Archive for the ‘Debates Criticas Defesas’ Category

Origem da Vida: Cientista produz enzima sintetica em 2017 e suspeita que ela criou a vida a 4 bilhões de anos atrás!!!

segunda-feira, novembro 13th, 2017


Então fui eu que tendo nascido neste século matei o Mar Morto a 2 bilhoes de anos atras… O artigo está no link abaixo e a seguir estao as copias de meus comentarios no debate do artigo.

Chemists May Have Found the ‘Missing Link’ to the First Life on Earth

Louis Charles Morelli · Fritador de batatas fritas at Self employed – 12:56 PM – 11/13/2017
To the authors:
You said: ” … A subset of chemists have devoted their careers to puzzling…”
I think it is clear that a new kind of information from a more complex natural system were among the matter of that water slime. I can’t understand these chemists that are working with the effects and not searching the cause, because if they want to solve the puzzle, the rational way is going after the cause.DAP – if it ever existed naturally – is an effect, containing the entire or part of the cause, not the cause. We are watching everyday how a new life emerges from water slime produced not by the slime, but by a bunch of information coming from outside the womb’s water, so, why for the first life would be different? Why scientists are mimicking mysticals that need never seen before phenomens? Our method at Matrix/DNA Theory found a possible natural force/element that could be the source of these outside informations for first life. Chemists need know the models and looking inside DAP and the other primordial elements for this “invisible” genome. We are losing time and money.

Chris Sievert · Columbia (Missouri)

@Phillip Czekala –  I’m going to guess you’ve never actually witnessed the Birth of a Baby? If you had you would know how Ignorant your claim not to have started your life in “a bucket of shit water slime” because yours and everyone elses actually did start that way.You may or may not have started in shit, not all babies crap in Uetero, but you certainly started in “a bucket of piss water slime”. All Mammals do.
Louis Charles Morelli · Fritador de batatas fritas at Self employed – 12:56 PM – 11/13/2017


Edward Guest · FSU College of Law

The ability to produce intelligent beings, well somewhat intelligent, through this process if true could likely occur in millions, maybe even billions, of star systems in our Universe. Maybe we will be surprised in a few billion Earth years how many species we find that are a lot like us.

Louis Charles Morelli · Fritador de batatas fritas at Self employed

Edward Guest – There is a curious option, maybe you don’t know it. Life is like agriculture, so, if a seed falls in an environment with good conditions, it will flourish. The seeds are splitted everywhere in space/time. But, what is this “seed” and from where it comes from? At Matrix/DNA Theory we discovered that a new theoretical model of galaxies fits exactly the configurations for a source of these seeds. The astronomical building blocks is the face and configuration of DNA building blocks. When I got these models, it was suggesting a new version of “universal history” from the Big Bang to nowadays. And the final history suggests that – as you said – initially must have diversification among aliens but all them will be fine tunelled to a unique final shape… which is the unknown shape of the natural intelligent system that triguered the Big Bang and must be existing beyond this Universe. Curious, isn’t it?

Philip Czekala

It’s publish or perish in college land and this clown professor Ramanarayanan Krishnamurthy will make up and write ANYTHING to keep his job. Maybe his life started out in a bucket of shit water slime but mine didn’t. Just think about how many gullible assholes believe this crap too. We are DOOMED.

Louis Charles Morelli · Fritador de batatas fritas at Self employed

Philip – You are right, Our life began in water slime also but the womb’s water slime can do nothing without the insertion of an almost invisible genetic code from something existing above and beyond the womb ( it means also beyond Earth as the womb for first living thing). Why the modern academic mindset is separating cosmological evolution from biologiccal evolution?! The effects of this absurd faith is causing this blindness? Do you have any explanation for human behavior?
Fred Wood You have a good point. There is a theoretical “universal natural formula for organizing matter into systems” and applying the formula for to calculate “life’s origins” the results of this calculations says exactly what you said about the role played by the Moon. New shapes of systems ( like the biological ones built at the abiogenesis period) begins by the Function 1 of the formula, which is “agitation for fragmentation and mixture of the elements of the environment”. We have not found other element able to do that function necessary for biological systems organization here. Then comes the F2, which takes the “baby” created by F1 and begins the agregration of nutrients. This formula explains how the first lighter gazeous starand the later stellar systems were made from an atomic nebulae, how galactic’s nuclei are created by central vortex, etc. If you are curious about the formula, search ” The Universal Matrix for All Natural Systems and Life’s Cycles”. Congratulations by the right insight.

