Archive for the ‘Coment/Posts da Matrix/DNA na Internet’ Category

Explosão de Supernovas: existe apenas uma foto discutível sobre este suposto evento

sexta-feira, fevereiro 23rd, 2018

xxxx

Apesar do problema das “duas gerações de galaxias”, meu modelo astronomico difere do modelo oficial acadêmico sobre as origens de supernovas. Nunca ninguém assistiu tal evento mostrando que eles também tem apenas teoria e não fato comprovado. Agora aparece esta foto, mas como os próprios cientistas dizem ” trata-se da explosão de luz no nascimento de uma supernova”. Ora, foi visto uma explosão de luz, e meus modelos sugerem que esta explosão de luz acontece, porem emitida pelo que era um astro escuro que se colapsa sobre seu luminoso energético núcleo liberando a sua luz ao espaço. meus comentários postados no artigo e copiados abaixo dizem mais.

Segundo, a teroia academica desconhece os mecanismos que levam a estas explosoes, como diz o paper da folto na Nature:

” However, the unpredictable nature of supernova events hinders the detection of this brief initial phase7,8,9. Here we report the serendipitous discovery of a newly born, normal type IIb supernova (SN 2016gkg)10, which reveals a rapid brightening at optical wavelengths of about 40 magnitudes per day. The very frequent sampling of the observations allowed us to study in detail the outermost structure of the progenitor of the supernova and the physics of the emergence of the shock. We develop hydrodynamical models of the explosion that naturally account for the complete evolution of the supernova over distinct phases regulated by different physical processes. This result suggests that it is appropriate to decouple the treatment of the shock propagation from the unknown mechanism that triggers the explosion.”

 xxxxx
A foto obtida pelo astronomo amador argentino:
Thumbnail
xxxxx
Neste video tem uma animacao artistica montada com fotos pelo Kepler, de uma red giant tornando-se supernova:
Aqui esta a descricao da teoria academica pela NASA a resp;eito do video:
The brilliant flash of an exploding star’s shockwave—what astronomers call the “shock breakout” — is illustrated in this video animation. The cartoon video begins with a view of a red supergiant star that is 500 hundred times bigger and 20,000 brighter than our sun. When the star’s internal furnace can no longer sustain nuclear fusion its core collapses under the force of gravity. A shockwave from the implosion rushes outward through the star’s layers. The shockwave initially breaks through the star’s visible surface as a series of finger-like plasma jets. Only 20 minute later the full fury of the shockwave reaches the surface and the doomed star blasts apart as a supernova explosion. This animation is based on photometric observations made by NASA’s Kepler space telescope. By closely monitoring the star KSN 2011d, located 1.2 billion light-years away, Kepler caught the onset of the early flash and subsequent explosion.
A pergunta que fica e’: Se supernova emerge de red giants 20.000 vezes mais luminosa que o Sol, como nada constava antes no local da foto?
xxxxxxx
First ever photo of exploding star, UC Berkeley confirms

https://www.sfgate.com/science/article/First-ever-photo-of-exploding-star-UC-Berkeley-12703504.php

E meu comentário postado no artigo:

Austriak727 – em 2/23/18

” It is not an explosion, but a implosion, the structure collapses inward into itself”Well,… this is what is suggesting the astronomical models from Matrix/DNA Theory. I think that nobody can prove who is right and wrong, because the suggestion that it is an explosion is based on theory also, there are no enough data for saying it is a proved fact. I prefer Matrix/DNA Theory because its models suggests a better explanation: the astro’s nucleus is growing by “eating” the external geologic layers and when arrives to the last one, it collapses and the luminous nucleus florishes as a star….

Resposta de alguem:

ololo3 –  em 2/23/18 

@austriak727 Well, his photo is definitely something exploding.

Austriak727 em 2/23/18

@ololo3 Yes, it could be, in theory. As says the article: “… to scientists at UC Berkeley, who confirmed he was the only known person to ever take a photo of the flash of light produced by an exploding star.”It is an explosion of light, not seen if it was an explosion of a dark astro. The model from Matrix/DNA suggests that a non visible dark astro has a luminous nucleus that is growing by “eating” the external rock layers and when arrives to the last external one, everything collapses internally (implosion) and the light from the nucleus flourishes in a flash. So, the very known fact we see here when a corn seed has a germ eating the yellow external placenta and when the germe meets the star light it flourishes… is merely a sequitur of a mechanism that happens to our astronomic systems ancestors. If not, you need a big exercise for explaining how the stupid matter of this planet invented the extraordinary engeneery for the birth of a flower… But, I could be wrong..

Entao ololo3 fez o comentario seguinte sobre o qual tenho uma observacao: Ele comete um erro muito suspeito, trocando astronomia por astrologia. Isto pode sugerir que e’ mais um cientificista fundamentalista que reage na Internet a tudo que ele considera “pseudociencia”, e reage com malicia. Nao acredito que ele nada entende de astronomia, p;ois nao estaria lendo este artigo sobre uma futil noticia de astronomia.

ololo3 em 2/23/18

@austriak727 Well, you definitely seem to know WAY more about astrology than me, so I certainly can’t argue with you. You talk the talk, that’s for sure. I wish I would have learned about astrology when I was younger. For some reason, the universe didn’t interest me as much as stuff that ended up becoming TOTALLY pointless when I grew up. I suppose it’s never too late, though. I should look into some college classes on this kind of stuff.

E minha imediata resposta para esclarecer as coisas:

Austriak727 em 2/23/18

https://www.slashgear.com/these-are-the-first-photos-of-an-exploding-star-22520548/
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/21/science/supernova-photo-camera.html   –  (pending approval)
https://www.seeker.com/astronomy/astronomy/amateur-astronomer-hits-cosmic-lottery-with-photo-of-an-exploding-star
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5418985/Stunning-image-supernova-captured-amateur-astronomer.htm

Epigenetica: Como as experiencias da infancia sao escritas no DNA

terça-feira, janeiro 23rd, 2018

xxxx

Palestra no TED, meus comentarios na discussao:

Epigenetics: How Early Life Experience is Written into DNA

https://www.ted.com/talks/moshe_szyf_how_early_life_experience_is_written_into_dna

And my comments published in TED:

Louis Morelli – 01/23/2018

From the Matrix/DNA world view we have some different theories about epigenetics:

1) First of all, epigenetics is the evolutionary development of the primitive force that search systemic’s internal thermodynamic equilibrium, survival and good functioning. When the system is born, earlier problems with the environment obligates the system to internal rearrangements, (expressing unusual genes at unusual time), which makes it weak and this weakness increases with time.

