Antes do Comeco
Vídeo inesquecível de longa duração, narrando as muitas transformações porque passou a formação do planeta Terra, da Lua, mostrando principalmente como estamos por um fio em cima de uma bola de magma incandescente e como a vida aqui se mantem de forma tao fugaz. Apesar desta historia ser ainda uma teoria – a acadêmica – e diferenciar da nossa teoria da Matrix/DNA, e’ um filme e com muitos recursos técnicos, muito interessante para ver e repetir.
Construindo o Planeta Terra
E meu comentário postado no video:
Louis Charles Morelli – Set/06/2016
E outro comentário sobre o assunto:
Conhecido nos meios academicos como aguerrido evolucionista, o professor biologo e autor do Pharyngula, PZ Myers, mais uma vez se mexe inquieto ao ler um scientific paper sugerindo que o orgasmo feminino tenha uma utilidade no processo da reproducao, por isso, ele teria sido criado por um proposito. Ora, para os evolucionisas e ateistas, nada no Universo pode ter sido feito por algum plano previo, a toda pergunta sobre o porque existe tal fenomeno natural, a resposta sera sempre a mesma: Nao existe razao para isto, pois isto e’ justamente acaso e circunstancias”. Entao a reacao de Myers ao cientista autor do “paper” foi exposta neste interessante e bem informado artigo com link abaixo, sempre repetindo nas suas proprias palavras o orgasmo feminino e todo orgasmo simplesmente existe porque existe, ou, nas suas proprias palavras “there is no reason for it, it’s just chance and circumstance”.
E’ possivel que Myers esteja correto, porque nao? Alias, a maioria dos professores universitarios hoje acreditam nisso e estao ensinando isto `a geracao de humanos que vao governar os destinos da Humanidade amanha. Ninguem tem nenhum fato comprovado, cientifico, racional, para derrubar esta teoria. Mas eu,,, sempre que me faco uma pergunta do porque aqui nesta biosfera existe um fenomeno natural, eu saio for a da pele de humano e subo as estrelas para olhar de la’ e dar uma resposta. Pois como estabelece o teorema de Goethe, ” ninguem, estando dentro de um sistema, pode saber a verdade do sistema”. E eu vejo la no ceu sombras, imagens esparsas e confuses as quais tento interpreter. E dentre estas imagens penso ter visto aquelas que explicam porque existe aqui estes curiosos fenomenos do orgasmo, sexo, reproducao, etc. Entao, nao pide resistir e postei um comentario no artigo do Myers expressando minha diferente resposta, mas fiz questao de salientar que nao acredito nela, apenas acho que e’ a mais racional, por enquanto.
Vale a pena ver, e aqui abro mais este capitulo para pesquisar este tema. Existem no artigo links para trabalhos que precisam serem lidos.
The mystery of the orgasm
Perhaps we need to think more about human psychology. There’s an interesting phenomenon that goes on all the time when people read about evolution: they shoehorn the observations into some functional purpose. There’s just something so satisfying to our minds to be able to say “that thing exists for this particular reason”, and we find it frustrating to say, “there is no reason for it, it’s just chance and circumstance”. It shouldn’t be so, but our minds just try to fit everything into that particular mold.
Now watch: some people — maybe even you — are going to now try and develop an adaptive scenario for why having brains that work that way is a good thing. We try to build a teleological framework around everything, and so it must have a purpose that is being fulfilled, and we rarely stop to think about whether it may be actually limiting us. Maybe it’s not good. Maybe there are other ways that brains can work, and this particular mode of thinking is just a clumsy kludge that resulted from the gradual agglomeration of stuff, mostly unselected, that built up the substrate for human cognition.
A case in point: the female orgasm. There’s a new paper out on the subject, and there are lots of articles being written on it, and they generally start out by pointing out that there’s something puzzling about the phenomenon: shouldn’t it have, you know, a reason for existence? It can’t just be, it has to do something useful for women, or reproduction, or pair bonding, or any of dozens of hypotheses that have been proposed.
Perhaps we need to think more about human psychology. There’s an interesting phenomenon that goes on all the time when the modern academic mindset read about evolution: they shoehorn the observations into the nihilist world view’s purpose which is ” there is no reason for it, it’s just chance and circumstance”. There is this teleological framework around everything, and not maybe but it is for sure, it is not good. Universal absolute answer has proved to be disastrous by all religions which says same thing: ” There is no mystery, it is the whish of God”. So, female orgasm is not a mystery, we have the answer. But, always happened that the evolution of human knowledge should that all absolute answer were wrong. For instance, the modern knowledge of Astronomy is suggesting that orgasm is product of a driven tunneled evolution, so, it has a naturalistic purpose.
Life was produced here by this astronomic system. Or someone knows some force or element that came from beyond this system surrounding us which produced this planet also? Of course, not. There are two possible reasons for explaining this event:
There are no scientific proved fact debunking any of this alternatives. But, psychologically, humans has the tendency to believe in one and refusing the other. Ok, Mr. PZ Myers is human so he choose one, and the first one. I am human and I bet at the second.
I have built a different theoretical model of astronomic systems that connects evolutionary this astronomic system to these biological systems. So, every biological property existing here that was approved by natural selection for to be established into the evolutionary tree, must be existing in its simplest shape as expressed or not expressed potential force/element composing the astronomic system theoretical model. So, the questions now is: why is there – at biological systems – female orgasm? Why is there sex? Why is there orgasm? Why is there reproduction? All answers are there, in this theoretical model – which still was not debunked by any scientific proved fact. The model of LUCA – the last universal common ancestor – which is this astronomic system, was hermaphrodite and had orgasms, but, for getting it, it was necessary that its female and male organs should be stimulated, by the natural course of its forces flawing inside its internal systemic circuit, a property of our ancestors thermodynamic systems. The modern son of LUCA is not an individual human, but the Humanity, and Humanity still is hermaphrodite. Can you explain why and how genes are counting the total number of men and women for to know if the next one will be female or male for keeping this marvelous balance through millions years?
But there is a third hidden alternative.
3 – The two alternatives above are non complete or wrong.
The difference between me and Myers is that I consider the third alternative, so, I have no beliefs that mine is the ultimate absolute answer. I have no beliefs at all, I am still looking all hypothesis and theories.
Pesquisa sobre o fenômeno Barbara Hand Clow e Assuntos Relacionados
Surpreendente esta matéria e autora! A visão de mundo da MatrixLight/DNA tem sugerido que neste Universo esta’ ocorrendo um processo de reprodução genética de um sistema natural e auto-consciente que existia/existe antes do Big Bang e o qual deflagrou o Big Bang como um ato similar ao da fecundação. Nos seriamos aqui nesta região e tempo do Universo, 8 bilhões de genes semi-conscientes que estamos construindo alguma parte do embrião de consciência cósmica. Desse fato se deduz que a atual consciência humana ainda é muito primordial, estando ainda ou em fase embrionaria oi na fase de recém-nascido que nem sequer abriu ainda seu próprio olho ( a terceira visão). Agora me deparo com uma autora cujos escritos parecem bater fielmente com a Matrix/DNA Theory. A autora tem uma origem incomum: é filha de cherokees cruzados com celtas. Seu avo de origem celta era uma especie de guardião-mor da cultura e sagradas escrituras da mitologia celta, e ele transmitiu esse conhecimento para a curiosa neta. Esta desenvolveu certas capacidades hipnóticas e sugere que consegue retroagir no inconsciente terrestre do tempo até 150.000 anos atras (!!!) e retorna com um extenso trabalho de itens jamais pensados pelo homem moderno. Registro aqui esta breve leitura introdutória rápida para quando tiver tempo pesquisar esta autora e tentar ler seus livros.
” Considering the Western rational mind, its development begins around 2500 years ago during the Golden age of Greece and culminated during the Renaissance 500 years ago. The Western rational mind is merely the most recent advance in human consciousness. Before rationalism, the mythical mind first appears around 10,000 years ago and superseded the magical mind around 5,000 years ago. Back much farther in time, the archaic hunter-gathering mind is the first emergence of human consciousness around 160,000 years ago, which blossomed fully 100,000 years ago when humans developed art as we can see in the Paleolithic cave paintings. What is unique about hunter-gatherers is they were totally fused with Earth’s vibratory fields. They knew everything that was going on in their habitat and even had global intelligence, which is brilliantly described in the magnificent film, Avatar”
E isto se encaixa bem na teoria da Matrix/DNA que sugere estar a consciência humana se desenvolvendo pelo mesmo método embrionário dos nossos corpos físicos, ou seja, passando pelas fases e formas de morila, blástula, feto, etc. Isto porque, segundo a Matrix/DNA, a auto-consciência, seja humana ou cósmica, é um sistema natural construído pela mesma formula de todos os sistemas naturais, apenas com a diferença de que a auto-consciência é o software do sistema, a identidade abstrata do sistema. Quando a autora diz que a consciência começou a emergir nos trogloditas caçadores a 150.000 anos,me obriga a a expandir a mente para tentar imaginar quanto é longo o processo embrionário dos sistemas a nível cosmológico, pois para humanos isto se faz em apenas 9 meses. Mas claro, quando se sai das escalas a nível humano para entrar nas escalas a nível astronomico, as devidas proporções devem ser surpreendentes.
