Archive for the ‘Divulgação do Website e da Matrix/DNA’ Category

Material Escolar Usando Figuras com fonte deste Website: PDF – Teoria do Big Bang

quarta-feira, novembro 15th, 2017

xxxx

Material do Ensino Medio, contem 3 figuras do meu website

DO BIG-BANG AO URÂNIO:

As Nucleossínteses Primordial, Estelar e Explosiva – Uma abordagem para o Ensino Médio.

http://www1.pucminas.br/imagedb/documento/DOC_DSC_NOME_ARQUI20140721092520.pdf

Luis Adriano Pedrosa

PONTIFÍCIA UNIVERSIDADE CATÓLICA DE MINAS GERAIS

Programa de Mestrado Profissional em Ensino de Ciências e Matemática

Área: Física

E o link para este PDF no meu arquivo:

file:///C:/Users/austr/Downloads/DO%20BIG-BANG%20AO%20URÂNIO%20%20PUC.pdf

Publicacao de Scientific Papers: O monopolio do Peer-Review e os tres open-acess

sábado, novembro 11th, 2017

xxx

Este e’ mais um dos buracos no sistema capitalista onde um pequeno numero de capitalistas desconhecidos lucram cerca de 10 bilhoes de dolares enquanto a populacao nem sabe que existe este mercado correndo tanto dinheiro.

Argumento contra meus criticos:

O peer-review nao reproduz, nao testa experimentos cientificos. Dos 100% de scientific papers contend experimentos apenas 6% tem sido reproduzidos por outros que nao os autores. Qual a credibilidade destas publicacoes de experimentos, e do proprio peer-review em si?

Traduzir artigo abaixo como memorizacao do assunto peer-review que sempre estao criticando a Matrix/DNA. Tres maiores corporacoes (Elsevier, Springer, …. ) dominam o setor lucrando 10 bilhoes de anos e extorquindo principalmente as universidades e demais leitores como eu que precisam pagar para ler os papers, ou fazer subscricoes. Tres outras estao no estilo de open-acess, pouco lucro obtem, publicam artigos cientificos sem peer-review, mas sao bastante difundidas ( The Public Library of Science, Academia.edu, PLOS, Arxiv org.)

https://venturebeat.com/2014/06/06/dylans-desk-watch-this-multi-billion-dollar-industry-evaporate-overnight/

Dylan's Desk: Watch this multi-billion-dollar industry evaporate overnight

Pesquisar open-acess sem peer-review:

Academy.edu

PLOS ( tem algum peer-review?)

Arxiv.org

Uma tentativa de iniciar a introduzir a formula da Matrix/DNA na pratica – Voluntario ao setor de ideias desenvolvimentistas da ONU

segunda-feira, outubro 30th, 2017

xxxx

Ideas For Us Org. – Uma Ong atrelada `a ONU, com sede em Orlando

https://ideasforus.org/

Me candidatei como voluntario e como motive enviei o comentario abaixo. (verificar se vem resposta via e-mail)

Name: Louis Charles Morelli

Application= 10/30/2017

Nature has applied everywhere the same kind of formula for organizing matter into working systems, from atoms to plants to galaxies to human bodies. We find this pattern template like a diagram of software as a universal pattern, inserted inclusive as the building blocks of DNA. The entire human production and our relations to this biosphere could be automated and optimized if designed upon this formula. because, at the same time the formula designs organisms as opened systems, it can work as a closed system, where all operations are automatized and recycled. So, every time we observes humans economic activity and makes comparisons with the deep natural meanings under the formula we perceive that things could be made in a different way, we have different ideas. Since that you does not know the formula and its meanings because it is not largely published, I would like to know the issues that the organization is trying to solve, maybe I can make contributions or at least bringing on more food for thought. A briefly introduction to formula is at my website, http//theuniversalmatrix.com , if you have a time, please look there, and I can answer any question. Cheers…

Matrix/DNA Website: 10 Anos Caminhando Lado a Lado com a Ciencia (2008-2018)

segunda-feira, outubro 9th, 2017

xxxx

Matrix/DNA Website: 10 Anos Caminhando com a Ciencia

Matrix/DNA Website: 10 Anos Caminhando com a Ciencia (2008-2018)

