. Using sensitive electronic devices, researches find that the human brain is sending nerve impulses to those muscles in response to sounds, but the most any human can do is a bit of a wiggle. Proponents of ‘intelligent design’ have no explanation as to why humans have those muscles. They are perfectly consistent with evolutionary theory as vestigial remnants of an ancestral characteristic. Then there is the Plantaris Muscle, which in other primates facilitates arboreal lifestyle, allowing the feet to function much the same as hands in gripping branches. The human foot has lost this ability, rather early on it seems, in the process of becoming bipedal. The muscle, however, is still there. It is a long pencil thin muscle and tendons running down the back of the calf, that are extremely painful when ruptured and often misdiagnosed as a more serious injury. This injury, often called “Tennis Leg” occurs most frequently in athletes over 40 due to the tendon and attachments becoming more brittle. With or without treatment, the two ends of the rupture will shrivel and disappear within weeks with no loss of function in the leg. It is indeed one of evolution’s leftovers. It is often harvested for reconstructive surgery elsewhere in the body. That these muscles are still present in the human body indicates that the genetic instructions for them are still present in the human genome and active to some extent.
At some point the genes for these traits may be silenced by a mutation that disables a gene (such as a premature STOP codon or frame shift) making them a pseudo gene; one which no longer produces a protein. There is evidence that is already happening as this muscle is absent in one leg or both in about 10% of the population. The same seems to be happening with wisdom teeth. In the wild, primate infants are capable of grasping and holding on to the mother’s fur shortly after birth, allowing the mother to pursue other activities. Human infants, because of the limited birth canal and large human brain must enter this world at a much earlier stage of physical and neuronal development. Despite that, the developing human embryo exhibits a grasping reflex in the uterus as early as 16 weeks. Even at birth, that reflex, the Palmar Grip Reflex, is incredibly strong as most parents of newborns will attest. While it is capable of supporting the child’s weight, one must exercise caution as the child may suddenly let go. This reflex may persist up to 6 months after birth. As this is of no benefit to a human child, it is vestigial.
We see vestigial structures all through nature. They remain in some cases because they have been adapted for other purposes, in others they remain simply because there has been no evolutionary advantage to eliminating them. Similarly, pseudo-genes are vestiges of previously active genes that have been disabled by some mutation and no longer produce a protein. There are some 20,000 of them n the human genome, many of them remnants of Olfactory Receptor (scent receptor) genes. While humans have lost an additional 30 of these genes since our ancestral lineage separated from that of chimps, most of those pseudo-genes are hand-me-downs from even more remote relatives, but disabled by exactly the same mutations, again evidence of common ancestry. They certainly do not support the idea of “intelligent design”. They are however, completely consistent with the Theory of Evolution.
Geographic Distribution of Species
As one travels from one isolated landmass, to another, one sees patterns that fit with evolutionary theory. The mammals populating the Australasian landmass (including New Guinea) prior to man’s arrival were virtually all Marsupials; kangaroos, wombats, koalas, quolls, thylacenes, et al; found nowhere else in the world, and egg laying Monotremes (Platypus and Echidnas) also found nowhere else in the world. Indeed, prior to the coming of man who brought the dingo, the only placental mammals were those that could swim there (seal) and those that could fly there (bats). It is very obvious that mammalian evolution took a quite different turn in that isolated landmass.
New Zealand as well tells of a different evolutionary history. With no native mammals, except again for those able to fly (bats) or swim (seals) there, birds assumed the ecological roles filled by mammals elsewhere. In the absence of ground dwelling predators, many birds abandoned energy consuming flight, the Kakapo, Kiwi and Moa among them. The wing of the kiwi is a mere vestige, no bigger than your little finger, with an equally useless claw at its end. Other isolated islands, Mauritania and Madagascar, also had their own unique flora and fauna, as did geologically recent islands such as the Hawaiian Archipelago. There, the science of comparative genomics shows that another species of finch underwent adaptive radiation into the at one time 55 species of Honey creepers of which only 18 survive. The same is true of many plants whose ancestral seeds found their way to these islands. The many species of the beautiful Hawaiian Silver Sword and their relatives, collectively known as the Hawaiian Silver Sword Alliance, are an example of adaptive radiation in plants over millions of years from an ancestral pacific coast tarweed. We have Polar Bears in the Arctic and Penguins in the Antarctic similar environments totally different biota. Charles Darwin made remarkable observations 150 years ago and since then biologists, geneticists, geologists, biochemists and other related fields have continued to do so and in every case further evidence is accumulated in support of what is now called the Modern Synthesis of Evolution.

Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) – Different faces of a unique universal system?

August 16th, 2017


Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) -2

SNPs – Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms

The forms of the nucleotide are a subject of Matrix / DNA interest.

According to this theory, the fundamental unit of information in DNA consists of 4 nucleotide, because the configuration of the set of 4 nucleotide is exactly the same as the universal formula for natural systems, which means, therefore, that it is a system, which means that the building blocks of DNA are differentiated copies of one and the same system.

We are seeing a phenomena that is: there are billions of human beings, but, there is no individual human being exactly equal another. At least, a little point of difference must be the specific identity of each human being. Why is there this phenomenon? Why and how Nature produced this phenomenon? There is a purpose or it is just chance?

The entire set of human beings has its beginnings on the entire set of information in the DNA.  Where Matrix/DNA is suggesting that in these billions units of information, each one is unique, there is no unit equal other. Since that humanity is evolutionary  self-projection of DNA, or its genetics, the projected result must be similar to the thing projected. So, we know why and how Nature produced this phenomenon in relation to humanity, it is missing now to search these questions about this phenomenon in relation to DNA.

Matrix/DNA Theory already has a suggestion to this question: LUCA, the astronomic Last Universal Common Ancestor of all biological systems, is being fragmented by entropy in its bits of information, and at planets like Earth – with good conditions – these bits are working like the flow of order that lift up from every cycle “chaos>order>chaos..”. This process is trying to reproduce LUCA in this new environment ( totally different from where LUCAS was formed) resulting into biological systems. Since that these bits are emitted to the galactic internal space (thermodynamic collapse of near-closed systems), spreaded, dispersed in different time and space, the new systems gets different amount and quality of bits information, when composing amino-acids and nucleotide, which could be the answer to the polymorphisms of nucleotide.

Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs)


                                                                SNPs – Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms

An important step in the search for more DNA knowledge is to look for ways to visualize this unit of information internally for to locate where each one has something different from the perfect formula, which will indicate its difference.

And for this identification, the external form of the nucleotide may also contribute. I now come across this news that academic biology already has an area of ​​research and information of the data obtained, regarding the external forms of the nucleotide, which is called SNPs – Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms. So open up new area of ​​research to find out what biology already knows about it.

What are single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs)?

( continuing reading and googling SNPs)

Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) - 3


SNPs – Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms

What’s the cause of “Out-of-Body Experiences”? Scientists suggesting It is ears’ fault

August 14th, 2017


Out of body experience

What Causes Spooky Out-of-Body Experiences? It Could Be Your Ears

And my comments posted at 8/14/2017

 Louis Charles Morelli

We have scientists and their technical article focused on the ear, and all comments below from the public saying that is not the ear, it is… a thing called “soul”. Nature working in its way, the universal duality of opposites is here. But, Nature also has another universal trait: at initial conditions of any system, arises two extreme opposites which are in mutual conflict. The conflict creates chaos around, and suffering for both. The suffering makes they wake up, conflict is worst, then, they join as a par. The par produces a third element, which is more evolved than the two parents.

Ok, it means that who is right here, is not scientists, neither mystics. Must have a third alternative, with the right solution. Which is it? I think is Matrix/DNA Theory world view. It suggests that we humans, carries on ahead with the function of a egg. Inside the egg there is the amnion and placenta, which are the brain. The fact of spinal cord means that the egg was recently fecundated, the cord is the remains of spermatozoon’s tail. The creature being generated has a body under formation composed by energy from the synapses. This is the physical, hardware part of the creature. Which has under formation its software, its mind, which we call consciousness, composed by the cloud of light resulting from the energy sparks.

So, we are 8 billion half-conscious genes building a baby consciousness. My friends scientists and religious… this conflict is no intelligent. Because, genes are mortally dependable of their own success but also of the other 8 billion success. If one unique gene does not make his/her work, we – the baby – will born handicapped.