Outro detalhe importante captado apenas no texto acima e que bate com o já sugerido pela formula da Matrix/DNA é a menção de que do que os primitivos humanos tinham um cérebro fundido com o campo magnético da Terra e isto lhes possibilitava um diferente e elevado conhecimento sobre certas coisas que nos não temos hoje. A Matrix/DNA sugere pela formula que o pequeno caroco que existe quase no centro do cérebro e denominado glândula pineal é resquício da involução da antena dos antepassados no-racionais,os quais percebiam por essa antena os efeitos do campo magnético planetário e/ou outros corpos mais próximos. Fica a grande questão – se essa hipótese tiver realmente fundamento – sobre qual o fato teria usurpado esta utilíssima propriedade de percepção ao longo da evolução das ultimas especies, qual seria o método para recuperar essa propriedade de percepção.
Barbara dizendo-se mensageira de Pleiadians, os quais dizem que os movimentos energeticos entre 2012 e 2015:
” …. we Pleiadians announced at that time through Barbara Clow that nine dimensions—advanced human perceptual abilities designed to take you beyond limitation—were fully available to human consciousness. Think of it as a lovely Oriental fan that is slowly opening to show its beautiful birds and flowers. To summarize the nine dimensions: More of you can read the intelligence in the Earth’s core; detect tectonic changes; be totally grounded in linear space and time; analyze the dark and light forces easily; live with an open heart; align with ideal geometrical form; listen to the music of the spheres; communicate with the divine intelligence; and attain galactic citizenship. The tenth dimension is the vertical access that carries you into the Universe to garner your galactic citizenship papers. We await you.”
Extraido de: http://www.handclow2012.com/News/NineUs_NineDs.pdf
Therefore, we’ve decided to identify pertinent positive and negative aspects of the Nine Underworlds that currently function in your reality. We offer this information because negative behavior on the part of people in power confuses you while bizarre and barbaric human acts shock you. Listen carefully: If you can identify the positive and negative aspects that developed during the nine evolutionary phases that completed in 2011, you will see that the people in power are often unconscious “carriers” of negative evolutionary patterns. Essentially, by adopting a power role they sacrifice themselves because their collective role tends to overwhelm their personal integrity. You should appreciate them for this because otherwise you would have few ways to identify these dysfunctional patterns to excoriate them from your consciousness. When you cut these patterns out of your minds, you allow leaders to stop carrying them, which could get poor Jesus off his cross! Meanwhile, some leaders and individuals consciously carry positive patterns that weave timelines that form “ropes” between human hearts and the beings in the universe. For example, the San people of South Africa actually see these ropes. Individuals who take on a power mantle are highly complex and usually unfairly judged. As you observe your leaders attempting to rule during the current chaos, we will give you a little tip: Anybody who dons a power mantle is immediately told their choices and actions are monitored by extraterrestrial intelligence. Watch them carefully; you will see it. These are times that make ordinary men into saints or devils or both. As some of you know, the Nine Underworlds of Creation and the opening of human multidimensional awareness describe the cyclic unfolding of evolution in the Milky Way Galaxy. The Nine Underworlds of Creation as defined by Calleman/Clow are very complex. They must be diligently studied and mastered by as many of you as possible because comprehending this gift from the Coba Maya enables you to be self-reflective about creation itself; this enables you to find your place in the grand scheme of things. As you do this, beings in the fifth through ninth dimensions have special badges, robes, and hats waiting for you when you identify your own role! What could possibly be more important, since you are poised on the edge of annihilation as you become conscious of your place in the multiverse? As we see it, you are going to do it because the negative patterns of the dark forces are burning up in the sunlight; the king, queen, and the pope have no clothes. The mayor too! Everything in human behavior is now visible, so let’s look at it through the nine lenses of the Underworlds.
website de barbara: http://www.handclow2012.com/journeyninedimensions.htm
Ler Barbara PDF em : http://www.handclow2012.com/News/NineUs_NineDs.pdf
– Carl Calleman – ” The longest Mayan Calendar that explores 16.4 billion years of human evolution, as proposed by the biologist Carl Johan Calleman, completed itself in 2011. Then nine waves of evolution began flowing simultaneously, which is explored in Calleman’s upcoming book, The Nine Waves of Creation.”
– Mayan Calendars
– Livro final: …. “published as one condensed book, The Mind Chronicles, in 2007.”
– Ultimo livro agora: ” my debut novel, Revelations of the Ruby Crystal ”
– Vancouver’s Body, Soul, and Spirit Expo on April 16 – Ver website
– Ver livro: The Ever-Present Origin by the German philosopher Jean Gebser.
– Cuyamungue Institute near Santa Fe, NM to train with the woman who discovered ecstatic trance postures in 1977, Dr. Felicitas Goodman. Ecstatic trance
(Copiado para traduzir e fixar na memoria)
– ver tambem indicações de livros a respeito aqui: https://books.google.com/books?id=ypMMy4hkyvwC&pg=PA52&lpg=PA52&dq=Female+germ+line+Zygote+ATP+ATP+ATP+ATP+Female+somatic+line+Male+somatic+line+ATP&source=bl&ots=-HH8-phugN&sig=V2kxJpIUwlgzuVI5CemAeWz1uf0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwizv6_kyZzMAhUHFz4KHf5ADlAQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=Female%20germ%20line%20Zygote%20ATP%20ATP%20ATP%20ATP%20Female%20somatic%20line%20Male%20somatic%20line%20ATP&f=false
Mitochondria have existed for more than a billion years, but it was not until the middle of the nineteenth century that they were actually recognised in cells, at first as a grainy appearance in the cell cytoplasm when observed by light microscopy.
Mitocondria tem existido por mais de um bilhão de anos, mas não foi antes dos meados do decimo nono seculo que a mitocondria foi realmente reconhecida nas células, primeiro coma aparência de um grão no citoplasma da célula quando observado por leve microscópio.
The anatomist Kölliker (1856) observed mitochondria in muscle cells in the 1850s, while Altman (1890) suggested that his “bioblasts” (granules microscopically observable throughout the cell) were symbionts, something Schimper (1883) had suggested for chloroplasts 7 years earlier, and this idea was taken further by Mereschkowsky (1905).
O anatomista Kolliker (1856) observou a mitocondria nas celulas musculosas, enquanto Altman (1890) sugeriu que seus “bioblasts” ( granulos microscopicamente observaveis atraves da celula) eram simbiontes, a mesma coisa que Schimper (1883) tinha sugerido para os cloroplastos 7 anos antes, e e esta ideia foi levada avante por Mereschkowsky (1905).
In the following years, many people speculated on the role of mitochondria in the cell, with Warburg (1913) recognising the particulate nature of cell respiration and Keilin (1925) associating the cytochrome system with cellular structures. The first direct evidence for this functional association depended on isolation of the mitochondria from the rest of the cell, which became possible in the 1930s. The first isolations of mitochondria by cell fractionation were made by Bensley and Hoerr (1934), and, following this breakthrough, the path opened for study of the biochemical reactions occurring in mitochondria. As the sites of energy conversion and cellular respiration, mitochondria became regarded as the “powerhouses” of the cell. However the possible origin of mitochondria was not looked at for some time, not really until the 1950s. It was in the early 1950s that Ephrussi (1950) and Mitchell and Mitchell (1952) observed that mitochondrial replication in yeast cells was controlled by non-Mendelian genetic factors, and slightly later that McLean et al. (1958) observed that mitochondria synthesise proteins. The discovery of mitochondrial DNA followed in the early 1960s, when a number of different groups (Luck and Reich 1964; Nass and Nass 1963a,b; Schatz et al. 1964) published their findings of both mitochondrial and chloroplast DNA. While the endosymbiotic origin of mitochondria had been considered since the time of Mereschkowsky (Martin and Kowallik 1999), the advances in biochemical techniques in the 1960s led to a revival of the idea, and a new and enthusiastic following for it. The driving force behind this renewed
interest was, of course, the discovery of organelle DNA, and the nonMendelian inheritance of organelles. Margulis (1970) published a reformulation of the endosymbiotic theory in 1970, and endosymbiosis has subsequently become the accepted view of the origin of mitochondria. There is still disagreement about how this endosymbiosis arose, and which organisms it involved, but there is a general agreement now that the mitochondrion has descended ultimately from a free-living bacterium. In the course of a little over 100 years, scientists have gone from the first observations of mitochondria to an understanding of their structure, function, inheritance, and origin. The mitochondrial genomes of over 250 different species are now known (Tsang and Lemire 2003), as are the effects of mutations in many mitochondrial genes. There are, however, basic questions still left to be answered. Which organisms contributed to the first eukaryotic cell? Why do mitochondria retain a genome? Can mitochondria still function without their own genomes? Why are only certain mitochondria passed on to the next generation?