Nature has one unique template/formula that has built all natural systems since the Big Bang – from atoms to galaxies to cells and now human bodies (see the Matrix/DNA formula). So, the same formula creates the bigger system, the environment, and the microscopic system, the creature. So, there is a common final point of convergence for environment and creature. The secret for to fix the creatures individual expression of genes is also to fix the problems of immediate environment (like slavery of monkey four by monkey one, bring on the real mother, etc.)

Post n. 2

2) Epigenetics is a kind of abstract force, like softwares throught hardwares, or the mind acting upon the body’s physical matter. At the ancestors non-biological systems it has been called “the identity of systems”, which arises as the total set of information of each part plus the new information from the internal interaction among parts plus external changes. Its evolution goes towards to be consciousness.

This force acts also trying to avoid impulses or instincts from each part, which is prejudice to the whole system. It is everything natural, no intelligence here, like the flow of forces. Human beings has a bad instinct encrypted into the DNA code and inherited from animals, which is the tendency to big predator, or medium predator, or prey. But, this trait is coming from the bigger systems environment in state of chaos, which created our biosphere. This explains why automatically monkeys 1,2,3.4 are self-arranged into a hierarchy.

Our biggest challenge is to lead each human being to self-exorcizing from these instincts. All diseases from epigenetics are caused by non-optimal human evolution in synchrony with the changes in the environment, which is going towards the ordered state. Our social systems mimics the rules of wild jungle in state of chaos, and humans predators of humans as human preys are conservative of this chaotic state. The insistence in this behavior results like in the jungle, everybody goes to extinction, as reaction from the forces of the environment’s biggest system.

Post n. 3

3) DNA is not a code, like 8 billons different human beings does not compose humanity as a code. DNA’s building blocks are two parallels nucleotides working as a system and in same configuration of the universal natural formula for systems, Matrix/DNA. So, each building block is a copy of that perfect formula with some unique individual little difference, like each human being has something that no other has.

So, the DNA can be two ways: 1) one a fixed pile of inherited copies arranged into a fixed configuration; 2) second, an emergent set of those copies performing new configuration, as a second layer, produced volatile by the momentum. If the earlier configuration of the external stimulus are changed, what happens with the second layer? I think it will change only if the entity of the system imposes the change. Because is the entity that has made the first change.  Since that the older stimulus will be always weaker than the first infant stimulus, the identity will take time or never will perceive the external change. I think this is a job more for psychology than geneticists, because psychology acts upon the entity. But, the psychologists need to know the changes in the genes.

Veja porque a minha teoria explica mais racionalmente que a teoria academica, como e porque o sistema solar produziu a vida dentro dele

domingo, julho 30th, 2017

xxxx

No artigo com link e titulo abaixo, o autor faz um brilhante trabalho explicando informcoes cruciais para se entender o Sol. Porem, trata-se de uma interpretacao do Sol pela otica da academia cientifica desta era, e como sabem, tenho insistido que existe outra interpretacao mais logica e racional tendo-se em vista o que o sistema solar produziu aqui sob nossas vistas: a Vida! Acho que fui feliz num comentario postado no artigo chamando a atencao para este problema:

Fim do Sol

O Fim do Sol

http://fisicameuespacotempo.blogspot.com/2011/05/o-sol-um-dia-vai-acabar.html

O Sol um dia vai acabar?

E meu comentario postado no artigo:

Louis Charles Morelli – 30/Julho -07/2017

 Andre, perdao por invadir seu espaco, e com uma observacao “far away off the beam”, como alguns astronomos Americanos tem me dito. Mas se gostas de entender a natureza universal mais que defender as teorias humanas, forneco “good food for thought”. Voce diz no comentario que ainda tem muitos detalhes a acrescentar no texto acima, e penso que conheco todos, porem, mesmo assim, voce nao acha que essa teoria academica esta super-reduzindo a complexidade de dois astros – o Sol e a Terra – que juntos tinham todas as forcas e elementos naturais necessarios para produzirem a primeira celula viva dentro deles? Onde e qual era a forca ou elemento que transformou materia inorganica em organica? Qual a forca que dirigiu atomos terrestres a novas combinacoes resultando nas primeiras moleculas quimicas organicas? Qual elemento do sistema solar sabia se auto-replicar, ou ao menos ja continha os principios fisicos para tal mecanismo? E assim por diante… se o sistema solar nao tinha algum destes principios, teriamos que acreditar que algo veio de fora do sistema solar para produzir a vida na Terra, o que nao e’ la’ muito cientifico.
Pois bem. Com estas perguntas passei 7 anos estudando a biosfera amazonica, buscando tambem as causas de suas origens, e os resultados sempre apontavam que a luz solar trouxe muitas mais informacoes do que sabemos. Buscando como estas informacoes estariam inseridas nestes astros, acabei por desenvolver um diferente modelo ou teoria astronomica, o qual contem todas aquelas forcas e elementos necessaries para produzir o que vemos aqui. Mas claro, nao sou astronomo, e mero filosofo brasileiro, ninguem vai sequer pensar no assunto, entao so’ me resta deixar o tempo fornecendo mais dados para testar qual teoria esta certa. Se voce tiver interesse em ver um trabalho que parece for a de foco em relacao `a visao academica official atual, digite: http://theuniversalmatrix.com  Abracos….

O sistema tem suas raízes antes das nossas origens

quarta-feira, julho 19th, 2017

xxxx

Um artigo quase muito bom, que toca no cerne de um assunto de interesse da Matrix/DNA, a qual acrescenta sua opinião no comentário final)

Escrito por Eduardo Marinho, o Filosofo do Sec XXI.