Which has the best belief that produces the best moral code for a better humanity? The scientists belief is too much “could”, mechanistic, does not respect the humans emotions, felling, etc. The “souls” believers are too much metaphysicals, while the embryo that need work is here, at material ground. The Matrix/DNA supporters are trying to help all 8 billion genes for to get good life’s conditions for doing well their job that we need. Think about that…


Other good article about this issue:

 The woman who ‘can leave her body at will’: Student sheds light on the strange brain activity involved in out-of-body experiences

Read more:

Too Much People Asking Peer-Review for Matrix/DNA Theory: Here is The Answer

August 13th, 2017


Again, in a public debate, someone asked peer-review, and I have copied here my answer:

You said: ” if you have scientific evidences for your theory, please present your theory in scientific circles to be peer-reviewed. Otherwise, who is going to take you seriously?”

Louis Morelli: ” I can’t do it, but is not my pretension that people here take me serious – the person debating – but take serious the contents of my replies, I am developing and testing the theory against facts and you gave me good ideas for testing.

This theory is a new, never imagined before world view, Sir, from the universe’s origins to what we have here today, in a unique logical line, based on nature and scientifically proven facts. There is no peer-review for such thing, never had. How could Copernicus getting approved with peer-review, if he was suggesting a new interpretation of the world totally strange to the scholars? What peer-review got Mendel? Even Darwin, took 30 years writing his book for announcing his theory, it went to peer-review? I am still writing a book. What about Galileo? Do you believe that they would give him peer-review if he was saying that the sky is not static, even that he could prove there was a new star in the sky? The normal human brains are not neurons configured for accepting such changes, Sir, at every cycle, Science is produced by an ideology, they never will read thousands of pages that uncomfortable, like you are feeling reading few paragraphs here.

As said Einstein when nobody understood its theory, : ” One does not need to prove that his/her theory is the right one, only showing that it makes rational sense”. The universe and its theory can not be described by Physics and Math alone, it needs biology, till neurology for explaining lots of things… do you know any scientific authority doing peer-review that would be able to analyse this theory? What if a Theory of Everything can not be elaborated by modern human sciences with all its fields? And of course, it can’t: we and our scientific instruments are able to grasp only one face of this relativistic universe with manny faces, only the face and objects and shapes and movements that vibrates and reflects light inside the visible light, but is hidden the other six worlds interacting with our world? I wrote at the introduction of my website: this is not a scientific theory, it is in the right philosophical term as coined by the Greek philosophers.

I have no PHD ( I made business administration, hihihi) for sending working to peer-review, they will not see it, although I am studying science, included university books, by myself in the last 50 years. If you ask for evidences, I have listed one thousand in the website and tens of confirmed predictions. But it is not enough for believing that this world view is the best today, I am very skeptical with myself. And the best school I have, the teacher that gave me the fundamental information is Nature, seven years studying that whole biosphere, identificating each kind of system and trying to calculate the whole network of its interactions. That biosphere sent me to lift the eyes for seeing the sky, following the sun’s light, if I was wishing answers for origins and meaning of our existence. That’s why I entered in the Astronomy field also. Ok, Sir, I am telling that ( I don’t know if you will have the tolerance for reading it), because you seems to me to be a searcher, like me, and these kind of issues are good food for thought for a searcher. Cheers, and have a happy Sunday…

The controversy between Hindu culture and Matrix/DNA culture

August 12th, 2017


Reading articles from a Hinduist tendency blog, I noted that their concepts are good challenge for testing and developing my preferred world view, called Matrix/DNA Theory.

The blog is:

Wise Humans Wakeup Call

“Human Society Needs Stability”

Author: Jay Krishnan

The article is:


Then I wrote to Jay and we are at the following debate. Some paragraphs of the article will be copied here for registering the replies by Matrix/DNA