3.2 Origins of Mitochondria
All developments seem to be from simple to more complex forms. Whether this is true or just an imaginary chain of events that fits more comfortably with our way of thinking remains to be seen. The anthropocentric view comes naturally to us. Cars, for example, “evolved” from simple horseless carriages to high-performance automotive vehicles. This “evolution”, according to some proponents, is similar to the evolution of living organisms, including parameters such as natural selection. Nonetheless, the evolution of life is often thought to have occurred in a smooth and gradual manner. The first group of organisms on our planet, the prokaryotes, are generally the simplest. In principle, prokaryotes are “nothing more” than membrane-enclosed bags of enzymes capable of some biochemical trickery. In contrast, take eukaryotes, with ourselves as the glorifying example of how complex life can be. Clearly, “higher life” evolved from lowly creatures such as bacteria by gradually improving their simple architecture into more elaborate cells which include organelles such as nuclei and mitochondria. The gradual transformation of a prokaryote into a primitive anucleate eukaryote is still considered the logical chain of events in many textbooks. Accordingly, this primitive eukaryote at one stage took up a free-living bacterium which converted into our modern-day mitochondrion. Such endosymbiosis theories for the evolution of eukaryotes at one stage involved amitochondriate (i.e. without mitochondria) eukaryotes. This hypothetical group received recognition in the now defunct kingdom of the Archezoa (Cavalier-Smith 1987). All studied members of this group have been shown to contain mitochondria of some sort (van der Giezen et al. 2005). This raises
the question as to why true amitochondriate eukaryotes, which would have been direct descendants of this anucleate eukaryote, do not seem to exist nowadays. Normally, one would expect intermediary stages of evolutionary development to be capable of producing a lineage of descendants even if the ancestors themselves become extinct. So, why do we not see truly amitochondriate eukaryotes nowadays? This could be for two reasons: either they never existed or they lost the battle of the “survival of the fittest”. The latter scenario suggests that, although these organisms did evolve in a particular environmental niche, they no longer occupy this niche, either because it does not exist anymore or, again, because its former occupants lost out to more competitive eukaryotes. An easier way to explain the absence of intermediate forms is to suggest they never existed in the first place. Although this might run in the face of our convenient way of ordering things in a gradual progression from simple to more complex, it actually explains our observations without invoking subsequent events (selective culling of the amitochondriates). So, perhaps the origin of the eukaryotes evolved in a “big bang”-like fashion; with a momentous event. Let us consider a counterintuitive but satisfying proposal for this event, and one that explains several key aspects in the evolution of eukaryotes. Firstly, the origin of eukaryotes and mitochondria was the same event. In addition, in contrast to general belief, the eubacterial organism that gave rise to the mitochondrion was not an obligate aerobe, far from it. Finally, again in contrast to general belief, the reason for the establishment of the mitochondrion was not energy production. The name of this heretical hypothesis? The hydrogen hypothesis (Martin and Muller 1998), which suggests that hydrogen, and not oxygen or energy, was the currency for the establishment of the mitochondrial endosymbiont. This suggests that the host was able to metabolise hydrogen. Eukaryotic genome analyses have indicated that almost all informational genes (i.e. involved in genetics) are archaebacterial in origin (Rivera et al. 1998). In contrast, all operational genes, i.e. those involved in metabolism, are eubacterial in origin (Rivera and Lake 2004). Various analyses, for example cytochrome phylogenies, had already indicated that the origin of the mitochondrion might be sought amongst the α-proteobacteria (Schwartz and Dayhoff 1978). So, the players involved are an archaebacterial methanogenic host and an α-proteobacterial endosymbiont (Fig. 3.1). Rickettsia has been put forward as the α-proteobacterium which would be most closely related to the original endosymbiont. One reason is the similarity of its aerobic respiration to mitochondrial respiration. But here is a problem: methanogens are one of the most oxygen-intolerant prokaryotes, and cannot produce any energy in the presence of oxygen. So, in a last-ditch attempt, the mitochondrial endosymbiont is put forward as a saviour of the oxygen-sensitive host (Kurland and Andersson 2000). But why put an oxygen scavenger inside the host it is supposedly protecting from harm? One would not put the knights on the courtyard but put them up on the walls to fend off any enemy.
Fig. 3.1. The hydrogen hypothesis of Martin and Müller. The events leading to the establishment of the mitochondrial endosymbiont. Top left: A facultative anaerobic α-proteobacterium (dark grey) produces hydrogen which is taken up by an autotrophic methanogen (light grey). Middle: A more intimate relationship results into a larger surface area that can be used for interspecies hydrogen transfer. Top right: After eventually becoming fully incorporated, the proteobacterium initially kept producing hydrogen and in return received reduced organic compounds. (Martin and Muller 1998)
So, an α-proteobacterial host with a methogenic endosymbiont would make more sense if oxygen protection was the reason that forged the symbiosis. The hydrogen hypothesis does present the symbiosis as an interspecies hydrogen transfer gone too far. The endosymbiont remains an α-proteobacterium, but this time something more similar to Rhodobacter, capable of aerobic and anaerobic metabolism. It offered the methanogen molecular hydrogen and carbon dioxide, and the autotrophic host returned reduced organic compounds, which geared the endosymbiont’s metabolism to new heights. Subsequent gene transfers forged the symbiosis for eternity. It has been argued that anaerobic metabolism could not have been the driving force in times when atmospheric oxygen concentrations were rising (Kurland and Andersson 2000). The concentration of atmospheric oxygen around the time of the endosymbiosis (about 2,000 million years ago; Martin et al. 2003) was about 3%, or about 7 times less then the present-day concentration (Nisbet and Sleep 2001). Perhaps more importantly, large parts of ocean waters around these times were anoxic (Canfield 1998), and it is thought that these important evolutionary events would have taken place in the sea and not on the land as perhaps commonly thought. So, oxygen seems to have been an extremely unlikely factor to have influenced the establishment of the mitochondrial endosymbiont and hydrogen seems more important then ever imagined.