O sistema tem suas raízes em cada um de nós

https://observareabsorver.blogspot.com.br/2017/02/o-sistema-tem-suas-raizes-em-cada-um-de.html?

Uma sociedade verdadeiramente humana será uma sociedade onde não haverá miséria, ignorância e abandono – uma vergonha do passado, então inconcebível. Qualquer um que apresente qualquer argumento explicando a inviabilidade de uma sociedade assim, apenas me provoca um riso amargo. Não há produção suficiente de alimentos? Não existem conhecimentos, logística, condições de eliminar estas excrescências da face da terra? Ora, é claro que existem.
O que acontece é que a acumulação, a concentração de riquezas, propriedades e privilégios precisa roubar direitos, mantendo populações em condições de barbárie, precisa de ignorância, desinformação, miséria e abandono pra seguir explorando populações e saqueando riquezas, moendo gente, destruindo potenciais e vidas, sujando e envenenando, tanto o planeta quanto as almas, as mentalidades, os comportamentos. Devemos a isso o estado de degradação social em que vivemos.
Querer vencer na vida é sustentar isso. Competir é manter o modo de relacionamento social. Acreditar nas informações e “opiniões” dos veículos de comunicação é envenenar a mente e receber uma visão de mundo completamente distorcida. Querer o que é induzido pelo massacre publicitário em suas sutilezas sedutoras é o alimento do sistema social. Não ligar a violência e a criminalidade ao desequilíbrio social absurdo, à miséria, à pobreza e aos valores distorcidos pela publicidade e pela propaganda ideológica subliminar da mídia, acreditando que repressão e encarceramento são algum tipo de solução – ou mesmo contenção – pra situação de terror cotidiano, pros níveis de criminalidade, é ter a mente lavada, enxaguada, teleguiada, entorpecida e estupidificada.
Pretender mudar um sistema que estimula a competição, o confronto e a disputa, confrontando, disputando e competindo – ainda mais dentro das instituições, infiltradas e dominadas pelos poderes econômicos – é de uma ingenuidade mais que inútil e incapaz. Acaba sendo a “prova” apontada pelos defensores deste sistema social criminoso de que a farsa política é realmente uma “democracia”, alegando que não se poderia falar assim se não fosse uma democracia. Alegação mentirosa, obviamente. Pode-se falar como esses pretensos revolucionários falam porque eles não tem nenhum poder de mobilização popular, em seus condicionamentos de superioridade social, em seu doutrinarismo estéril, em sua arrogância e pretensão de liderar, organizar e conduzir as massas. Pensam que estão lutando por uma sociedade igualitária, mas estão é colaborando com essa estrutura desumana, ajudando a construir o cenário do teatro macabro. Se alcançassem humildade, perceberiam. Eu percebo que há muitos se tocando. O processo tem seu ritmo.
Em cada um de nós há raízes dos condicionamentos sociais produzidos em laboratórios de pensamento bem pagos, contratados por um punhado de parasitas sociais podres de ricos – que não participam do caos que provocam, cercados em suas fortalezas com muros eletrificados e exércitos bem armados de seguranças privadas. Estamos expostos a isso desde o útero materno e ingenuidade é pensar que nossa vontade é toda nossa, como nossa visão de mundo, opiniões, sentimentos, desejos,… esta percepção, a meu ver, é a primeira de todas. E o trabalho interno, o mais importante. A coletividade é formada por todos e cada um. Trabalhando em si mesmo, o trabalho se estende automaticamente ao coletivo, sem pretensões de ensinar, liderar ou conduzir.
E meu comentario postado no artigo:

O sistema tem suas raízes antes das nossas origens

Boa percepção, porem, falha no fundamental. O sistema não tem suas raízes nos humanos, mas sim no estado do mundo que produziu os humanos. O autor da’ um gigantesco salto no inicio da historia natural escondendo de si mesmo as verdadeiras raízes, devido `a comum visão mistica, religiosa, romântica, que se esquece da origem animalesca dos 8 bilhões de cérebros humanos que produziu todos os sistemas sociais até agora. A classe pobre é tao culpada e co-criadora disso quanto a classe dominante, não existe teorias da conspiração de alguma classe aqui. Revoltar-se contra a carnificina sobre a classe pobre é altruísmo, porem, liberta-la sem antes fazer o que a Natureza esta’ fazendo em seu ritmo lento – uma mutação genética que muda a psique – é leva-la a sua própria extinção, no minimo, pela total destruição da vegetação sem a contrapartida evolutiva. 

O autor se esquece devido `a mistica e arrogância humana que viemos das selvas e de um primo do chimpanzé que apresenta os três instintos que regulam o sistema social nas selvas e são naturalmente projetados nos sistemas sociais humanos urbanos. Se esquece que na selva nossos ancestrais dividem o poder entre grandes predadores ( a nossa aristocracia), médios predadores ( a nossa classe media), e as presas ou ovelhas ( a nossa classe pobre).

E se esquece ou ignora que a vida surge na superfície deste planeta produzida pela face caótica da natureza, enquanto a face da ordem regula a mecânica celeste apenas. Esta biosfera é produto do caos, somos filhos do caos, então como se ressentir dos erros e animalismos humanos? 

Mas o artigo termina mais ou menos bem. Em toda face do caos jaz o fluxo da face da ordem que se levanta, então não existe um método – como quer o autor – para o humano se tornar por vontade própria um agente do sistema ordeiro, pois o que o torna este agente é uma força natural alem de seu controle. Esta força exorciza do caráter os três instintos, não temos como auto-exorcizarmo-nos. E ela o faz pelo acumulo de surras e injustiças que sofre uma linhagem genética nas suas encarnações como ovelhas apos instalar as suas regras injustas nas suas encarnações como predadores. 

Já foi descoberta uma nova interpretação naturalista do mundo que facilita a liberação do fluxo da ordem pelo exorcismo do modelo mental que foi forjado no caos. Chama-se a Matrix/DNA Theory ( veja versão em português – se você quer entrar no caminho espinhoso do seu exorcismo –  em http://theuniversalmatrix.com ), e ela mostra a inconveniência dos humanos sujeitando-se aos três instintos e inconscientemente os guia ao próximo passo evolutivo.