Jay Krishnan Jay Krishnan 4 days ago - about 8/8/17
I read Marton Piller comments below and we all should agree that Science can neither lead us to God nor prove that there is no God. All the wonders that we observe through science is by itself a proof of what a great design and creation it is, not necessary that it is an individual known as God but the energy or the power that drives everything on this universe is a unique phenomena one could consider as an invisible thing beyond our senses to recognize!
Please, take a shower of real world going to live in the jungle, from where we came from. And come back saying that this world is intelligently designed. Or go to live with 7 billions humans today that are in misery as slave workers or no work at all. See a tiger eating a baby in front of the eyes of its mother, and come telling that a benevolent powerful God is watching the scene. I have lived among the poor of the third world, I was slave, and escaped to the jungle living 7 years in Amazon jungle, I saw horrific things, I know this biosphere is product of chaotic state of Nature, we are the sons of chaos. Not of powerful, benevolent, magical Gods.
You can make yourself the questions I did at the jungle. Why chaos if we lift our eyes and see the ordered state of the Cosmos, so ordered that it can be described by Newtonian mechanics? Then, if a person is weak of brain, he will concludes that are two Gods, one, good God that designed the Cosmos and other, bad God that designed our biosphere and life. This person will invent the demon, as the second god. And will create a fairy-tale about a sin made by our ancestors, for explaining why the first biggest God permits the actuation of the second god. But if a person has the honesty wish for searching the truth he will apply the rational scientific method, and doing that, he will go further into chaos, and will not see demons, but natural causes.
Going further he will find lots of evidences of, as you said ” an energy or the power that drives everything on this universe is a unique phenomena one could consider as an invisible thing”. The weak brain will stop here with a precipitate conclusion: a magical God. The strong brain will find that there is a similar situation going on here, just facing our eyes: inside a womb, is occurring the development of a baby and, as you said ” All the wonders that we observe through science is by itself a proof of what a great design and creation it is…”. But science show us what the designer is, what the invisible energy or power is: the DNA, genetics. Not magical gods. So, the right thing to do, when questioning the causes making the complex systems in this world is searching a kind of world’s DNA, and what is doing universal genetics. I did the hard work and found a rational possibility: biological DNA is merely the biological shape of a universal Matrix , from which a got its formula. Then, was born the Matrix/DNA Theory. Since you don’t want go to be tortured in the jungle for learning the real world, and have not did the hard work, I suggest you must see this another possibility than gods and demons and magical accidents creating complex natural systems. Cheers.
Jay Krishnan  Jay Krishnan 16 hours ago Highlighted reply
Hi Charles I am sorry I had mistaken you as Marton Piller. Thanks for the awakening. If you find time please visit my blog http:// – where I suppose you will get some answers to material science versus human life science. Best regards
Jay Krishnan – I began to read your blog and I like the link you do between modern human behaviors and ancestors animals till genes. I did it also in the jungle for finding my world view called Matrix/DNA, but I went further, to ancestrals like astronomic and atomic systems. As I saw meanwhile, you didn’t this and you change it by the concept of karma, which I don’t understand and I can’t grasp real facts about it. So, if you have time and interest, we could change ideas/information between two such different cultures.
As example, you wrote:
” During early days human species lived only up to the age of 20 to 30 years if one survived childhood and adolescence and it was rare for someone to survive beyond 30 or more. It was perhaps women who survived a little bit longer as they mostly remained indoors. So generally the experience of a woman is highly internalized and passive in nature and not usually displayed like the aggressive men.”
The Matrix/DNA formula for natural systems suggests that woman’s highly internalized factor is not due social nurture and so due its universal systemic function that is coming since the astronomic configuration that produced biological systems (aka, life) here. Before producing biological DNA, this formula was a universal Matrix encoded into light waves ( we can see it at the electromagnetic spectrum) that produced fundamental particles, atoms and galaxies, so, these systems are our ancestrals like a bacteria is. The formula is hermaphrodite where the female function has the tendency to introversion, towards closed system and male function, extroversion, towards dispersion due extreme tendency to opened system. So, the female psyche tendency to be highly internalized is encrypted at the primordial DNA, when there were no humans yet. Our difference is that you goes to early biological ancestry searching the causes of humans behaviors and conditions, while I go further in the past at the ancestry that produced the early biological ancestry. Of course, we, both, has no a scientific proved statement, we have theories, maybe the right one or not, and debating it we can improve both. Cheers…
Jay Krishnan – Another example: you wrote:
” Several thousand years ago human species felt safe during day time because the daylight gave him or her awareness of what is where and how safe he or she is in a particular place. Day light provided them direction enabling one to search food and change the place of dwelling as per the individual or group needs.”
In Amazon jungle was famous among natives the bat-tribe, where humans live and hunting at night sleeping at day, Some white men told that meet then and they are blind under sun’s light. Since their territory is gold rich, they are being extinct. You know about marine’s species that lives in the darkness. So, if one species is blind at night or at day, it is produced by their free will or imposed by the environment. The very fact that humans became day-awakened seems to be the return imposed by evolution, since that insects and butterflies can’t resist to flying around a lamp and its cause is its genes rules that came from its atomic rules where particles flies around a luminous proton, or planets around a luminous star. This is universally imposed by the Matrix/DNA formula where non-radioactive pieces orbits radioactive pieces.
This “evolution return imposed by the code” is saw also in the case that insects has established a high automatized social system (ants, bees ) while humans began as chaotic groups and now is going to mimic the insects towards the highly automatized social system. What is the fundamental cause driven us towards it? Without enough intellect and no knowledge about the bad face of the code ( the Matrix/DNA has a bad force which is a system working automatized as a perfect machine – and a good force – which is a system opened to evolution – in relation to humans) for resisting to it, which dominated our last non-biological ancestral and has the tendency to be reproduced here, we are going to build a social system like predicted by Aldous Huxley under the rules of a Big Brother by Orwell. So, I am insisting that, for understanding the modern world and modern humans, we need know its roots in the past till the Big Bang.
Jay Krishnan – Another example: you wrote:
” Also the innate spiritual or political nature of a child is not only woman centric (though man’s Y chromosome provides the initial seed) but is also nurtured by a woman!”
Innate traits means genetic inheritance. Do you think that humans’ child nurtured by women has incorporated these “external far away phenomena” into its code? I don’t, because I think that biological genetics has a non-biological ancestry, I got a theoretical model of this ancestry and the model is suggesting a different solution. You must see my model-picture of the Matrix/DNA formula in relation to ” The Origins of Chromosome X and Y”. The model suggests that the very fact well described by you about the child’s woman centric is due our last non-biological hermaphrodite ancestor being a system female centralized. The X chromosome is bigger than Y because X contains the whole spherical circuity flow of information while Y contains only the left half flow of information, in a system where the female function is dominant and male function is recessive. Since that through the biological evolution there is the tendency to guide the whole Earth biosphere to be a unique system reproducing the non-biological ancestor/creator, the innate child tendency to be woman centric is very well explained by the Matrix/DNA formula.
And other example:
Jay wrote:

” Therefore women folk are required to play the great role of nurturing character for human civilization to go further distance or I would rather say in the right direction!”

Louis suggestion:

Nope, it is not the right direction, accordingly to the supreme universal laws suggested by Matrix/DNA world view. The right direction for human civilization will be the one that the great role be a third alternative resulting from mixing, or fusion, the female and male character.

The female universal tendency is to be a closed system – domestic internalized, with a big house in a big farm with her male partner under her rules and full of her children playing in the yard, isolated from the external world and kept in this way eternally. She has the tendency to be monogamist. This was just the state of evolution at our astronomic ancestor where female was dominant over male character, and the universal laws destroyed it through entropy, showing that Nature does not approve this tendency,. But the tendency does not stop here: as closed system it has the natural movement for collapsing herself till reaching its own nucleus where it disappears as a point…. and this movement was the common behavior of fundamental left-spinner particles at the universe’s origins.

In another hand, the male universal tendency is to be an opened system – travelling far away from home, as warrior and hunter, conquering the world till the galaxies, leaving his offspring abandoned to its own lucky, making changes, business, with all things at the external world. He has the tendency to be polygamist. At our last non-biological ancestor, he was submitted to the female force, since the female was occupying the nucleus ( as F1, as we can see in the Matrix/DNA astronomic’s state formula, while the male was F4, orbiting around F1), and that is the cause biological chromosome Y is shorter than X ) .  But the male tendency does not stop at being an opened system, he goes to the last possibilities when becomes dispersion, disappearing by fragmentation, and this movement was the common behavior of fundamental right-spinner particles at the universe’s origins.

Two characters that are, each one, 50% right and 50% wrong. The right direction for humans is dependable that male be accessible to the right 50% from female, destroying his negative 50%, and female do the same. We need to build the third most evolved character, synchronized with Nature’s laws.