Jerry Bunker · Purdue University

Professing themselves wise they traded the truth for a lie. This garbage that once upon a time is sheer nonsense. Genesis chapter 1 verse 1 states that in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. It takes much more faith to believe in these fairytales than to believe in the creator God

Louis Charles Morelli ·Fritador de batatas fritas at Self employed

Jerry: ” Genesis chapter 1 verse 1 states”
A book written by foreign ancient people states nothing to our people of our country and to people of XXI century, why are you coming at a Science issue and Western World telling that?! Don’t worry: if God has something to say to our country and to people of this time, He will say it directly to us, we does not accept humans intermediaries between us and God. 
Here you comes professing yourself wise. So, bring on to the table the proofs how life started and get the Nobel prize. Or are you trading the truth for a lie?
Fred Wood – None

Something folks seem to miss in their Synthesis of supposed early biology is the intense stiring caused by the Moon tides which were a hundred or more times stronger than they are now. Not only 100-200 foot ocean tides, tides expressed in the ground around the sea and, more importantly, beneath the sea too, stiring up the lighter and heaver elements, separating the stone from the metal, breaking the shell of the Earth into mud and sand, even as it tries to harden, heating things up in a band beneath the Moon’s early orbit. Remember, the Moon, containing much of it’s present mass was only a few thousand miles above the Earth at that time, having been formed by a collision between the Earth and a stoney body about the size of Mars. It slowly escaped Earth’s gravity until now it’s effects on land is negiligable though the seas still rise and fall by tens of feet now, rather than by hundreds. THERE is your crucible!
Like · Reply · 1 · 4 hrs
Fred Wood –None

It occures to me that the occasion of the birth of our Moon might be quite rare in water planets. There might be fewer examples of life because of it, if the Moon tides really were a part of the equasion. The local sudden heating and cooling of subsurfice muds by those large tides might also have played a part, again making life as we know it even more rare.
Fred Wood You have a good point. There is a theoretical “universal natural formula for organizing matter into systems” and applying the formula for to calculate “life’s origins” the results of this calculations says exactly what you said about the role played by the Moon. New shapes of systems ( like the biological ones built at the abiogenesis period) begins by the Function 1 of the formula, which is “agitation for fragmentation and mixture of the elements of the environment”. We have not found other element able to do that function necessary for biological systems organization here. Then comes the F2, which takes the “baby” created by F1 and begins the aggregation of nutrients. This formula explains how the first lighter gaseous star and the later stellar systems were made from an atomic nebulae, how galactic’s nuclei are created by central vortex, etc. If you are curious about the formula, search ” The Universal Matrix for All Natural Systems and Life’s Cycles”. Congratulations by the right insight.

Mantendo a suspeita racional `a minha teoria

domingo, novembro 5th, 2017


Foto de Elizabeth Cardoso Damballah Jacu Cool.

Video: Irreducivel Complexidade versus Evolucao da Agulha Molecular versus Heranca da Evolucao Cosmologica

quarta-feira, outubro 4th, 2017


Este artigo comecou aqui:

e revelou-se de grande importancia para divulfdgacao da Matrix/DNA devido a grande polemica e o corolario de sites se abindo para o tema, o que noss fara’ proceder a uma pesquisa intense nestes sites, sempre tentando publicar a versapo da matricx. Outro link que se segue e’: , e