Origem da Vida: Nova Descoberta discute: Fundo de Oceanos ou Lagos na Superficie?

quinta-feira, maio 11th, 2017

xxxx

Baseado no artigo ( ver meus comentarios postados no artigo e copiados abaixo):

Phys.ORG

Oldest evidence of life on land found in 3.48-billion-year-old Australian rocks

May 9, 2017

https://phys.org/news/2017-05-oldest-evidence-life-billion-year-old-australian.html?utm_source=nwletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily-nwletter

Fossil evidence of early life has been discovered by UNSW scientists in 3.48 billion year old hot spring deposits in the Pilbara of Western Australia – pushing back by 3 billion years the earliest known existence of inhabited terrestrial hot springs on Earth.

Previously, the world’s oldest evidence for microbial on land came from 2.7- 2.9 billion year old deposits in South Africa containing organic matter-rich ancient soils.

“Our exciting findings don’t just extend back the record of life living in by 3 billion years, they indicate that life was inhabiting the land much earlier than previously thought, by up to about 580 million years,” says study first author, UNSW PhD candidate, Tara Djokic.

“This may have implications for an origin of life in freshwater hot springs on land, rather than the more widely discussed idea that life developed in the ocean and adapted to land later.”

Scientists are considering two hypotheses regarding the origin of life. Either that it began in deep sea hydrothermal vents, or alternatively that it began on land in a version of Charles Darwin’s “warm little pond”. ( read the article, link above)

xxxx

Morelli  – posted 5/9/2017
The land surface hypothesis is more plausible for life’s origins than the deep oceans, because abiogenesis needed sun’s energy. There are seeds for life everywhere inside galaxies because these seeds are galaxies’ genome. The destiny of any seed is the quality of the place it falls. But there is a big difference between biological systems and other systems non-carbon based. It is possible other kinds of “life” based on every element which the atomic number be multiple of seven in the periodic table, because these elements repeats all properties of carbon. (These are suggestions from Matrix/DNA Theory)
starfart – 5/9/2017
This looks like a marvelous find. I have no doubts that the materials examined exhibit good evidence for microbial life in the surface hot spring setting. However, I don’t see why this finding should dismiss seafloor hydrothermal vents as a potential setting for the origin of life. Its a bit puzzling that evaporate deposits on surface hot springs are stressed as a ‘concentrator’ of complex biogenic material as if undersea hydrothermal precipitate processes aren’t capable of doing that as well. In the end, though, it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if it turns out that either or both settings figured prominently in the origin of life. This isn’t an either-or dichotomy. Both hydrothermal vents and surface hot springs have the same important suite of properties for biogenesis…and they were no doubt equally ubiquitous on the early Earth
Morelli – 5/9/2017

“Both hydrothermal vents and surface hot springs have the same important suite of properties for biogenesis…and they were no doubt equally ubiquitous on the early Earth.”

Maybe you have found the exactly point. Matrix/DNA Theory has suggested that the first cell system ( aka, living thing) needed 50% of a planet’s nucleus energy and 50% of a star energy. The planet’s energy is able to build the primordial molecules and some organelles ( less mitochondria and chloroplasts) and no DNA, only RNA. The last elements are build with the concourse of a star energy. Than, it is possible that life began at thermal vents but was finished at land surface.
We are based on our theoretical model of a seed for life, which is a kind of astronomical genome at microscopic level.

 

 

Neurologistas numa afronta a Deus, numa heresia contra a Ciencia, e produzindo doenca mental nos estudantes e publico geral

domingo, abril 9th, 2017

xxxx

Qualquer pessoa percebe – apos tomar conhecimento do que as Ciencias do Cerebro sabem de real hoje – que quase nada se sabe sobre a consciencia humana. Nesta aula-palestra em video, um dos mais renomados cientistas da area de neurologia, deixa claro que ele quase nada entende de consciencia. Mas assim como esta claro que quase nada sabemos sobre universos e mesmo assim tem gente vivendo no meio cientifico que acredita piamente que universos sao criados por Big Bangs e tal como interpretaram estes bigbangs – o orador tenta obnubilar nossa ignorancia sobre consciencia com a impressao que ele sabe muitas coisas arrolando suas pessoais interpretacoes de testes e experimentos sobre pequenos detalhes e propriedades expressadas pela consciencia. De maneira que teorias interpretativas sobre consciencia sao vendidas ao publico como se fossem fatos cientificos. Porem nao e’ a Ciencia que esta divulgando o que sabe – quase nada – e sim a ideologia imaginativa tendenciosa da pessoa usando o nome da Ciencia. O metodo frio, calculista e reducionista que a Ciencia tem aplicado na investigacao sobre a materia natural e’ conduzido a ser aplicado ao fenomeno ainda invisivel e intocavel da consciencia. A mentalidade mecanicista que resulta da doutrinacao academica derivada deste metodo e’ empregada na tentativa de descrever a mente impregnando-a com este pretenso mecanicsmo universal.

Qualquer humano que nao foi doutrinado pela academia nas universidades percebe sua consciencia e percebe que ela nao e’ uma maquina. percebe e se revolta quando ve o orador colocar como base criadora de sua consciencia, a “beast machine”, bem delineada no video. Entao temos que nos mover-mos, atuarmos com urgencia, gritando alto contra esta doutrina, pois ela esta destruindo e aprisionando a mente livre de nossos jovens e futuras geracoes. Por isso eu fiz questao de gritar colocando meus comentarios logo abaixo do video no YouTube ( copiados abaixo). Convido algum possivel perdido leitor que venha a este quase oculto e muito rustico website a fazer o que penso ser seu dever como humano que considera-se em compromisso com a grande causa de dar `as nossas futuras geracoes uma vida melhor do que a absurda vida que tivemos, lutando contra estas pessimas acoes que criaram e ainda alimentam esta nefasta cultura que tem produzido estas absurdas civilizacoes desumanas.