One problem discussing mitochondrial function is that there does not seem to be a typical mitochondrion. Mitochondria evolved over a period of 2,000 million years in an huge variety of organisms living under an enormous range of environmental conditions (van der Giezen and Tovar 2005). Mitochondria range from archetypal aerobic mitochondria, via various anaerobic versions and hydrogenosomes, to the most derived forms, mitosomes (Tielens et al. 2002). Nonetheless, currently we know of at least one function found in all mitochondrial varieties; iron–sulphur cluster assembly (Lill and Muhlenhoff 2005). This essential pathway produces iron–sulphur co-factors for both mitochondrial and cytosolic enzymes involved in electron transport, enzyme catalysis, and regulation of gene expression. The most aerobic of mitochondria are involved in oxidative phosphorylation using oxygen as terminal electron acceptor, while more anaerobic versions use alternative electron acceptors such as nitrate (Tielens et al. 2002). Hydrogenosomes, similarly to aerobic mitochondria, convert pyruvate to acetylcoenzyme A, however not using pyruvate dehydrogenase but by means of the oxygensensitive pyruvate:ferredoxin oxidoreductase (Embley et al. 2003). All these mitochondrial variants produce energy, be it by means of harvesting the electrochemical gradient generated via the respiratory chain or by substrate-level phosphorylation. Mitosomes on the other hand are not known to be directly involved in energy generation; currently, their function seems exclusively tied to iron–sulfur cluster assembly (van der Giezen et al. 2005)
3.3 Mitochondrial Genomes
As discussed by van der Giezen and Tovar (2005), mitochondria are an enormously diverse set of various organelles. Even if one is not willing to include the anaerobic varieties as being mitochondrial, the vast biochemical repertoire present in aerobic mitochondria alone is staggering. In addition to this biochemical heterogeneity, there exists a genetic heterogeneity as well. There does not exist such a thing as a mitochondrial genome. This genome can be as small as 5,967 bases in the case of Plasmodium falciparum (Feagin et al. 1991) and only code for three proteins (cytochrome B, cytochrome oxidase I and III) or as large as 490,000 bases for rice (Notsu et al. 2002). Strangely enough, although the rice mitochondrial genome is 80 times larger than the Plasmodium one, it does not code for 80 times as many genes. Although plant mitochondrial genomes tend to be the largest, the mitochondrial genome which actually contains the most genes is the one from the freshwater protozoon Reclinomonas americana, which contains 97 genes (Lang et al. 1997). The median is therefore something around 45 genes. If one takes a present-day α-proteobacterium (Rhodobacter sphaeroides, for example) which contains almost 4,000 genes, it becomes obvious that many genes of the original endosymbiont have been lost as a consequence of the symbiotic
interaction. These genes have either been lost owing to redundancy (the host already contained homologous genes) or been transferred to the host genome (Timmis et al. 2004). It has been estimated that up to 75% of a eukaryotic genome could actually originate from the endosymbiont (Esser et al. 2004). The remaining mitochondrial genes are involved in a limited set of functions; always respiration and translation (as evident in the case of P. falciparum), and occasionally also in transcription, RNA maturation, and protein import (Burger et al. 2003). The partially sequenced hydrogenosomal genome from the ciliate Nyctotherus ovalis does indeed code for parts of a mitochondrial electron transport chain (Boxma et al. 2005). Other hydrogenosomes and
Obs: Não e’ a mesma imagem do livro
Fig. 3.2. Elements of energy transduction in respiration and oxidative phosphorylation in mitochondria. The mitochondrial inner membrane is shown in yellow. The principal complexes involved in energy transduction are complex I (NADH dehydrogenase), complex II (succinate dehydrogenase), complex III (the cytochrome b–cytochrome c1 complex), complex IV (cytochrome c oxidase), and the coupling ATPase. Vectorial electron transfer is depicted as thin, dark-blue arrows. Proton (hydrogen ion; H+) translocation is depicted as thin, red arrows. Other chemical conversions are given black arrows. The major, variable environmental input is oxygen (O2 ), shown in blue. Subunits of protein complexes are coloured according to the location of the genes encoding them. Mitochondria are usually pink or reddish-brown, the colour of cytochromes and iron–sulphur proteins, so reddish-brown subunits have genes in the mitochondrion and are synthesised in the mitochondrial matrix; light-brown subunits have genes in the nucleus, and are imported from the cytosol as precursors. The depiction of sites of synthesis is schematic only and corresponds roughly to the arrangement in vertebrates. (Adapted from Allen 1993a)
mitosomes as well do not seem to have kept their mitochondrial genome (van der Giezen et al. 2005), indicating that the mitochondrial genome’s core function is respiration and oxidative phosphorylation (Fig. 3.2).
3.4 The Mitochondrial Theory of Ageing
Reactive oxygen species, generated largely by the mitochondrial electron transport chain, damage the mitochondrial proteins and DNA, and the mitochondrial theory of ageing, simply put, states that this damage leads to ageing and its associated degenerative diseases (Fig. 3.3). This theory was first put forward by Harman (1956), although earlier observations had linked life span to metabolic rate: the higher the metabolic rate, the shorter the life span (Pearl 1928). Although Harman’s theory has been around for 50 years, and there is a lot of circumstantial evidence to support it, there remain many
Obs: nao e’ a mesma imagem do livro
Fig. 3.3. Why we grow old and die: the mitochondrial theory of ageing. Free radicals (whose reactions are symbolised by a star), including the superoxide anion radical, O2 .−, are produced at a low frequency as by-products of respiratory electron flow in oxidative phosphorylation. Free-radical mutagenesis of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) then impairs the structure and function of respiratory chain proteins, in turn increasing the frequency of free-radical production. Univalent reduction of oxygen by semiquinone anion radicals may be an important initial step, since ubisemiquinone is an intermediate in protonmotive Q-cycles in oxidative phosphorylation, and readily reduces oxygen to the superoxide anion radical, O2 .−. Other oxygen free radicals and sites in the respiratory chain may also be involved. Direct damage to proteins and membranes may accelerate the cycle and initiate somatic degeneration. Mitochondria may minimise, but never eliminate, mutagenic electron transfers. For animal cells, this positive feedback loop, or “vicious circle”, has been proposed as the primary cause of ageing. (Adapted from Allen 1996)
uncertainties. When Harman first put forward his hypothesis, it had not actually been shown that cells generated free radicals, and it was only in 1969, with the discovery of superoxide dismutase (McCord and Fridovich 1969), that this question was satisfactorily answered. It is now known that cells generate reactive oxygen species at many sites, the majority of these being within the mitochondria. The two major sites are believed to be sites I and III of the respiratory chain. Experiments increasing the redox potential of either site I or site III increase the rate of generation of free radicals (Chen et al. 2003; Kushnareva et al. 2002). Both of these complexes reduce ubiquinone (ubiquinol is also oxidised by complex III), and univalent reduction of oxygen probably occurs by electron transfer from the ubisemiquinone free radical, an intermediate in ubiquinone–ubiquinol oxidation and reduction
_ UQ.− + O2 → UQ + O2 .−
. It is not known how much of the oxygen consumption of the cell is turned over to generating reactive oxygen species, but the figure is thought to be between 2 (Chance et al. 1979) and 0.2% (St-Pierre et al. 2002; Staniek and Nohl 2000). The cell has very efficient scavenging mechanisms, and so these figures may be underestimates. How much damage mitochondrial DNA suffers as a result of reactive oxygen species generation is still an open question. Studies have shown (Shigenaga et al. 1994) that mitochondria from older animals are morphologically different, and produce more oxidants and less ATP than those from younger ones, but we do not actually know if damage to mitochondria causes ageing, or merely correlates with it. The field of ageing research – what causes ageing and how do we stop, slow, or even reverse it – is an active one. Almost everyone would like to be able to extend their life span. Long-lived mutants of the nematode worm Caenorhabditis elegans, the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster, and even mice have been established in the laboratory, as reviewed by Balaban et al. (2005), but all of these have defective mitochondria, slowing down energy production as well as ageing. These animals also seem to have a reduced reproductive capacity. It seems that reducing generation of reactive oxygen species does indeed slow ageing, but at what cost? These animals can survive under laboratory conditions, but it is unlikely that they could survive in nature. Perhaps our mortality is the price we have to pay for survival in the short term, and our immortality has been secured by reproduction. Mitochondrial DNA is kept in the most hostile environment in the cell. While the vast majority of genes from the original endosymbiont have been transferred to the nucleus or lost, a small core of genes persist in the mitochondrial matrix. There is strong evidence that damage to mitochondrial DNA by reactive oxygen species generated during oxidative phosphorylation contributes to ageing and death of an organism, and so it is reasonable to assume that there must be a very compelling reason for the organism to continue to keep DNA there