E milhoes de visitantes agora sabem da nossa existencia. Uma nova visao do mundo, um novo e sublime significado para nossa existencia, uma mensagem de uniao inteligente, o sonho de deixar aos jovens um mundo melhor do que recebemos, uma instropeccao para testar sua correcao, uma luta por espaco, porque as visoes ocupando espacos nao deram certo…

Um Hino as potencias do homem, da mulher, do jovem, da crianca,… um brado retumbante:

“Voce pode! Nos Podemos! Vamos la’…”

Texto Padrão da Matrix/DNA para polemizar todo anuncio sobre “Origens da Vida”

quarta-feira, setembro 20th, 2017

xxxx

Texto a ser usado e melhorado em toda ocasião que aparecer o tema “origens da vida”. Com as respostas, críticas e refutações vou melhorando o texto. A seguir vai uma lista dos links onde a mensagem foi postada.

There was no “origins of life” if the essential building blocks of all biological systems (mistakenly called “living beings”) are exactly a microscopic copy of the building blocks of galactic systems, and if this galactic system has produced biological systems applying the same process of genetics. There is a new theory suggesting astronomic models, DNA’s building blocks models, a model of the evolutionary link between cosmological and biological evolution, how the complex properties of biological systems exists working at astronomical systems, and DNA is merely the biological counterpart of a universal formula Nature has used for organizing matter into systems, from atoms to galaxies to human brains. This is rational: we are not product of some powerful god coming here creating crocodiles by magics neither product of an infinite Nothing that produces Michael Jacksons throughout billions accidents at billion light years. Worst: there is no creation and no evolution, but, merely a genetic process of reproduction of the unknown thing that triggered the Big Bang… and we are in the middle of this process… ( See “The Universal Matrix/DNA of All Natural Systems and Life’s Cycle”).

Renda para websites pela publicidade, Contador de Usuarios: Como funciona

sábado, setembro 9th, 2017

xxxx

Blog Egrana Afiliados – Como Ganhar Dinheiro na internet

http://ganhardinheironainternet.egrana.com.br/

Sistema de mediacao entre websites e anunciantes, informa os precos pagos, etc.

EDITORA VÍRTUA AFILIADOS

http://www.editoravirtua.com.br/

 

CONTADOR DE USUARIOS ONLINE

http://www.blogutils.net/olct/

Aparece usuarios online no website, gratis

Buscando o Publico Alvo: Desinteresse dos estudantes por ciências – por disciplinas e países

sexta-feira, agosto 11th, 2017

xxxxx

Pesquisa em PDF. Ver principalmente as conclusões finais (pag 144)

http://roseproject.no/network/countries/brazil/bra-caldeira-tolentino-neto.pdf

Existe uma organização internacional que faz a pesquisa em 40 países:

http://www.ils.uio.no/english/rose/

Filosofos: Como Interessar o Publico no Seu Tema?

sábado, agosto 5th, 2017

xxxx

Why Philosophers Fail to Influence Public Debate—and How They Can Do Better

http://quillette.com/2017/08/02/philosophers-fail-influence-public-debate-can-better/

We all know that philosophers are expert thinkers but most philosophers, and especially moral philosophers, want to change the world as well. As Plato noted, once one has ascended to the pinnacle of wisdom, or at least successfully defended a PhD thesis, it is hard to resist the temptation to come back down again and help to spread the light to others.

However, for most of us, the idea of actually succeeding at this is little more than a dream. Attempts to get heard often end up backfiring or simply proving a waste of time and energy. Even philosophers whose work is in areas of real public interest, such as applied ethics, can struggle to get a hearing above the noise of pundits, preachers and politicians whose views, though ill-considered and even inconsistent, are far easier on the ear and offer people a sense of certainty in a baffling world.

At a recent workshop on Personal Identity and Public Policy held at Oxford, we considered what to do about this problem. Our shared interest was in what makes people – well, people. In particular, what makes me the same person when I am young as when I am old. The answer to this question is vital to many issues, from health care to criminal justice, emerging technologies to the diagnosis of death. However, these are often issues on which people, including doctors, lawyers and scientists, have already made up their minds. So why should anyone care what philosophers think about them?