The Neuroscience of Consciousness – with Anil Seth

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRel1JKOEbI

Meus comentarios postados no YouTube ( prometo que volto aqui para traduzi-los)

The Beast Machine?!! Mr. Anil: You can’t use Science – which is owned by the entire Humanity – for propagating yours bias tendency and evil ideology among young non prepared minds! You can’t be a professor of my kids.
Show here and now, over the table, Nature building “beast machines”. Show here and now Nature building any kind of machine. The unique real fact that I know from the purely, real, non-biased Science, when Nature builds complex architectures, and which I can show to you over the table and now, is a video 9 months long about embryology. Can you show another, as when Nature builds atoms, galaxies, etc.? Of course, not.
Is it yours interpretation from the final results of a process of embryology, a beast machine? What is a machine, Mr. Anil? If not an artificial human construction? But you are not talking about humans constructions in this video, you are pretensely talking about Nature’s constructions.
My biased and non-scientific interpretation is that Nature does not build machines, it builds “natural working systems”. Among these systems, one, the stellar systems, were once interpreted by Newtonian mechanics as a machine. Today we know it not works well, there are something else. It was almost corrected by general theory of relativity which grasped something of this some thing else. General relativity is being re-enforced by quantum theory towards to grasping more something that is not mechanic inside natural systems. But it does not works well because quantum level is being biased interpreted by people like you, ideological, that are pushing nature towards the aspect of mechanics at quantum level.
My biased and non-scientific interpretation ( Science does not interprets anything, theories does), is that natural systems are composed by 30% of mechanics – the beast side of systems – 30 % of biology – the angel side of systems – and 40% the results of mixing these two opposites, which I call ” in the process of transformation for transcendence of systems”.
And I require that my kids’ teacher teaching first of all, a class about pure, real, with non-biased interpretations, Science. After this first class, I will permit a class about theories, interpretations, where the teacher will teach the three sides of natural systems. This is for keeping my kids’ opened minds, for them to be motivating to look by themselves what we don’t know yet.
And every time I see someone trying to doctrine people with biased  ideologies using Science ( which I am yours partner and owner too as a citizen) I will refute loud, reporting it. I think you are doing a bad disservice to human species, that you will not succeed towards understanding real brains and consciousness wasting your time and taxpayers money, and you are leading humanity to the horrible destiny as a social machine – the Brave New World under the Big Queen as insect societies did. Shame on you, Mr. Anil. But you are younger, you still have time for correcting and re-hardwiring yours indoctrinated brain and producing something good for human kind: see at my website a non-biased and not scientific interpretation about natural systems – something you never knew or thought about.

xxx

Louis Charles MorelliLouis Charles Morelli – 4/9/2017

The draw about “The Great Chain of Being” is wrong. It begins with a piece of rock and makes a non-real, non-rational spectacular jump towards a plant, which is a very complex system. Following we see a mouse – another system – coming from the system “plant”. And following we see a human – another system – coming from a system “mouse”. How could it be that a system like plant came from a slice of a system – a piece of rock from a planetary system which is piece of a stellar system ?! Of course, it is an infant mistake. But, what the bad results of this mistake? It prejudices our search for the truth, for knowledge. Instead a piece of rock, there must be a planetary system and before it a stellar system and before it an atom system. Always systems down, that’s reality. I did the right thing and that’s why I am discovering biological properties expressed by atoms and galactic systems, as explained at my website. Hiding the priors systems that produced biological systems (aka, life), creates mythology, like the one that biological systems arose by chance – a magical accident. It is same mythology that created magical gods. Creates the mythology called biogenesis. It avoid new minds to see these priors systems looking for the natural forces and elements that contributed and evolved towards biological systems. it is wrong! You can not making comparisons between systems and pieces, slices, of another system. System must be aligned, compared, with systems! Please, correct it or advice people that you are showing the draws of a personal theory. Do not talk in the name of our Sacred Science in this way. it is very bad for our students

Corpo Humano é Onda ou Partícula? Questão relativística?

sexta-feira, abril 7th, 2017

xxxx

Acabei de postar esta pergunta maluca no Quora:

Um observador macroscópico veria um corpo humano como uma onda; observadores microscópicos como nos, humanos, vemo-lo como uma partícula. Seria isto a estranheza quântica?

A macro-observer would see a human body as a wave; micro-observers, like us, see it as particle. Is this quantum weirdness?

https://www.quora.com/unanswered/A-macro-observer-would-see-a-human-body-as-a-wave-micro-observers-like-us-see-it-as-particle-is-this-quantum-weirdness

Qual o fundamento da minha questão? Bem, … esse grilo na minha cuca começou a 30 anos atras quando descobri que os sistemas naturais são montados pelo processo do ciclo vital. E as partículas até agora observadas são em si mesmas sistemas ( compostas de quarks, leptons), portanto elas devem apresentar propriedades vitais, ou seja, elas também devem nascer, crescer, amadurecer e morrer, sendo que nesse meio tempo elas vão sendo transformadas em formas diferentes assim como o corpo humano é transformado em varias formas devido a força do ciclo vital. As partículas foram – são – nossas ancestrais, elas já apresentam alguns sinais de vida.

Mas as partículas tem um período de vida brevíssimo, apenas 17 bilionésimos de segundos. Por isso nunca conseguiram ver uma partícula, apenas seu rastro deixado num evento de choque, como veem no acelerador do CERN. Isto porque a partícula é microscópica, seu tempo é medido na escala microscópica, e em relacao a elas, nos somos macroscópicos, nosso tempo flui muito mais lentamente.

Praticamente eu diria que a proporção entre nosso tempo e o delas seria a mesma entre nossos 70 anos de vida e os 17 bilionésimos de segundo delas.

Ora, vamos agora supor que exista um observador do tamanho do sistema solar, ou da galaxia. Ele conseguiria ver um corpo humano? Certamente não. Com alguma tecnologia ele poderia ver os nossos rastros. Com uma tecnologia mais poderosa ele poderia fixar nosso corpo em relacao ao tempo, parando nosso tempo num momento qualquer da nossa vida, digamos, quando temos 40 anos de idade. Então ele veria a nossa forma de adulto e acreditaria erroneamente que essa é a nossa forma fixa, sem saber que transformamos nossas formas. se em outra situação ele visse um bebe humano ele juraria que se trata de outra especie. E se ele fixar nosso corpo em relacao ao espaço? Ele nunca saberia qual nossa idade, qual período de tempo vivemos.

