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

Exemplos de como os autores das grandes teorias cientificas não pensavam nas aplicações praticas que produziram mais tarde

sexta-feira, fevereiro 16th, 2018

xxxx

O excelente artigo com link abaixo nos induziu a enviar um comentário no dia fev/16/18 (aguardando moderação) mas também forneceu um resumo bem articulado do que preciso como resposta aos que me tem requerido alguma imediata aplicação pratica da Teoria da Matrix/DNA, por isso copio aqui o texto a seguir:

“Maxwell não estava pensando no rádio, no radar e na televisão quando rabiscou as equações fundamentais do eletromagnetismo.  Newton nem sonhava com voos espaciais ou satélites de comunicações quando compreendeu pela primeira vez o movimento da Lua; Roentgen não cogitava em diagnóstico médico quando investigou uma radiação penetrante tão misteriosa que ele a chamou de raio X; Curie não pensava na terapia do câncer quando extraiu a duras penas quantidades diminutas de rádio do meio de toneladas de uranita; Fleming não planejava salvar as vidas de milhares de pessoas com antibióticos quando observou um círculo sem bactérias ao redor de uma formação de mofo; Watson e Crick não imaginavam a cura de doenças genéticas quando tentavam decifrar a difratometria dos raios X do DNA; Rowland e Molina não planejavam implicar os CFCs na diminuição da camada de ozônio quando começaram a estudar o papel dos halogêneos na fotoquímica estratosférica”.

Esse texto foi escrito por Carl Sagan no livro ” O Mundo Assombrado por Demônios”, ao tentar responder as pessoas comuns que reclamam que as pesquisas e estudos científicos são apenas curiosidades dos cientistas sem ter em mente qualquer aplicação pratica imediata e que custam muito dinheiro publico. mas como disse Sagan, ” … e’ a tentativa permanente e insistente de entender o Universo do micro ao macro que tem sido a mola propulsora das Ciências Aplicadas.

https://universoracionalista.org/por-que-e-necessario-fazermos-divulgacao-cientifica/

Por que é necessário fazermos divulgação científica?

E meu comentario enviado ao artigo:

Existe um motivo bastante forte para motivar a curiosidade cientifica, penso eu. A mente humana cresce quando absorve informações da natureza universal ate ao ponto em que ela pode se tornar a mente do Universo quando absorver todas as suas informações. E o método mais confiável e disponível ao homem para conhecer de fato a natureza e’ a Ciência. Não precisamos imaginar uma mente crescida ao tamanho do Universo, pois esta coleção mental de informações pode ser nanotecnológica, assim como o microscópico DNA tem todas as informações do corpo. E agora me ocorre que se não e’ racional ser adepto de qualquer destas religiões atuais, também por isso não e’ racional ser ateu, pois e’ possível que alguma forma de vida inteligente a bilhões de anos atras já tenha alcançado este nível universal e portanto existiria já’ uma consciência universal, cósmica, a qual, para evitar distorções de conceitos humanos, não deveria ser chamada de “deus”.

Penso que, assim como o estomago precisa de alimentos, a mente e’ um novo sistema natural de material abstrato aos nossos sensores que também precisa de alimento, e seu alimento só pode ser informações que também são conceitos abstratos ( as formulas e modelos teóricos da minha cosmovisão Matrix/DNA estão sugerindo que a mente ou consciência humana e’ uma especie de embrião na forma de um funcional sistema natural modelado pela mesma formula que modelou a estrutura do cérebro e todos os outros sistemas naturais, porem, mentes de sistemas são as entidades dos sistemas paralelas aos corpos de massa e energia assim como o são o software e hardware num computador). E assim como o corpo extrai uma minima quantidade dos alimentos para fazer parte de sua estrutura no crescimento, a mente também filtra dentre todas as informações que humanos absorvem, apenas as relacionadas `a natureza e dos processos de nossas relações com o mundo externo. Todas as especies que não desenvolveram a curiosidade pelo mundo natural não alcançaram o nível racional e foram ou estão sendo extintas, não sera diferente com humanos. Nos insistimos com que pessoas desinteressadas se motivem para as Ciências porque também amamos nossos semelhantes e claro, queremos seu progresso e a sua salvação.

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.