Michael Behe e o Misterio das Maquinas Moleculares

At this link ( ) is solved how the bacterial flagellum was built:
1) By “previous” design, but, not intelligent design, in the way that mother giraffe does not apply intelligence for building a new baby giraffe. The process applied for building the bacterial flagellum was pure natural genetics which is an evolutionary product from a mechanism that emerged with the Big Bang. So, the ultimate answer (if it is or don’t intelligent design, randomness or other thing), is unknown.
2) The bacterial flagellum is really irreducible complexity to anything existed before at Earth surface. But it is reducible ( all its parts) to the building blocks of galaxies, like this Milk Way (see the astronomic model at the website), which is the real last non-biological ancestor (LUCA). The way a galaxy rotates creating the spiral arms contains a kind of motor that is the same configuration of bacterial flagellum. So, there is irreducible complexity in relation to Earth, but there is no irreducible complexity in relation to natural astronomic systems;
3) We need to understand that the stupid matter of this lost planet did not invented – first time in the universe –  these complex things like genetic code, human beings, consciousness, etc. But, the Matrix/DNA Theory, working with the approach of systemic and not reductionist or mystical thoughts, re-wrote the Universal History from today to the origins of this world, finding that everything complex here had a long evolutionary history that began with a few information that can be seen at any natural light wave. So, the effect (our perceived world) is entirely explained but, the cause escapes from us because the source is beyond and before the Big Bang, then, as we can’t advancing beyond the last material frontier, what is or who is, is it intelligent or not,… the source still is merely humans conjectures.

A cultura humana foi produzida pela sua biologia, porem, já existia cultura nas estrelas – revela a Matrix/DNA

sexta-feira, setembro 1st, 2017


Bom artigo sobre origens e desenvolvimento da cultura humana, defende a tese de que a biologia é a causa produtora da cultura. Por meu lado, fui consultar a formula da Matrix/DNA e conclui que a cultura humana esta’ para o sistema social humano assim como a identidade dos sistemas naturais estão para os sistemas, portanto, o que se entende por cultura já existia antes das origens dos sistemas biológicos. Postei um comentário explicando isso no artigo, o qual vai copiado abaixo do link:

O ser humano como um animal biologicamente cultural

O ser humano como um animal biologicamente cultural

Louis C. MorelliLouis C. Morelli – 1/9-set/2017

Good food for thought! Mas eu acrescentaria algo ao artigo. Dizer que a cultura é biológica leva a crer que a biologia criou a cultura pela primeira vez na Natureza, mas vou buscar fatos no passado quando ainda não existia a biológica organização da matéria para sugerir que cultura veio antes, seria uma constante universal. A formula universal para todos os sistemas naturais sugere que cultura é um nome para outra coisa existente mais profunda: a identidade de um sistema natural qualquer.

Como a formula demonstra, sistemas são o conjunto de partes especificas e funcionais inter-conetadas dentro de um involucro qualquer. A soma de informações de cada parte gera o sistema que tem mais informação do que todas suas partes separadas. Porem, como estas partes interagem entre si gerando sub-partes que também interagem, mais informações internas são geradas, as quais não são agregadas `as partes, porem são acrescentadas ao conjunto total de informações que é o sistema. Com isso, o sistema gera uma identidade própria, diferente e muito maior que a identidade de cada parte.

E’ esta identidade de sistema que controla o equilíbrio interno ( que vem da evolução do equilíbrio termodinâmico nos sistemas “não-vivos”) entre todos os seus elementos. E isto acontece em qualquer sistema natural, desde os mais simples como átomos, sistemas estelares, galácticos, vegetais, bacterianos, etc. Pois esta identidade destes sistemas simples, muitos antes da biologia aparecer, que evoluiu para cultura quando a humanidade criou sistemas sociais.

Vendo ” cultura” por esta perspectiva se entende melhor este fenômeno, pois vamos buscar suas raízes, suas causas primeiras desde o Big Bang. E assim encontramos explicação para algo que é dito no artigo mas fica difícil de engolir: que novos genes são produzidos para encaminhar ao homem cultural. Não se trata de novos genes, a função e seu mecanismo já existia disponível na nossa herança dos sistemas não-biológicos, bastava expressa-la. E também acabamos de criar outra definição para cultura: é a identidade de um sistema. Cultura também pode ser a sua mente em relacao ao seu corpo como sistema, ou ainda, cultura é uma espécie de software que permeia um sistema natural físico, o qual é o hardware. Mas tudo isso que digo é resultante da minha interpretação dos modelos teóricos da Matrix/DNA Theory e posso estar cometendo erros de interpretação.