Então penso que matei a charada da famosa questão denominada ” Principio da Incerteza de Heisenberg”, o qual foi o inicio da revelação do mundo estranho da quântica. Por este principio não é possível fixar uma partícula para medi-la pois se medimos uma coisa não conseguimos medir a outra.

E depois aconteceu o “split experiment” onde os cientistas atônitos viram que uma partícula se comporta como onda e vice-versa.

Vai dai que isso também deve acontecer com uma observador macrocósmico vendo um corpo humano. Imagine você rodando um filme sobre a vida de um humano que dura 70 anos de forma tao rápida que dure apenas 17 bilionésimos de segundo. O que vai aparecer na tela? Primeiro e com certeza, nenhuma forma. Segundo ver-se ia um rastro, se a tecnologia for igual a do CERN, mas pode parecer ser uma onda se aplicar o split experiment (talvez). Porque o anteparo com varias fendas só pode ser observado em um piscar de olho do macrocósmico e isso duraria para nos, uns 10 anos. Ora, em dez anos nos nos movemos muito, passamos por muitos lugares, muitas fendas, e no experimento estas passagens teriam que juntarem-se todas numa só, e isto seria uma superposição quântica, ou superposição de rastos, ou talvez ainda, de ondas.

Mas o desfecho final nesse grilo na minha cuca venho quando observei melhor a formula da Matrix/DNA e percebi que ali, o corpo rola como partícula em relacao ao espaço, mas também rola como onda em relacao ao tempo.

Agora vou correndo procurar um guarda-chuva para me proteger porque com certeza as pedradas e ovos chocos vão vir aos borbotoes… se os físicos e matemáticos lerem a minha questão e depois deixar eu explicar a razão dela com o texto acima. Com certeza não vão entender bulhufas e muito menos concordar com alguma coisa e vão me chamar de idiota para baixo. A minha justificativa é que eu venho da selva, outro mundo, e não dos laboratórios com ar condicionado como o CERN.

xxxxx

Primeira resposta que veio:

Ian MillerIan Miller, Independent physical scientist, author
Who says a macro observer would see humans as a wave? Quantum effects only apply when the interaction leads to a change of action in the order of Planck’s quantum of action. If it is big enough that h can be ignored, quantum effects can be ignored.
xxxx
Minha resposta a Ian:
Louis Charles Morelli – 4/8/2017

Thanks, Ian. My question arises when thinking about the weirdness that arises from the split experiment ( wave or particle or both?), plus the observation of Matrix/DNA formulas, not about Planck’s constant.

xxxx

A resposta do Ian me fez perder algumas horas pensando no tema e pensandop em como entabular um dialogo com Ian. Porem, no final conclui que por Internet e’ impossivel. Porem deixo abaixo escrito algo do que pensei em enviar como resposta para depois voltar nisso e continuar pensando no assunto:

xxxx

Yours brain is hard-wired in a very different configuration than is mine, Yan. We are based on two very, very different interpretations of nature. I think both interpretations has more mistakes than thru, and if we makes the comparisons between these two, we could fixing some errors on both, and producing some new practical things.

Please, try to imagine the following:

A macro-observer of the size of this solar system or a galaxy. His scale of time is astronomical, ok? So, the lifetime for him runs very, very slower than the lifetime of humans runs for humans. In another hand, I read somewhere that there are particles which time of existence is about 17 billionth of a second (measured by human scale of time). So, time for particles runs very, very faster than time runs for humans. At Cern we do not see particles, we see the trails left by particles. The cause I think is due the different scales of time between particles and humans. Is it right? If it is right, the giant observer would see a human body moving at his lifetime as a trail.

But, at the split experiment, the interpretation of the trail becomes the interpretation as a wave. Am I wrong?

At split experiment we throw a particle by a laser canon, than, the particle leave a linear trail. But the weirdness is that it can pass on two points in space at same time. Humans normal behavior is moving around, going ahead and back, etc., but the giant observer has no time to see these movements. Our movements can result passing on two or more points of space, which will appears same time or one momentum, for the giant. Will he believe that are seeing a wave, also? Or we are seeing superposed trails at split experiment believing that we see waves?

Maybe the macro-observer see humans like we see particles. What do you think?

But nobody see particles. I think that’s why we have sometimes the belief that it is a particle, other time it is a wave. I am wrong?

My Matrix/DNA formula for natural systems is suggesting that, if the giant observer see the human body as an object with mass, he would believe that he is seeing a particle. Because mass shows things in relation to space and particles occupies a place in space. But if the giant observer see a human body acting normally as we do, moving towards different directions, going ahead and back, etc., and reducing our 70 years of a lifetime into 17 billionth of a second, he would see only only a linear trail. Am I wrong? If the giant places a wall with several holes over these trails, the human body would crossing several wholes at that reduced time. Because in reality, we had superposed several movements into one momentum.

Then, suppose that this macro-observer see a human lifetime as his one billionth of a second of his scale of time. I think that he would see only a trail, as particles are seeing at CERN. Do you agree with this hypothesis?

Observing the behavior of a human body at a very reduced time as it would appears to the macro-observerby someone that naturally reduces when reducing its scale of time , the results would be different than throwing a particle by a canon laser towards two holes in a plate?

I saw that you are very interested in the not solved problems of quantum theory, and I think here you have the opportunity to think about it from a very different approach and, maybe, creating yours own novelty. My question refers to the weirdness at the split experiment, not about the Planck’s constant.

You have the knowledge about quantum mechanics that I don’t have, but I have a kind of world view that you do not know. From my theoretical models and formulas arises lots of possibilities/questions which are related to what I am reading in the published literature about quantum theories. But nobody think or talk about the details that I would appreciate for developing my research. The reverse way could be thru: knowing the details of my theory, could help one developing quantum theory till suggesting new ideas/experiments.