Whose problems are these anyway?

Here’s an example. Should people be punished for crimes they committed in the distant past? It seems pretty obvious that we should only punish a person for a crime if we are reasonably convinced that they are the same person who committed that crime. However, on many views of personal identity, once enough time has passed between the commission of the offence and the punishment, then, even if the criminal is still alive, they will no longer be the same person that they were and so could not deserve punishment.

One critical issue for philosophers is that having considered a problem like this for many years, we tend to think about it in fundamentally different ways to people coming to it for the first time. For us, there is nothing wrong with asking questions such as ‘is there really a moral distinction between punishing somebody many years after they have committed a crime, and punishing someone who never committed any crimes to begin with’. However, for many people such questions appear heretical at best and incomprehensible at worst.

Therefore, before we can hope to engage in genuine public debate, and still be taken seriously, we need to find ways of addressing problems that people actually have. To articulate views in a way that can have an impact it is necessary that they are located within an area of debate for which their relevance is clear and easy to understand. Furthermore, while philosophers like to deal with arguments and arguments alone, most non-philosophers deal mainly in conclusions. A view, no matter how well expressed and cogent it may be, whose implications are unclear or unacceptable to a mass audience may well be worth pursuing academically, but will not be of wider interest – at least not without a lot of hard work.

So, while, for philosophers, there is a simple matter of principle here, there is no chance of making any progress unless we recognise that the conclusion that rapists and murders should avoid being convicted of their crimes is probably a step too far. Best then to restrict oneself, at least in the early stages, to cases in which our conclusions appear less outrageous – for instance to crimes that depended more upon the identity of the criminal to begin with, such as fraud or conspiracy.

Making friends – in high places

The next problem philosophers face is that, much as we hate to admit it, we don’t have all the answers. Getting moral philosophy right is an important part of good decision making, but it is only one part. Public debates, however, tend to focus on a whole package, means, motivation and opportunity, and if philosophers cannot find ways of speaking to all these things our opinions will only ever play a marginal role.

A first question is whether philosophers tend to agree amongst themselves. Let’s return to the issue of criminal responsibility. As I mentioned earlier, some scholars take the view that one is simply not the same person in one’s old age as in one’s youth, one is merely a ‘successor self’. This view tends to be supported by those who believe that personal identity over time is a matter of ‘psychological continuity’, the degree to which our memories, intentions, beliefs, desires and personality traits vary over time. Given enough time almost all of us change psychologically, so philosophers who take this view find it easy to conclude that, in at least some cases, it is morally wrong to punish somebody for crimes from their distant past.

What of philosophers who do not share this view? The main alternative is ‘animalism’, the idea that personal identity consists in being the same biological organism over time. On this view, it is almost impossible, barring certain radical medical interventions, that somebody is not the same person in their old age as they were in their youth. However, many who take this view find, as a result, that personal identity over time is not so morally significant as we might think. Sure, punishing somebody for a historical offence is not the same thing as punishing an entirely different person, but why should their continuity as a biological organism matter to us when so many other morally interesting facts about them, such as their personality and behaviour, might have changed? So at least amongst philosophers, there is broad agreement about the conclusion that we should often not punish people for historical offences, even though there is less agreement on why this is so.

Building bridges outside of philosophy can be more difficult. While philosophers often find common ground with certain others groups, such as psychologists, sociologists and even criminologists, others who may have more of an impact on public debate, like economists and lawyers, have very well-defined conventions and norms.

It is invariably easier to influence a debate when someone is already interested in what you have to say, (procurar o publico certo), and more people are going to be interested in what philosophers have to say if this can easily express it in terms that are relevant to them and carry clear implications for the kinds of decisions they face. Often, it is only in trying to engage others that we find people who are prepared to listen and, through talking with them, find better ways to tell them what you have to say.

Getting one’s hands dirty

So, if philosophy is to live the dream of influencing public debate then philosophers must think a lot more about what we are saying, how we are saying it, who we are saying it to and why they might care. However, there is still one more thing that needs to be done, the hard bit, actually getting out there and saying it. This leaves philosophers with probably the biggest problem of all, where to start.