O paragrafo notável do artigo que revela sua tese da cultura como produto biológico é o seguinte:

”  O ser cultural do homem deve ser entendido como biológico. Há mais do que um jogo de palavras na afirmação de que o homem é naturalmente cultural, ou ainda, de que a chave para a compreensão da natureza humana está na cultura e a chave para a da cultura está na natureza humana. O homem é a um só tempo, criatura e criador da cultura. Nas palavras de Morin (1973, p. 92), “o que ocorreu no processo de hominização foi uma aptidão natural para a cultura e a aptidão cultural para desenvolver a natureza humana”. Desse modo, “desaba o antigo paradigma que opunha natureza e cultura” (p. 94). Entretanto, apesar da força do argumento, mesmo várias décadas depois, ainda não se foi muito adiante.”

Origem da Vida: Video e Debate com Matrix/DNA

sábado, junho 3rd, 2017


Neste video ha um debate em que participo com muitos posts. Aqui farei o script dos posts e tentarei trazer os posts para ca…

 Post by Matt C – 6/3/2017
Louis Charles Morelli  – but there is no way to tell if there was an original propagation of light carrying genetic information, so the chances of you having discovered it I’d say are pretty slim. there are no astronomical bodies with the same configuration as a nucleotide. carbon atoms have not got the same configuration as any astronomical bodies, apart from solar systems in the fact that they both have a central round thing being orbited by several smaller presumably round things. I’ve looked on your website and it simply shows that you came up with your theory first and then looked for evidence for it which resulted in you making random slight parallels into evidence to fit your theory. your theory holds no logic, no credibility and no evidence.
1) there is no way to tell if there was an original propagation of light carrying genetic information
Matt C – I will answer with several posts, ok?
1) there are no astronomical bodies with the same configuration as a nucleotide
Louis Charles MorelliLouis Charles Morelli – 6/3/2017
Matt C – I will answer with several posts, ok?
1) there are no astronomical bodies with the same configuration as a nucleotide
Of course, not. I did not said that. Before explaining this in other words, Matt C, I need remember something. Sorry but our modern academic Sciences has a big hole in its method that is responsible for Science weakness today, as in the issue of diseases, etc. The big hole is about “natural systems”. For example, the Genoma Project was believing in ” one disease, one gene”. Venter discovered that it is not, each disease is due a network of spread genes in the DNA. But,… the DNA is a messy of millions systems, each one composed by a number of genes, so, the right is: “each disease, each genetic-system”. It happens that no Science field knows what is a real natural working system. If they knew it, they would be able to identificate and separating each genetic system, then, identifying the system producing each disease.
But, knowing what is a natural system is very easy, because Nature knows only one kind of system, which has been applied since the Big Bang for organizing matter/energy in a workable way, in architectures. This universal system is a formula, which we can translate it as a the must simplest diagram of software ( its appearance is simplest but its network hided all complexity we know in Nature. When you understand the whole thing, you learn to identifying what is hidden)).
It is like saying: ” All species of living things has in common, a biological formula, called DNA “. Then, you can say: ” All natural systems, be it electric-magnetic (atoms, etc.), mechanic (astronomic systems), biological ( living beings),… has in common, a universal DNA, a formula, called ( this is my chosen name, you can chose other), Matrix/DNA. What we know by a building block of DNA is merely the biological shape of a universal formula that is driving universal evolution since the Big Bang.) This formula makes the internal structure, the energetic circuit, the flow of informations, the systemic configuration, the parts and the nucleus of all known natural system.
Why the whole staff of academic and private Science did not get it ? Science began in the right way for humans, with the reductionist method, which is opposite, or complementary, to the systemic method. Our scientific instruments could grasp ( seeing the whole body) corpuscular structures, but not the network of connections among structures. There were some intuitions towards systems, like Margullis and its symbiotic theory, or Fritjof Capra, with “The Tao of Physics”. Then came Bertallanfy trying to do what Francis Bacon did with the reductionist method: a big initial theory of systems, a collection of everything that had some systemic appearance. But not knowing what is a system, how it is composed, how it works, where to grasp a synapse of connection between two parts, his big job stopped by century. Then, some Mathematicians and Physics, as Wiener, Rosemberg, etc, take the approach but thinking about systems as computational cybernetics. It is not this way that natural system works and is revealed. And nobody went back to Bertallanfy for resuscitating the systemic approach, the scientific knowledge is zero today. They are confusing systems with merely slices of processes inside a whole system.
I can’t say more in this post, but I have 30 years seeing the world, each natural phenomena, from this systemic perspective, always identifying the formula at each phenomena and getting a specific interpretation that fits very well in the big picture – from the Big Bang to consciousness. If you are interested in natural systems, you can tell here, we will continue in other posts.
So, you are right: there is no astronomical body with same configuration of nucleotide. I am saying that the system to which any astronomical body belongs has the configuration ( the same natural formula, or Matrix/DNA ) that has not a nucleotide, but a lateral base-pair of nucleotides with two sugars and four nitrogenous bases, which composition is a complete working system. But you need see over the table the model of an astronomical system, at the side of the Matrix/DNA formula, at the side of a nucleotide system, for understand it. Cheers…
( continuar respondendo os topicos abaixo)
3) carbon atoms have not got the same configuration as any astronomical bodies
4)you came up with your theory first and then looked for evidence for it which resulted in you making random slight parallels into evidence to fit your theory
5) your theory holds no logic, no credibility and no evidence.