But, my advice is that it would be a very hard intellectual work. First due our different native languages, second due our very different method of research and approaches, third due it is a very, very complex issue. So, if you have interest in continuing this dialogue, I would appreciate, if not, sorry by this time that you spent here.

if you will continue reading, I will advance that my formulas are suggesting that measuring a human body lifetime from astronomical scale of time, we see the body as particle – if we fix the body at a momentum in relation to space – and as a wave or superposed trails – if we fix the body in relation to time. The split experiment could solve this problem for the giant macro-observer, I think, if in the eyes of the giant observer the human body acting normally as we do, would show the behavior like the particle throw by a laser canon. Trail or wave? So I need details why the scientists believes that at split experiment the particle behaves as a wave and not as multiple superposed trails?

try to imagine the following:

A macro-observer of the size of this solar system or a galaxy. His scale of time is astronomical, ok? In another hand, I read somewhere that there are particles which time of existence is about one billionth of a second (measured by human scale of time). Then, suppose that this macro-observer see a human lifetime as his one billionth of a second. I think that he would see only a trail, as particles are seeing at CERN. Do you agree with this hypothesis?

When we try to understanding the Matrix/DNA formula for natural systems, we see lots of phenomena that the literature about quantum mechanics are publishing. And is unavoidable arising questions like this one. The formula suggests that any new shape of natural system is built when nature applies the force or process of life’s cycle upon a unique initial body. The body is transformed into new shapes ( like the human body is transformed from the shape of fetus to embryo to adult, etc), and these shapes are connected as part of a functional working system, like atoms, galaxies,cells, etc. If we try to see this body reducing drastically its lifetime, but fixing alternates momentum, at these momentum we see it as particle and the time between two particles makes the body invisible. I am not sure if these slices of time occurs as a trail or a wave in the eyes of the observer.

Now, he throws this human towards the two wholes at a metal plate, like the split experiment. He see the scene as his one second, which is too much slow for humans. In this astronomical one second, a human moves to several different pathways, included passing into the wholes. The giant macro-observer would believe that the human did it at the same momentum. I am wrong?

Duas diferentes cosmovisões debatem: Quais as diferenças entre o computador hardware/software e o humano corpo/mente?

quinta-feira, abril 6th, 2017

xxxxx

Minha questao postada no Quora e acompanhamento do debate:

https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-difference-between-computer-software-hardware-and-human-body-mind

What’s the difference between computer software/hardware and human body/mind?

Jonathan DayJonathan Day, 4/6/2017
Ultimately, none.

Alan Turing created an imaginary computer, the Turing Machine, that could perform a few basic functions, moving around a tape or set of tapes. He proved that all systems based on logic MUST be equivalent or inferior to a Turing Machine. No exceptions.

We now know that there are no quantum effects in the brain and that the sorts of quantum effects that you could get in regular cells can all be reduced to systems based on logic.

A human being, therefore, is a highly complex machine (the brain has 85 billion neurons and a neuron can have up to 3,000 synapses, so you’re dealing with 255 trillion connections that can amplify/suppress signals – we’re getting into serious numbers here). A machine so complex that attempting to reproduce it with modern technology would result in a computer around ten blocks square and two or three storeys high.

So, human brains are smaller for now. That’s kinda cheating because it’s not an intrinsic difference, merely a technological one.

Louis Charles MorelliLouis Charles Morelli – 4/6/2017

Very helpful, Jonathan. Thanks. But… I think that with yours world view we will not make progress towards quantum computation and knowledge of human mind and consciousness. Yours perspective is totally mechanistic, based on Physics and Math, as the modern scholar mindset. Maybe you are right, but is is not what my personal research and world view is suggesting.

First of all, Turing did not know what a natural system is. So he did not know the logic running in these systems. If you are interested go to my website to see the formula for all natural systems.

Second there is no quantum effects in the human mind as software because quantum effects are related to an inferior level of organization of matter: it fills the boundary between Newtonian mechanics and biological organization, the frontier between the hard and bone skeleton _ studied by the fields of Physics and Math – and the beginning of the soft meat ( where begins biological organization. The human psyche organization is a superior level).

Third, we can not build a computer reproducing the human brain with this actual technology, neither hundred blocks square: complexity has a limit at any evolutionary lineage. When reaching that limit, occurs an evolutionary jump, a transformation. As happened to human brain, the jump to consciousness. It means that we need to proceed a transformation of our actual technology. Not based on binary digits and so, based on seven variables, like the DNA code. By the way, I think it is good talking between different world views. Thanks.

 

Algumas das Nebulosas Influencias que Minha Teoria esta Exercendo no Mundo Hoje

domingo, março 12th, 2017

xxxx

Do meu post publicado no meu Facebook em Mar/03-12-2017

 Louis Charles Morelli – Mar/03-12-2017

 

 

 

Minha teoria sendo usada num projeto de 100 milhoes de dolares!

Fiquei sabendo por acaso, surfando na Internet. Procurei pela sigla “Matrix/DNA” no Google, porque so eu uso esta sigla e descobri-a mencionada num jornal Americano de New Hampshire. Ali esta a copia de um comentario que postei num jornal e de um artigo que escrevi no meu website. Inclusive com todos meus erros de ingles, o trecho foi copiado fielmente, em ingles.

A unica e primeira pessoa no mundo que disse que os astros como a Terra tem uma existencia que imita o ciclo vital humano, fui eu, como resultado de meus calculos e modelos na selva amazonica, estudando os sistemas que compoem aquela biosfera – e cujas questoes me remeteram a questionar algo que eu nunca pensei que faria: o Cosmos! Porque e’ impossivel entender a cria (a nossa biosfera terrestre), sem entender o criador – o Cosmos. E o trecho no jornal fala desta minha teoria.

Um milionario excentrico fez uma doacao de 100 milhoes de dolares para uns cientistas que tem um projeto para procurar vida fora da Terra. Minha teoria da Matrix/DNA faz algumas sugestoes nao pensadas pelos cientistas, e ate’ agora ainda nao descobri como acharam minha teoria e porque esta mencionada no jornal. E infelizmente, sozinho e sem as necessarias condicoes para tocar meu projeto com eficiencia, tenho que ficar calado. Mas meus amigos do Facebook sao testemunhas. Clique no link abaixo e veja este meu texto que esta ali copiado.