Is it better to write a book and become the ‘go-to academic’ on an issue in the hope that people will come and ask you about it, to talk to relevant policymakers and find out what they most want to hear or to take to the streets and shout at the top of one’s voice? Of course, this is not a question that can be answered once and for all. However, one useful proposal is often to find those people who one can influence most easily and who carry most influence over others. If this is a well-informed general public, then write a book, or better yet a series of blog posts. If it is a small group of specialist policy makers then go to them directly – sometimes it can be surprising how interested they can be (especially if they took a class or two in philosophy at university). Finally, however, if what one has to say is too big and too important to be left for others to help communicate it, then it’s probably time to get behind those barricades.

Anyone care to join us?

Livro, Artigos em Jornais

domingo, julho 9th, 2017

xxxx

 

http://www.editoravirtua.com.br/comprar/curso-como-ser-redator-freelancer/N1vVCrg7mh/editora/

.$name.

O Centro Para Efetivo Altruismo: Humanos Tentando se Desviarem da Extincao

sábado, maio 6th, 2017

xxxx

Um grupo de intelectuais contando com bilionarios como Ellon Musk fundaram varias organizacoes nao-lucrativas cujos links se pode descobrir a partir deste link abaixo. Uma das metas desta particular organizacao e’:

  • Promover o desenvolvimento do bem-estar de todos os humanos, como um internacional intelectual projeto, fazendo de bom o que a revolucao cientifica fez na busca da verdade.

( – to make the advancement of the wellbeing of all a worldwide intellectual project, doing for the pursuit of good what the Scientific Revolution did for the pursuit of truth.)

Centre for Effective Altruism

https://www.centreforeffectivealtruism.org/

Material conhecido da organizacao:

  • Assisti o video da abertura da conferencia de 2016
  • Comecei a assistir o video ” closing conference 2016…

Claro que eu gostaria de participar dos planejamentos e nas obras de campo. Sendo isso impossivel, ao menos enviei meu recado:

 

Meu Email enviado atraves de contactos:

Louis C. Morelli – 4/6/2017

I have discovered an important detail about natural altruism, maybe it will help your goal.
In a perfect natural mechanist closed system (like a stellar and galactic systems), all parts are extremely altruistic in relation to the good of the system. It happens that the system is extremely selfish – it cut relations with external world, closing the doors to its own evolution, etc.
And it happens that this system is encrypted into our genetics and into the whole Earth’s biosphere – because this system is our last non-living common ancestral, so, our creator.
I discovered that human species does not know what is a real and complete natural system when I extracted the flow of energy/information of all living and non-living natural systems and got a formula that can be expressed as a kind of software. But, the surprising thing is that this formula is just also the configuration of a fundamental unit of information of DNA,
If a formula built DNA, atoms and galaxies, it means that these systems had a primitive and simplest DNA. So, I discovered that Biological Evolution, life’s origins, etc., was merely an evolutionary sequitur from Cosmological Evolution that began with the Big Bang ( the formula is there, at the first second in shape of electromagnetic radiation, or light wave).
The biggest risk to human species – besides a nuclear war, planet’s transformations, destructive virus – is what is happening just now: we are reproducing our wrongdoing ancestral, the whole biosphere is becoming a mechanistic closed system and humans will be merely a piece in this gear. Our mind, or consciousness is going to be prisoner, suffering a premature abortion before its maturation and final birth. We are going towards the Brave New World under the Big Queen, or Big Mother ( like insect’s societies went).
We have one way for salvation: knowing the thru about the system that created this biosphere and is surrounding us, knowing its big mistake ( becoming a closed system) for taking the track towards opened systems, and knowing what’s consciousness and where it came from, for keeping it free. The moral code from this new world view is effective for driving humans to the right direction, since that we are 8 billions sub/half/conscious genes building a new and super-conscious system.
But there is the risk of premature abortion and death.
I know that my English is no good ( I am an American citizen that was living at Amazon jungle doing my research about the systems composing virginal biosphere), I am not a scientist, and things are too hard for me, I can’t communicate or testing my theoretical models that are scientifically falsifiable. But, I am very interested about the survivor and mental evolution of my species, and if you are too, I have something new. My website is
http://the universalmatrix.com
Any question, please, call me… Cheers…