cq33xxcq33xx2 days ago

so how life started?

Louis Charles MorelliLouis Charles Morelli – 6/3/2017

Ok, you are in a good track. You are not convinced by people that think inside the box. They think that knows how life started and you know that they doesn’t know. Maybe you find the answer thinking outside the box. i did it and I find an answer that makes sense. Let’s go trying it? Your own life started with a Big Bang, when the membrane’s spermatozoon exploded inside an ovule. if you put over the table the shapes of the Universe from the Big Bang till galaxies ( where cosmological evolution became biological evolution at Earth), and at the side, you put the shapes of your body from that big bang to morulae, blastulae, you will see the same shapes. So, if your own life started and evolved same way of the Universe, it means that life did not started at Earth, but at the first moment of the Universe. There was no origins of life here. Lol… never nobody said that, this is thinking outside the box, really
Texto-resposta para Jay C ( postou a uma semana atras), que nao foi publicado pelo site fora do ar:
Jay C – My two cents here. Hm Grraarrpffrzz explained Materialistic Evolution (ME) in a brilliant way and his counter-arguments about the Christian God showed that this belief does not make sense, but still you can save something of God. Pay attention that ME’s hypothesis only postergate the problem of DNA information to another question: where the RNA information came from? And that DNA replication explains DNA formation does not explain the formation of the first DNA or RNA, or any biological molecule. Where were at the physical world before life’s origins something that was replicating itself? Nobody answered this question. But your assertion that information from chemicals to life was a kind of message or code and message only comes from intelligence is not true. There is no genetic code, no message in the DNA. For explaining it let’s apply another question: There are 8 billion humans. Each human has something different from all others, so, we can say that each human is a unique and specific information. Something he/she will do different from all others. Could we say that Humanity ( the sum of 8 billion humans) is a code, or a message? No. DNA is a pile of millions of different individuals, the fundamental unit of information: a lateral base-pair of nucleotides. It happens that each lateral base-pair of nucleotideos is a system in itself. It is just the universal formula of natural systems, where the two sugars at the strands are F1 and F4, and the four bases are F2,F3,F6 and F7. A fifth base, uracil , is responsible for these systems reproductions into new systems. All these millions of systems are derivation from a universal template, like all humans are derivations of a human species shape. Since this formula is the template of the – not only Earth environment, but the whole inter-galactic environment – and biological organization of matter is merely a process of reproduction of the whole galactic system, the environment produces new copies of DNA’s units for to develop this process. So, there is no genetic code, there is no message, there is no origins of life and there is no abiogenesis. There is a universal reproduction of a unique system coming from the Big Bang, being transformed into new shapes (atoms>galaxies>RNA/DNA’s building blocks>cells>monkeys>…). Ok, at monkeys, materialistic evolution opens the door to a ex-machine being and here maybe a kind of God is possible. I will explain: Each human baby’s brain expresses consciousness at 6 or 8 month of embryognesis. But, you know, it is not the baby’s brain creating consciousness first time in the Universe, it already was existing at human species, outside the little universe of the embryo. It happens that we are seeing this ” consciousness” existing as potentiality and under evolution since the Big bang as the identity of any ancestor system. Consciousness was sleeping at atoms, dreaming at galaxies, beginning to wake up at cells and now it is a fetus or embryo inside humans heads, an embryo that still has no opened its own eyes for to see its own body. If human babies takes 6 or 8 months for expressing consciousness from its parents, and humans are the shape of the universal system here and now, it means that the ex-machine system takes astronomical 13,8 billion years. What is the problem? It is relativistic to size, time, etc. So, this universe is merely an agglomerate of galaxies like the placenta is an agglomerate of cells and inside this universal placenta is occurring a natural process of genetic reproduction of the unknown ex-machine conscious natural system existing beyond the universe. So, something from God is safe… yet. But, please, not the absurd Bible’s God, a pregnant mother and the father does not make interference at the work of the genes building their baby. Be happy that you ( as part of all conscious beings working just now at millions of galaxies ) will be one baby that will born at the end of this universal placenta, at the day of the Big Birth. ( but, ok, I only suggested to you a new theory based on Naturalistic Ex-Machine Evolution. Cheers…