3.5 Why Are There Genes in Mitochondria?
Mitochondria have descended, in evolution, from free-living bacteria (Gray and Doolittle 1982; Gray 1992; Martin et al. 2001). Before the bacterial origin of mitochondria was generally appreciated, there were attempts to account for mitochondrial biogenesis in terms of sequestration of nuclear DNA in the cytoplasm. These need not detain us. However, there is a more recent dogma: that mitochondria retain genes and genetic systems because they are descended from bacteria. This statement, while correct, is not a complete explanation. For one thing, there are clearly subcellular organelles, hydrogenosomes and mitosomes, which are also derived from bacteria, and which no longer possess their own, internal genetic systems (van der Giezen et al. 2005). Another objection to this otherwise reasonable first guess – mitochondria happen to be stuck with bacterial genes – is as follows: many mitochondrial proteins with homology to bacterial proteins are now encoded in the cell nucleus, and are successfully imported, post-translationally, as precursors, prior to processing and assembly into functional complexes (Schatz 1998). Indeed, the major respiratory chain complexes are hybrids as regards the location of the genes for their subunits (Fig. 3.2), and there is no indication that their nuclearly encoded subunits are any less bacterial in origin than the mitochondrially encoded ones. Thus, even granted the endosymbiotic origin of mitochondria, the persistence of mitochondrial genes and genomes requires explanation: if most ancestral, bacterial genes have been successfully relocated to the cell nucleus, then why not all? What is it about mitochondrial genes, or their gene products, that has prevented their successful removal to the nucleus? The textbook The Molecular Biology of the Cell (Alberts et al. 1994) states the problem very clearly, and the following quotation has been retained, unchanged, from the first edition (1983). Why do mitochondria and chloroplasts require their own separate genetic systems when other organelles that share the same cytoplasm, such as peroxisomes and lysosomes, do not? … The reason for such a costly arrangement is not clear, and the hope that the nucleotide sequences of mitochondrial and chloroplast genomes would provide the answer has proved unfounded. We cannot think of compelling reasons why the proteins made in mitochondria and chloroplasts should be made there rather than in the cytosol. There seems to be no explicit proposal for the most widely held hypothesis for the persistence of mitochondria genomes, but the hypothesis is implicit in many discussions of mitochondrial structure and function. For example, and in contrast to the open question posed by Alberts et al., Cell and Molecular Biology Concepts and Experiments (Karp 2002) provides what is probably still the current consensus view. Mitochondrial DNA is a relic of ancient history. It is a legacy from a single aerobic bacterium that took up residence in the cytoplasm of a primitive cell
that ultimately became an ancestor of all eukaryotic cells. Most of the genes of this ancient symbiont were either lost or transferred over the course of evolution to the nucleus of the host cell, leaving only a handful of genes to encode some of the most hydrophobic proteins of the inner mitochondrial membrane. Thus, according to this “hydrophobicity hypothesis”, proteins that are encoded and synthesised within organelles are characterised by shared, and extreme, hydrophobicity – all are intrinsic membrane proteins (Claros et al. 1995; Popot and de Vitry 1990; Von Heijne 1986). This view amounts to mitochondrial genes being stuck where they are because of an insuperable difficulty if translocating hydrophobic proteins between subcelluar compartments. Yet there seems to be no evidence that hydrophobicity presents a particular barrier to protein import. For example, mitochondrial ADP–ATP carriers (AACs) are intrinsic to the mitochondrial inner membrane, have six transmembrane helices, and yet are encoded in the nucleus (Saraste and Walker 1982; van der Giezen et al. 2002). 3.6
Co-location of Gene and Gene Product Permits Redox Regulation of Gene Expression
This hypothesis states that mitochondria and chloroplasts contain genes whose expression must be under the direct, regulatory control of the redox state of their gene products, or of electron carriers with which their gene products interact (Fig. 3.4). These genes comprise a primary subset of organellar genes. The requirement for redox control of these genes then confers a selective advantage upon location of that gene within the organelle instead of in the cell nucleus. Mitochondrial and chloroplast genomes also contain genes for components of the their own, distinct, genetic systems. These genes comprise a secondary subset of organellar genes: genetic system genes. Retention of genetic system genes is necessary for the operation of redox control of expression of genes in the primary subset: bioenergetic genes. Without genes in the primary subset, the function of genetic system genes is eventually lost, and organelles lose their genomes. This hypothesis of co-location for redox regulation of gene expression, CORR, was first outlined, in general terms, in a review on protein phosphorylation in regulation of photosynthesis (Allen 1992). The hypothesis was put forward in two articles (Allen 1993a, b), where the function of the location of organellar genes was proposed as redox regulation of gene expression. The term CORR was introduced more recently (Allen 2003a, b). CORR applies equally to mitochondria and chloroplasts, and accounts for the fact that both of these organelles possess membrane-intrinsic electron transport systems along with discrete, extranuclear genetic systems. CORR rests on ten assumptions, or principles, as follows:
Fig. 3.4. Gene expression and principal pathways of biosynthesis of subunits of protein complexes involved in respiration and oxidative phosphorylation in animal mitochondria. Reddishbrown DNA, RNA, and protein subunits are located and synthesised in the mitochondrial matrix; light-brown protein subunits have genes (also light brown) in the nucleus, and are imported from the cytosol as precursors. White genes and ribosomal and protein subunits are nuclear-cytoplasmic and of archaebacterial origin. Reddish-brown and light-brown genes and ribosomal and protein subunits are of bacterial origin. The major, variable environmental input is oxygen (blue). It is proposed that it is beyond the ability of the nuclear-cytoplasmic system to respond rapidly and directly to changes in oxygen concentration or partial pressure, and so redox regulation of gene expression (red arrows) has been retained from the ancestral, bacterial endosymbiont. This redox regulation requires co-location of certain genes, with their gene products, within the mitochondrion. (Adapted from Allen 2003)
1. Endosymbiotic origin. As now generally agreed, mitochondria and chloroplasts evolved from free-living bacteria.
2. Unselective gene transfer. Gene transfer between the symbiont or organelle may occur in either direction and is not selective for particular genes.
3. Unselective protein import. There is no barrier to the successful import of any precursor protein, nor to its processing and assembly into a functional, mature form.
4. Evolutionary continuity of redox control. Direct redox control of expression of certain genes was present in the bacterial progenitors of mitochondria and chloroplasts, and was vital for selectively advantageous cell function before, during, and after the transition from bacterium to organelle. The mechanisms of this control have been conserved.
5. Selective value of redox control. For each gene under redox control (principle 4), it is selectively advantageous for that gene to be retained and expressed only within the organelle.
6. Selective value of nuclear location for genes not under redox control. For each bacterial gene that survives and is not under redox control, it is selectively advantageous for that gene to be located in the nucleus and expressed only in the nucleus and cytosol. If the mature gene product functions in chloroplasts or mitochondria, the gene is first expressed in the form of a precursor for import.
7. Continued and contemporary operation of natural selection for gene location. For any species, the distribution of genes between organelle (by principle 5) and nucleus (by principle 6) is the result of selective forces which continue to operate.
8. Primary involvement in energy transduction is necessary for organelle gene location. Those genes for which redox control is always vital to cell function have gene products involved in, or closely connected with, primary electron transfer. These genes are always contained within the organelle. Where primary energy transduction is lost completely, then organelles lose their genomes.
9. Secondary involvement in energy transduction may be sufficient for organelle gene location. Genes whose products contribute to the organelle genetic system itself, or whose products are associated with secondary events in energy transduction, may be contained in the organelle in one group of organisms, but not in another, depending on the physiology and biochemistry of photosynthesis and respiration in the species concerned.
10. Nuclear encoding of redox-signalling components. Components of the redox-signalling pathways upon which co-location for redox regulation depends are themselves not involved in primary electron transfer, and so their genes have been relocated to the nucleus, in accordance with principle 6.
At present, direct evidence for the redox control of organellar gene expression that is predicted CORR is stronger for chloroplasts than for mitochondria (Pfannschmidt et al. 1999). Redox effects on mitochondrial gene expression in vitro are largely confined, at present, to protein synthesis (Allen et al. 1995; Galvis et al. 1998). The search for a direct signalling pathway from the respiratory chain to mitochondrial DNA is likely to be an active area of future research (Allen et al. 2005; Lane 2005).