Ha 5 anos atras um famoso radialista e evangelico dos USA criou um website para criar um novo movimento baseado na … (segundo suas palavras)… “fantastica descoberta da formula de Deus para criar o mundo, por um autor desconhecido…” Os ateus dos USA e Inglaterra deram em cima, combateram, ameacaram-no de plagio usando meu nome, e ele teve que parar seu website. E eu tive que ficar assistindo, calado!

“The study proposed a model Matrix/DNA model which the researchers think could tell how to look for aliens in space.
“It suggests that planets are developed by the life’s cycle process, suggests the ideal age and conditions a planet must have to harbor biological life, and suggests the ideal slice of electromagnetic radiation frequency/variation that could permitting planets to self-communicating”, said a researcher, René Heller. Various spacecraft and telescopes captured many images and data on Cosmos that do not hint life could be there. It suggests that the current models that astronomers are using are wrong.”

Study proposes Novel Method to Hunt for Aliens Looking at Us

Submitted by Jeanne Rife on Wed, 03/02/2016 – 15:21

http://nhv.us/content/16034673-study-proposes-novel-method-hunt-aliens-looking-us

Study proposes Novel Method to Hunt for Aliens Looking at Us

 

Reddit: Post Divulgado para Anunciar a Matrix/DNA Theory (testando)

sexta-feira, dezembro 9th, 2016

xxxx

Nao tem jeito mesmo. Um alien tomando a forma humana e falando sua visão de mundo para terráqueos jamais seria sequer ouvido. Mais uma prova e’ a reação dos moderadores do Reddit, copiada abaixo.

https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/5hc8ea/the_dna_is_138_billions_years_old/

The DNA is 13,8 billions years old! from philosophy

The DNA is 13,8 billions years old! (self.philosophy)

submitted – dez – 12/9/2016 -by TheMatrixDNA

A new theory (The Universal Matrix/DNA of All Natural Systems) is suggesting that astronomic and atomic systems are ancestrals of biological systems because has identified the building blocks of DNA as the building blocks of those systems, at less evolved shapes. But,… the theory has built different models of those systems, suggesting that the academic official models are wrong. Do you thing it is rational and possible? Or do you believe that the stupid matter of this lost planet has invented the DNA?

CanadaDuck 0 pontos

Human DNA confirmed present at time of big bang! Amazing!

[–]TheMatrixDNA[S]

Yes, CanadaDuck, the theory found that waves of light ( like those emitted at the Big Bang) contains the code for DNA. I can’t explain everything here, but if you see the figure of the electromagnetic spectrum by Matrix/DNA Theory, it shows how the seven different kinds of radiation composes end acts like the seven molecules of the DNA. But it is not “human DNA”, it is a universal Matrix evolving and changing shapes under a life’s cycle, which at humans we call “DNA”.

xxxxx

Um moderador removeu o post alegando o seguinte:

BernardJOrtcutt[M]

Your post was removed. A moderator determined that it broke the following rule:

Rule 1: Posts must put forth a substantive philosophical thesis and make a serious and sustained attempt to defend this thesis in English (with some exceptions, e.g. news about the profession, interviews with philosophers, and so on). Questions belong in /r/askphilosophy.

If this is a self-post, you may edit your post to fix this problem and message the moderators to have it reinstated.

E  minha resposta enviada ao moderador:

Message to moderators

from TheMatrixDNA sent 12/10/2016

Post in question: https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/5hc8ea/the_dna_is_138_billions_years_old/

I can’t agree this question has no “substantive philosophical thesis” and there is no “serious and sustained attempt to defend this thesis”. As we can see at http://www.messiah.edu/info/21534/resources/2493/how_to_write_a_philosophy_paper/2

To sum up, a thesis statement should: Be specific. Be narrow enough as to be practicably defended within the length parameters of the assignment. Make an interesting claim, one over which reasonable people might disagree. Provide some hint as to what the main line of argument will be.

I think the very moderator’s problem seems to be “indoctrinated by known world view when at school”. Like when the philosophy academic course was dominated by the geocentric world view… any mention to a different other-centric view was seen as absurd.

There are three possible alternative as the cause fr DNA’s existence: 1) Was created by God and by magic; 2) Was created by matter of this planet ( or any other – panspermia) 3) Is the result of universal evolution, or the long chain of causes and effects that is coming since the Big Bang

Is there another alternative? Please, I don’t know. Human species has knowing only alternatives 1 and 2. Modern universities advocates alternative 2, so, alternative 1 must be absurd. As never nobody thought about alternative 3 ( or nobody has introduced a substantive frame of work like mine, developed during 30 years – after 7 years studying the Amazon biosphere, applying comparative anatomy among all its systems for identifying its connections and evolution as you can see at http://theuniversalmatrix.com) alternative 3 ( or any other) will be immediately classified as absurd, without learning and questioning the real facts enrolled as proof/evidences and don’t believing in those hundreds of confirmed right predictions. I understand it because before the jungle and learning to see the world from the brute nature perspective, I had reacted some way did by the moderator.

But, alternatives 1 and 2 are not rational. Both has broken the universal history into two blocks without any real evolutionary link between them, so, the big gap between cosmological evolution and biological evolution are fitted with magical gods or magical randomness. So, they are not substantive philosophical thesis.

There is no way to resume a new universal history of 13,8 billions years into a post on Reddit that contains the “serious and sustained attempt to defend this thesis”. They are listed in that website and would be introduced/debated in the comments section.

I think that any natural theory ( by the Greek definition of the world theory and not by the followed modern invention called “scientific theory”), is, at its essence, a philosophical thesis because it argues about the meaning of existence. Then, again: To sum up, a good introduction to a philosophical thesis should: (1) be concise, (2) contain a clear statement of your thesis, (3) introduce, very succinctly, your topic and explain why it is important, (4) indicate, very briefly, what the main line of argument will be, and (5) map out the overall structure of your paper.

Philosophy – as its very subject, the human mind – must be opened to its own evolution. Classifying any new tentative for openness as absurd is a kind of philosophical evolution-stopper. Maybe I am wrong here…? Cheers…