Debate no NYT sobre beneficios/maleficios da Inteligencia Artificial

quarta-feira, maio 31st, 2017


December 5, 2016

Is Artificial Intelligence Taking Over Our Lives?

E meu comentario postado no debate ( na pagina do primeiro artigo: As Robots Replace Old Jobs, New Jobs Should Be Invented )

Louis Charles Morelli

New York, NY

Will the biological brain imposes its rules upon the electro mechanic brain or will be the opposite? Let’s see it:

1) At fifty years ago there was a biological brain that decided to build its copy with hard matter in a mechanistic fashion;

2) The mechanic brain was developed till getting its own mechanistic sensors, like cameras mimicking vision, etc. But there was a novelty here: the mechanistic brains’ sensors can see where human sensors can not, like the microscopic and astronomic levels;

3 Then, the biological brain ( still imposing his software with its rules) sent these sensors into micro devices exploring the world of atoms, molecules, and spatial devices exploring the space;

4) These sensors came back with new informations that the biological brain never knew about. Based on these informations, the biological brain rewrote the software, remodeling the hardware and sent back the brains’ robots to the micro and macro world. This process is being repeated till today.

But,… mechanistic sensors are racists, they selects some data and rejects another kind of data, which would not be selected by biological sensors. Without humans perceiving it, the mechanistic brain was changing inside the biological brain, the living vision of the world by the mechanistic vision of the world. Life and the universe’s theories describes it as machines. What do you think?

Minha eterna briga contra os buracos negros

segunda-feira, maio 8th, 2017


Estão tentando tirar uma foto do ralo que surge no centro de galaxias rotativas, pensando que vão fotografar um buraco negro, o mais fantasmagórico ser espacial que existe apenas na imaginação humana. Claro não pude deixar de dar meu piteco postando o comentário copiado abaixo:

How to take a picture of a black hole

Louis Morelli

Posted at 5/8/2017

The drain produced by the spirals of rotation of water at your sink, is a black hole? Galaxies are under rotations, they are spirals, there is a drain at their center… why the hell has human beings to see a drain as the ghost and complex black hole?
Produced by singularity? There was one unique moment of singularity in this universe, its first moment. Natural singularity never could happens again at any place in this universe. If it was possible, it should happened at the beginning when matter was to simpler and there was no systems yet, but then, the universe never would evolve.
Of course, at the center of a drain in a cloud of dust from nebulae of gaseous atoms or from the death of stars, must have heavy elements at fusion, like iron, etc. These elements are what makes the nucleus of astronomic bodies.
The theory that is pointing towards the existence of black holes as described like the cannibals of entire galaxies, etc, is Math lead to extreme intellectual masturbation. There are no such things. The astronomic models of Matrix/DNA Theory, suggesting all mechanisms for origins and death of such drains is more rational.
You are looking for photos of a natural drain, never will have photos of black holes, they does not exist…