3.7 Maternal Inheritance of Mitochondria
As discussed previously, the mitochondrial theory of ageing rests on the observation that mitochondrial DNA is exposed to high levels of reactive oxygen species when the mitochondrion is performing its redox chemistry. These reactive oxygen species cause mutation. These mutations accumulate, gradually damaging the mitochondrion’s ability to function. This happens in
all the cells of an organism, leading to the symptoms we know as ageing, and eventually to death. One of the problems facing any eukaryotic organism is how to ensure the next generation does not inherit the damage that it had suffered to its mitochondria. We can see that each generation starts off with new, healthy mitochondria, but how does this happen? The theory that two sexes are derived from a division of labour between male and female germ line mitochondria was first proposed in 1996 (Allen 1996). Here, it was proposed that the mitochondria of the female germ line have a repressed bioenergetic function, and so they escape the damage to their DNA caused by mutagens generated by respiratory electron transport. The mitochondria are therefore able to replicate and pass to the next generation with minimal change. The male gametes need to have functional mitochondria, in order to generate the energy needed to reach the egg cell. The hypothesis proposes that these bioenergetically active, and therefore damaged, mitochondria will be prevented from entering the germ line. As far as the mitochondria go, the most significant difference between the male and female is that the male mitochondria have to produce a lot of ATP to propel the sperm as quickly as possible towards the egg, and the female mitochondria do not really have to do much at all. If free radicals generated by an active electron transport chain are responsible for damage to mitochondrial DNA, then it is reasonable to assume that sperm mitochondria are likely to be more damaged than those in the egg. To take this idea one step further, perhaps the mitochondria in the egg cells are prevented from carrying out oxidative phosphorylation at all, in order to preserve as accurate a copy as possible of the DNA to pass to the offspring. In the systems that have been studied, it can be seen that cells destined to become the female germ line are identified and set aside very early in development. In the female, these cells will go on to form the eggs, and will contain the mitochondria that will pass to the next generation. When one of these eggs is fertilised, the cells that will form the gametes for the next generation are set aside, and so on. In the majority of organisms, and all mammals, the mitochondria are inherited from only one parent, and that is the mother (Law and Hutson 1992).It is thought that there are different mechanisms for excluding the male mitochondria, some organisms prevent entry to the egg cell, but in mammals it is an active destruction process. Sutovsky et al. (2000) have shown that the sperm cell mitochondria in cattle do get into the egg cell, and are subsequently targeted and destroyed, mostly between the four-cell and the eightcell stage of the embryo. The male sperm are ubiquitinated within the oocyte cytoplasm, which provides a target for proteolysis. The germ line is determined at a very early stage of embryology. In the nematode worm C. elegans (Seydoux et al. 2001), the fate of every cell from the zygote onwards has been studied, and even from the four-cell stage, the germ line can be distinguished. In mammals, the germ line is segregated very early, before implantation in
fact. By the blastocyst stage, the germ line has already been segregated, and this is before the embryo becomes aerobic. From these observations, it is possible to see how mitochondria could be passed from one generation to the next without ever having to fulfil their role as generators of cellular energy, but only having to act as templates. The energy for replication could come from the egg’s helper cells, and once any mitochondria have an active respiratory chain they become unsuitable to act as a template for future generations
(Fig. 3.5). If such mitochondria did get
P. 52 Figura 3.5 – Titulo: Female germ line Zygote ATP ATP ATP ATP Female somatic line Male somatic line ATP — Why our genes do not die with us: differentiation of male and female gametes for motility and for fidelity of mitochondrial genome replication. The probability of encounters of two gametes is ideally the same whether one or both are motile; therefore, one sex (male) may produce gametes that sacrifice the mitochondrial genome in favour of oxidative phosphorylation. The other sex (female) is then free to produce immobile gametes in which oxidative phosphorylation is repressed in promitochondria, and through which the mitochondrial genome is thus transmitted with increased fidelity. Promitochondria are sequestered early in development in the female germ line. Female oocytes obtain ATP from oxidative phosphorylation in the differentiated mitochondria of ancillary somatic cells (follicle cells in animals). Promitochondria persist in plants in meristematic cells, prior to differentiation of somatic and germ cells. In contrast, any ancillary germ cells (nurse cells in invertebrates) will also require imported ATP, since they share the oocyte’s cytoplasm. Gamete differentiation may likewise rescue the chloroplast genomes of plants. Mitochondria and chloroplasts are thus maternally inherited. (Adapted from Allen 1996)
into the egg cell, and so form the basis of the inherited mitochondria, one would expect that the offspring would be born at a more advanced cellular age than normal. Although the data are sparse, it is thought that early reproductive cloning of mammals was achieved by fusing a somatic cell with an egg cell whose DNA had been destroyed. “Dolly” the sheep was the first cloned mammal, and her nuclear DNA was derived from a 6-year-old ewe. She showed signs of ageing very early on, and died at the age of 5 (usual life span would be 11 years), of a disease more usually associated with old age (Allen and Allen 1999).
3.8 Conclusions From the time that mitochondria were first seen in cells, they have been an interesting enigma. The more we learn about them, the more questions are raised. There would seem to be enough unanswered questions in the field of mitochondrial function, genetics, and origins to engage researchers for a long time to come.
In order for a protein to be able to self-replicate, It needs:
Energy manufacturing mitochondria
And the cell membrane.
In short, A FULLY EQUIPPED CELL.
Therefore, the idea of a “self-reproducing molecule” is totally fraudulent. It is impossible for a molecule not inside a living cell to be able to take in energy from the outside and use it to replicate itself. To refer to this as “an organization progressing toward life” is demagoguery and a deliberate distraction. “Organization progressing toward life” is a totally illogical term. The smallest living thing is “a CELL.” Only a cell and the structures inside it can self-reproduce. Only a cell can take in energy from the outside and use it. Only a cell can maintain its own existence through its own organelles and the energy it takes in from the outside.
To put it another way, there can be no supposed stages progressing from the inanimate toward life. Life can never come from something inanimate. That’s absolutely impossible. All research at the molecular level has proved in the 20th Century that life cannot come from what is inanimate; and this has been confirmed by science in the 21st Century. Not even the presence of a protein is enough for a living thing to form. In order to be able to explain life, Darwinists have to account for the formation of a single cell. But they are still unable to account for how a single protein might have emerged spontaneously. A tiny protein inside the cell totally demolishes Darwinism.
Also, the fossil record indicates that living things did not evolve from primitive to advanced forms, but instead emerged all of a sudden and in a perfect state. In short, living beings did not come into existence by evolution, they were created.
Even Darwin himself was aware of the absence of such transitional forms. It was his hope that they would be found in the future. Despite his hopefulness, he realized that the biggest stumbling-block in his theory was the missing transitional forms. Therefore in his book The Origin of Species he wrote the following in the chapter “Difficulties of the Theory”:
“ …Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?… But, as by this theory innumerable transitional form must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust to the earth?… But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties? This difficulty for a long time quite confounded me.”
This has proven to be a blatant lie! How can you people believe such a lie? What is really happening to the eyes of you people?
The ancestor and creator of “life” at Earth was this astronomical system we are inside it. And it already was “self-reproducing”. It is enough for understanding it seeing the anatomy of this LUCA at my website. But… since that LUCA is our primitive ancestor, every mechanism and life’s properties must be evolutionarily reduced to its 10 billion years ago. So, in LUCA the process of self-reproducing was merely a process of self-recycling, which needs that a system dies totally and from its dust, lift up again in the same shape it was before. The interstellar dust contained the information for this self-rebuilding. When evolution arrived to biological systems – which are not closed system like LUCA – the self-recycling process was not possible, but the forces doing it developed the process merely by launching a lateral branch of the systemic circuit towards its nucleus… and then… was born what you call “self-reproduction”.
The first primordial molecules or proteins were not in needs of self-replicating. They were formed obeying the natural rules of a reproductive process, the reproduction of the astronomical ancestor “LUCA”. And there is a difference between LUCA reproduction and humans reproduction. While humans transmits its genetic information closed inside an internal membrane called spermatozoid and ovule (which makes only one possible copy), LUCA transmitted its genetic information with its bits spreaded into time and space, inside the whole galaxy. Arriving to a common environment, those bits do what immigrants do in New York, each race joining themselves and creating its own village. So, the first packets of information were differentiated and it created the enormous diversity of proteins here, and later, the diversity of life’s shapes. Those smallest packets later joined to form bigger ones but always in the same circuit’s sequence performed at LUCA. So, equals and different proteins arose here and there, at everyplace at Earth’s surface, without needing a complete cell.
I will stop here but I can refute and explain any assertion that you can make against Darwinism, not from Darwinism but from the Matrix/DNA world view. The Matrix wrote a new version of Universal Natural History without founding any trace of supernatural beings doing any magics here. Yours and the evolutionists problem is that both forgot our supreme mother nature for asking answers to supreme existential questions. You, both, need going back to watching Nature, because nature does not plays dice with its creatures: the method that nature creates universes, biological lifes and human bodies is always the same, so, watch the creation of yours son for getting those answers. This Universe is merely an agglomerated of old ancestors called “galaxies” in which bodies we arose and are living now. In this universe is occurring a genetic process of reproduction from the unknown natural system that was/is existent beyond it. If you want call it/him/her as God, or if the atheists want call it as “the Absolute Nothing” I have no problem with it, but. please, take out these things called “magics”, “supernaturals”, because they does not exists inside this Universe and you, neither the opposite theorists can prove it. But… the models of Matrix/DNA can because they are scientifically falsifiable.
O Ebola é um dos principais assuntos do momento e eu tenho uma teoria a respeito que ninguém mais tem, por isso é bom me ouvirem, experimentarem o que estou sugerindo, antes que possa ser tarde demais. Três recentes artigos ( dois no New York Times e um no Huffington Post) me fizeram lembrar imediatamente da antiga sugestão desde a selva amazônica há 30 anos atras sobre o que é e como se originam os vírus.
O pior é que se minha teoria estiver certa, isto significa que a comunidade cientifica jamais irá ganhar a luta contra vírus, porque ela desconhece a causa fundamental da origem e comportamentos dos vírus, a não ser que tomem conhecimento da sugestão da Matrix/DNA e resolvam investiga-la. O atual entendimento da comunidade cientifica do que é vida, sistemas biológicos como vírus e humanos, está muito distante da realidade e isto afasta-os de descobrir as soluções definitivas. Ficam assim combatendo vírus como quem fica podando os galhos doentes enquanto cada galho podado é substituído por novo galho doente, porque a doença está na raiz da arvore. Enquanto isso milhões de seres humanos continuam sendo torturados e mortos por estes minúsculos facínoras.