Gravitação e a Discordancia da Matrix/DNA no Youtube

terça-feira, março 7th, 2017


Louis Charles Morelli Louis Charles Morelli – Mar-03/07/2017

My friend, since you says “the idea of how we think of mass and energy is flawed”, and you are a student, I can bet on you. I found a new and different world view applying different methods like comparative anatomy among non-living and living natural systems for understanding the formation of Amazon biosphere. The final results is a totally different history than this academic world view built by the methods of Physics and Math. So, my suggestion to you: do not permit to be indoctrinated, think and try out of the box. I am not saying that my world view is the most correct, only that it shows there are others rational alternatives. My models are suggesting that there is a link between cosmological and biological evolution. So, the first living cell is merely evolution from atoms and astronomic systems. There is a universal formula ( see it at my website) inside all natural systems, so, DNA – the universal formula of living things – is evolution of this formula that also built atoms and galaxies. I call it Matrix/DNA. I found the beginning of this formula at the Big Bang, in shape of light waves ( see the electromagnetic spectrum with the formula at my website). But my interpretation is that light has no energy, neither mass, but a force, like our thoughts, mind, has a force that moves our bodies. When the wave of light propagates into spacetime is same thing when your own body is born and propagates into space time, growing. Advancing into dark matter ( or other name for space’s substance) light produces or creates friction and this friction is energy. When a light wave is established it separates portions of dark-matter plus energy which will be parts of a working natural system – the first atom and from here, galaxies, cells systems, etc. Then, every natural system like our own bodies has this internal field of energy which produces the electromagnetic field. And this field is responsible by the effects that they are calling “gravity”. Never the big force produced by astronomic bodies could making any effect on small things like apples or papers. And if there is curved spacetime, it is not between a tree and the floor… think about it… Keep opened mind and you can correct the bad ways that are deriving our Science into fantasies, like multiverse, black holes, vacuum vibration,etc. Cheers…

Debate com a Matrix/DNA no Science/AAAS

quarta-feira, fevereiro 22nd, 2017


Earliest mollusk probably looked like a spiky slug


A tree mimics exactly the shape of Milk Way because it was created by this galaxy. A cell system also has the same number of organelles as the number of different astronomic bodies. And there is more: each organelle performs same systemic function as each astronomic system. But, we can see it only when we know the universal Matrix/DNA formula that built all natural systems. So, for a better understand about the first mollusc shape and functions we must have on the table the matrix formula and the exactly model of the building blocks of our creator, this astronomic system – both are at my website… but still it is a theory..


Correlations without causation

Endurance of stable shapes i.e celestial bodies are spherical due to their gravity, just like there is a limited number of shapes in organisms that provide practicality and durability. But this doesn’t connect the two systems in any way.


No, Kotsios, there is no apophenia here. It is perceiving meaningful patterns (the common at genetic inheritances) within not random data, but within data as evolutionary links. Yours scholar world view does not see these patterns because learned to be blind to the connection between cosmological and biological evolution. So, there is a big hole in their wiring of neurons.
You does not see the correlation because yours causation (origins of life) is not the first causation (origins of the universe).
If this astronomic system (Milk Way) does not connect with the first biological systems, what and who created biological systems: Some supernatural forces and elements coming from outside the materialistic realm of this galaxy? And remember: such parent, such offspring, no matter the differences of environments and big mutations. By the way, if you do not know my theoretical astronomic model and the explanation how it fits exactly as the unit of information of the DNA, you never will accept that we were created by stellar system and not by dust of stars…

All you did, was to replace a supernatural creator with the Milky Way.
Celestial organisation is based on gravity.
Biological organisation is based on chemistry.

Gravity is very weak to act on the molecular level and chemistry requires much more proximity than the celestial distances allow.

There is no connection between the origins of the two systems, besides their existence in the same universe


No creators, it is all about our ancestrals. Galaxies,atoms, are our ancestrals.
The human body pressure and homeostasis acts over organs and flows, it is also to weak at atomic and molecular levels. But was not gravity neither body pressure that organized matter into systems. You are missing the essence, the code, which is the formula at my website.

Organic chemistry emerged with a new state of matter – the liquid – which was not existent at galaxies’ formation. But, chemistry alone, leads matter to eternal equilibrium, never to compose working systems.

Th new planetary surface environment, different from the space, and new state of matter caused the big mutations in biological systems. While our direct astronomic ancestor was a closed system, we happened to be opened systems.
If you believe there are no connections between the system you live inside and was here producing your past ancestors and the system you are, you need to appeal to a mystic agent, like a magical randomness.. or magical supernaturals. We do need such jumps of imaginations anymore..

You forgot about prions, viruses, RNA based life, etc.

You forgot that there are known reasons for the shapes of bodies in space, and, organ functions, etc…and that they do not share reasons.

Saying “Astronomic system” and “function” assumes things that are entirely unsupported by any evidence whatsoever.


You are seeing patterns that are not there.


You are also calling a “feeling” a “theory”.

In science, a theory is an explanation that has been tested, to falsify it, and passed the tests…and so forth,

…..not merely what a stoner says after seeing a Bohr Diagram and thinking…wow, that looks like our solar system!


No TJ, I did not forget these things, all them were hardly and perfect inserted in the same evolutionary lineage, from this astronomic system to complex biological organisms. Nature has used a unique formula for all biological systems (DNA) because Nature has used a unique formula for “all” natural systems since the beginning of this Universe. I can’t believe you can not understand this obligatory evolutionary detail. If all galaxies are similar like all biological systems, it is because all galaxies has a common essence like DNA. Same for all species of atoms systems. The evolutionary tree does not begins with archaea, fungus, but, with atoms. That’s why we can find all biological properties (metabolism,sexual reproduction,life’s cycles,etc) at atoms ( as electromagnetic fashion) and astronomic systems ( as mechanic fashion), expressed or not due evolutionary phases.
If you can’t see the evolutionary sequitur from a galaxy to a cell system you will need some mystical belief, like “spontaneous origins of life by chance”…
There is a universal evolution of a unique system in this 13,8 billion years, so, since it is a unique evolutionary lineage, must have repetitive universal patterns among all shapes of this universal natural system.
Science took the name ” theory” from philosophy (the Greeks coined the word). I am using the word in its real meaning and science is not the owner of this word

Religious Forum: Participacao da Matrix/DNA Theory

quarta-feira, novembro 30th, 2016


Comentario/resposta postado no Forum “Religious Forum”

( notar que registrei uma conta através da minha conta do Google, pondo meu e-mail e o nome :Louis Morelli (nao foi feito passyword, username, etc).

Question About Evolution

Discussion in ‘Science and Technology‘ started by Animore, in 11/30/2016 at 7:14 PM.

I know this is a stupid question, but bear with me here. This is not skepticism of any kind, but a mere question.
If a cause of natural selection is mutation, how would that work, if mutation is a random process? I’m stuck here. If natural selection is adaptation, then how could genetic mutation be a part in it if it’s random? Thanks in advance.


Louis Morelli New Member

Animore, I think I got your problem, because it is my problem also. Environment is not static, it is changing, and not by random, the changes obeys the laws of Physics. So, will be adapted the mutation that follow laws, that walks and dance in syntony with the environment’s movement. The academic official understanding of evolution is not the knowledge of the long chain of causes and effects that’s coming and advancing since the Big Bang ( and since before it because there was an ex-machine chain producing the Big Bang). We can’t know if is there evolution, or, for example, if we are watching a merely process of reproduction of the thing that was existing before the Big Bang. We are inside this chain, rolling with the chain, we have no view about where it came from and where it is going. As says the Godel’s incompleteness theorem: ” Nobody can knows the thru about a system standing inside it”. Then, we have an academic official “theory” believing in evolution.

I think that natural selection selects what is naturally designed. Natural design is the force producing all mutations. A random mutation should be produced by something coming outside the long chain (which is nature itself), so, a non-natural force. I think that due the existence of another theory, which I think is more rational than the Modern Synthesis from Darwinian theory. It is called ” The Universal Matrix of Natural Systems and Life’s Cycles”, or Matrix/DNA Theory, which is not known by the academic world.
Matrix/DNA built an astronomical model which is exactly equal an unity of information of the DNA – a base-pair of nucleotides. it is the theoretical model that should be the evolutionary ( or reproductive?) link between cosmological and biological evolution. So, if at 4 billion years ago occurred a mutation in the way that terrestrial atoms were doing their connections and producing water, rocks,air, and went to producing RNA, DNA… which already was existing 10 billion years ago at the astronomical system to which this planet belongs,…it was not atomic mutations by random, but, by natural design. If you are interested in seeing this theory, google it. Cheers,…