Veja abaixo o meu post escrito às pressas e postado no Huffington, tentando chamar atenção e iniciar um dialogo. Mas tal dialogo só pode avançar se ambas as partes se limitarem a apresentar fatos comprovados como base de seus argumentos, e não ficar discutindo teorias e conceitos abstratos que fazem parte importante da cultura e visão de mundo propagada através das universidades.Depois do post puxo para cá a fórmula da Matrix e explico na medida que o tempo agora me permitir, os fundamentos da teoria sobre os vírus como o Ebola.
Is necessary understanding that the current world view academic model has not been victorious on the war against virus, so, we need a different view and approach. The different world view of Matrix/DNA Theory suggests that virus is the common expression of a systemic universal function at any natural system… like this biosphere and human’s bodies. Virus is the expression of Function 5 that you can see at the matrix formula of natural systems. This function, at the level of cell system, is performed by RNA ( mass level) and ATP ( energetic level). At the level of astronomical systems, this function is performed by comets. I have not detected yet which is the agent of F5 at biosphere systemic level. But, the fact that comets are the carriers for information for producing virus ( and we have found several kind of organic molecules at meteors) and knowing that comets can be fragmented into meteors, which commonly falls at Earth, meteors can be the first source for viruses. The cost for human kind is high, so, any suggestion must be tested. Here our suggestion is: ask to the natives of Ebola River region if they saw something falling from the sky in the last 30 or 50 years. If so, where it fells? maybe the source for Ebola is there, irradiating to any living molecule around it.
Quando comecei a ler assuntos sobre algumas doenças causadas por virus, uma informação era comum: vírus são hibernantes ( como não-vivos), fora de sistemas celulares e se despertam dentro de células, quando então passam a se reproduzirem aceleradamente e assim “explodem” a célula, disseminando-se às células vizinhas. E quando tinha encontrado a formula da Matrix, esta informação imediatamente me lembrou que na fórmula existe algo, uma de suas peças, que faz na formula exatamente o que vírus fazem na célula. Trata-se da F5. A F5 é a função sistêmica que produz cometas no céu, RNA nas células, e quando trata da inter-conexão entre sistemas, é a responsável pela reprodução dos sistemas.
Desde que essa formula é repetida na unidade fundamental de informação do DNA ( um par lateral de nucleotídeos), e depois repetida num especifico grupo de genes, isto significa que o DNA – se expressar aquele grupo de genes – pode gerar vírus. Ou seja, nós podemos criar vírus dentro do nosso próprio corpo.
Mas para que o DNA expresse tal grupo de genes é preciso um estimulo externo, o qual pode ser um pedido do RNA, ou um especifico estado vibracional de uma onda de energia externa. Vamos então imediatamente trazer para cá tambem a nossa versão do que é na realidade uma onda de luz conforme sugerida por essa formula ( estou com dificuldades técnicas aqui para trazer uma melhor figura. Clique nela talvez melhore.) :
Bem, vemos na figura que F5 corresponde ao trecho entre microwave e infrared. Isto significa, a grosso modo, que o estado vibracional dos vírus como sistemas deriva desta frequência da onda de luz/energia. Por isso estou supondo no post acima que os vírus são atraídos por quaisquer outros sistemas no mesmo estado vibracional. Acontece que o corpo de uma mulher adulta vibra como F5, na mesma sintonia do vírus, o corpo do embrião dentro de uma mulher gravida vibra como F1. Ora F1 é o estado da onda recém emitida por uma fonte, portanto, uma elevada frequência, alto estado vibracional, assim deve ser o estado da energia de um embrião, um baby. É o estado que abre brechas para origens, porque é relacionado à função feminina criadora da formula. Então não existiria ocasião mais propicia para vírus ser atraídos e penetrar o sistema todo. O corpo do embrião derruba as defesas do auto-imune sistema do corpo da mulher.
Talvez eu esteja fazendo o carro atropelar os bois devido a pressa pois estou atrasado para ir ao trabalho. Isto merece reflexão mais pausada.
Mas a fórmula sugere que meteóritos, resultantes da fragmentação de cometas, tem todo o potencial para carregar as informações químicas para produzir vírus – se o meteórito cair em ambiente que contenha os complementos para a gestação dos vírus. O que deve haver de sobra na ainda primitiva região africana do Ebola River. Portanto é possível que, em algum lugar daquela região exista um ou mais fragmentos de meteoritos irradiando unidades de fotons que, se reunidos dentro de um sistema biológico, como o corpo de um animal, se reunem e recompõe a parte do sistema de onde vieram- este sistema solar e galáctico. Novamente lembro que devo estar sendo precipitado, pois preciso antes rever tudo o que aprendí sobre a fórmula, ondas de luz, fótons, etc. Inclusive procurar neste website o artigo onde escreví esta teoria dos virus.
Como eu disse no post ao Huffington Post, esse assunto do Ebola é demasiado preocupante e toda possibilidade que qualquer humano levantar, por mais esdruxula que pareça à nossa preferida visão de mundo – deve ser considerada e experimentada.
Devo voltar aqui para esmiuçar isto após o trabalho.
Pensamento do Dia: Porque os Humanos São Diferenciados Pelos Seus Interesses Se os Animais Possuem Um Unico e Mesmo Interesse?!
Um grande segredo do sucesso da espécie humana sobre os outros animais é a impressionante e enorme diversificação dos focos fundamentais de interesses. Todos os indivíduos de uma espécie animal – sejam cavalos, vacas, gatos, etc. – possuem os mesmos poucos e limitados interesses dirigindo seus atos e movimentos, e isto não tem mudado em amplos espaços de tempo. Os animais são bitolados, dirigidos, para uns poucos focos de interesses. Pode acontecer os fenômenos mais estranhos, aparecerem as imagens mais estranhas, que eles não se interessam e esquecem o fato imediatamente. Pela primeira vez na vida de uma vaca criada numa fazenda, passa um veículo na estrada, e a vaca, indiferente, nem levanta os olhos para vê-lo, não se faz nenhuma pergunta a respeito, não existe a menor curiosidade, focada que está comendo a grama.
Macacos na selva já prestam alguma atenção a um avião passando acima, mas se pegam a espingarda de um caçador, tentam dar-lhe uma dentada para ver se é de comer, e não sendo, dispensam-na para o lado como se fosse um galho seco, sem interesse.
Queres ter uma prova? Veja a figura abaixo, e depois de gozar da nossa classe de filósofos distraídos, responda à pergunta abaixo:
Pergunta: “Como o leão vai matar o filósofo distraído? Vai pegar o rifle e dar-lhe uns tiros ou vai morder seu pescoço?”
Claro, o leão, como todos animais nem viu o rifle, pois deste não emana cheiro de alimento, e comida é apenas o que lhes interessa.
Mas dentro da espécie humana houve uma novidade no meio dos seres vivos, que já havia ocorrido antes, nas origens da enorme diversificação das espécies. Uma incrível diversificação de interesses, gerando uma nova diferenciação interna de “personalidades mentais”, e interesses por quaisquer coisas que a Natureza produza, mesmo que este interesse não lhes propicie retorno imediato com algum tipo de recompensa. Ao contrario, em muitos tipos de interesses os indivíduos sacrificam seu bem-estar sem obter nenhuma vantagem imediata, e sem ter certeza de que venha a obter vantagens futuras. É o caso por exemplo do porque humanos consomem tempo e recursos se interessando por astronomia, matemática, geografia de outras terras, doenças que afetam a outros, etc. Eu mesmo tenho um interesse pela suprema busca de conhecimentos, emprego a vida e quase toda energia nesse objetivo, mas até hoje na verdade só colhi desvantagens na luta pela competição com isso, e não tenho a menor ideia se isso algum dia me trará alguma recompensa. No entanto, sem este vico, a vida não me teria sentido. Do ponto de vista biológico, animal, isto não é racional. Então… porque? Qual a causa por trás disso?
A meu ver isto vem a confirmar uma sugestão da Matrix/DNA: dentro de cada ser humano surgiu uma nova forma, uma nova espécie evolutiva do sistema natural universal que vem evoluindo desde o Big Bang, e esta nova forma de sistema, ao qual damos o nome de mente ou auto-consciência, está se diversificando em sub-espécies a ponto de já contar com milhares ou milhões delas. temos que fazer o enorme esforço de visualizar as mentes invisíveis dentro das cabeças humanas como elas são: tão diferentes entre si como existem tantas espécies de animais diferentes entre si. Então deve existir um individuo portando a mente-corvo, outro a mente-elefante, o alentejano de Portugal deve ser quase igual ao baiano do Brasil com uma forma de mente-tartaruga… e assim por diante. Deve ter o mente-hipopótamo, o mente-polvo, o mente-leão… ( Eu, particularmente, que sinto eternamente uma espécie de insustentável leveza do ser desconfio que sou um mente-borboleta. E você?…
Mas estou percebendo agora que esta nova intuição pode nos levar a desfechos fantásticos. Parece-me mesmo que estamos tocando numa nova dimensão do mundo que ainda não a tínhamos percebido, mas que tem enorme influencia na nossa vida no dia a dia.
Tem algumas diferenças entre a diversificação da vida e a da mente, que precisam serem estudadas. A diversificação das espécies biológicas se deu por grupos distanciando-se entre si no tempo e espaço, e daí cada qual adquirindo uma nova forma, estas foram passadas hereditariamente, mantendo os hábitos dentro dos grupos fechados. No caso da diversificação mental, ela não tem surgido dentro de linhagens e assim canalizadas a se reproduzirem dentro destas linhagens. Uma nova espécie mental surge dentro de famílias, e não é passada hereditariamente, mas esta espécie brota em muitas famílias diferentes, e tendem a se separarem dos focos de suas famílias para se juntarem em seus grupos. É como se a origem da ddiversificaçãodas especies mentais viessem do mesmo processo que produziu a diversificação biológica: seus genes não vem encerrados dentro de uma membrana formando o cromossoma, mas sim vem espalhados no tempo e no espaço. Interessante desenvolver mais isto.
Para desenvolver isto vamos precisar recapitular aqui a teoria da Matrix/DNA sobre como esta galaxia Milk Way gerou dentro dela esta vida biológica. Vamos a um desfecho intrigante. Na geração da vida neste planeta havia uma fonte emissora das partículas bits-informação – que foram os genes semi-vivos na transição entre a matéria inorgânica e o primeiro sistema celular vivo. Sabemos como e porque, ao invés nesta mera reprodução de uma forma existente, ao invés dos “filhotes” nascerem todos na mesma forma e espécie, nasceram em formas muito diferentes entre si. Basta pensar nas sete diferentes organelas da célula, nas mais de 30.000 espécies de proteínas, de enzimas, ácidos, etc..
Sobre as origens da vida na Terra já sabemos qual foi a “fonte criadora”. A fonte emissora de todos os bits-informação, foi o “building block dos sistemas astronomicos”, por trás do qual está a fórmula da Matrix, feita com pura luz.
Sabemos que os pensamentos humanos são produzidos nas sinapses entre neurônios, compostas por fluxos sanguíneos e descargas elétricas. O conjunto dos pensamentos de um cérebro é o que denominamos, abstratamente, de “mente”, ou “auto-consciência”. No estado atual da nossa pesquisa estamos suspeitando que essa mente é uma forma fetal, embrionaria, e está sendo modelada na mesma configuração do cérebro, o qual é apenas mais um derivado do sistema natural cuja fórmula modeladora é a Matrix/DNA.Temos a suspeita de que quanto mais pensamentos maiores são as descargas elétricas que produzem relâmpagos numa nuvem plasmática e com o final assentamento destas descargas contínuas se gera um todo luminoso, numa frequência da luz imperceptível aos nossos sentidos. Se a Matrix emerge neste Universo na forma de ondas de luz e vem de uma consciência extra-universal, e se a mente humana está se tornando a mesma forma de luz, vemos então aqui mais um óbvio simples processo de reprodução genética. Então a substancia e os bits e inclusive as estações retransmissoras devem ser compostas de luz num estado imperceptível ainda aos nossos sensores cerebrais. Ou melhor: eles podem ser perceptíveis por alguns sensores – como a glândula pineal – mas não são ainda perceptíveis para o embrião mental. Me pergunto: não há nada que possamos fazer para acelerar o desenvolvimento deste embrião e nos salvar com sabedoria antes que a espécie humana seja extinta? Eu, ao menos, vou empreender esforços no máximo que a vida e o tempo me permitir, nesta busca de aceleração. ( Óbviamente não vou tentar técnicas arcaicas, como a de enfiar o dedo nos ouvidos tentando tocar a glândula pineal para desperta-la, ou puxar a ponta dela para estica-la e recompô-la como ela era no passado, na forma da antena dos insetos…Tenho ideias mais inteligencias e cientificas para desperta-la, como bater a cabeça com força e insistentemente numa parede, para acorda-la…Mas, brincadeiras sem graça à parte, penso que na meditação dirigida pela fórmula da Matrix, está o segredo)
Sabemos tambem que os “bits” não precisam vir direto da fonte inicial, pois os “bits-fótons” que alcançam a superfície da Terra vem de estações retransmissoras daquela fonte, que são as estrelas, e a radiação cósmica trazendo bits de quasares, pulsares, buracos negros, etc. E sabemos tambem que estes bits povoam a atmosfera e camada atômica da superfície terrestre, acessíveis às espécies que os aceitam e às que os buscam.
Se agora estamos assistindo um repetir daquele evento, ao assistir a diversificação dos tipos mentais, vem imediatamente as intrigantes perguntas:
“QUAL A FONTE EMISSORA DA AUTO-CONSCIÊNCIA, NO MUNDO ?!
“QUAL A ESTAÇÃO RETRANSMISSORA DE BITS DE AUTO-CONSCIÊNCIA ALCANÇANDO OS SERES HUMANOS?!
” O QUE SÃO OS BITS-INFORMAÇÃO DE AUTO-CONSCIÊNCIAS? COMO SÃO? DE QUE SUBSTANCIA?
” COMO ESTES BITS ESTÃO AFETANDO NOSSAS VIDAS, NOSSOS SISTEMAS SOCIAIS, ECONOMIA, POLITICA, ETC.? INFLUENCIAM NA SAUDE OU NA AUSÊNCIA DELA?”
” COMO DEVEMOS ATUAR PARA NOS TORNAR-MOS MAIS RECEPTIVOS A CADA VEZ MAIORES QUANTIDADES DESTES BITS DE AUTO-CONSCIÊNCIA? COMO BUSCA-LOS?
“SE A MAIOR QUANTIDADE E DIVERSIDADE DESTES BITS SIGNIFICA MAIOR INTELIGENCIA E SABEDORIA, EXISTE UMA TÉCNICA A DESENVOLVER ( TALVEZ NO NÍVEL MENTAL), HÁBITOS A OBSERVAR, ETC., PARA ADQUIRIR MAIS BITS?
Bem… com isso estamos abrindo mais um enorme campo de pesquisas dentro os já centenas, ou milhares abertos pela Matrix/DNA. E como sempre temos dado alguns passos nestas pesquisas, neste tambem deveremos em breve descobrir mais algumas novidades…
( Repetir aqui a teoria das origens da vida pela Matrix/DNA, com enfase na maneira como os fótons estelares se juntaram em pacotes-informação, para ter um quadro mais claro deste assunto)
The War Between Two Opposite Hard-Wired Brains by Two Different Worlds
Eu não consigo acreditar no que eu produzi e me lembro disso sempre que me deparo com matérias na imprensa como a do artigo com link abaixo.
É tão difícil fazer os 13 pontos na loteria esportiva quanto fazer zero pontos – para lembrar que seria tão difícil errar todos os seus palpites sobre as explicações para os mistérios da sua existência e da existência deste mundo como seria impossível acertar todas.
Acontece que o pensamento intelectual e cientifico moderno construiu uma visão de mundo e eu, no meio da selva amazônica observando a natureza bruta, construí exatamente a oposta, a contraria visão do mundo. As duas opostas cosmovisões podem explicar o mundo desde o Alfa ao Ômega, desde o inicio ao fim, por duas diferentes linhas lógicas, como se dois cérebros estivessem configurados exatamente ao contrario entre si.
O que não consigo decifrar é como e porque meu cérebro saiu assim, para produzir tal surpreendente produção: errar ( ou acertar?) todos os 13 pontos ( tenho uma teoria: entrei na selva carregando um bom conhecimento dos 15.000 anos de cultura acumulada pela civilização humana, mas o inferno da selva e o delírio das malarias mais o veneno dos insetos e dos espinhos fez colapsar todo este conhecimento, na maioria artificial, limpando o cérebro, e a partir daí, o espirito da selva bruta e selvagem da Natureza, reconfigurou-o, segundo suas “verdades”). Aconselha a sabedoria que toda vez que deparamos com uma situação onde dois opostos extremos se conflitam,devemos logo perceber que cada lado está 50% certo e 50% errado, sendo que na metade onde um está errando, cabe como certo a metade onde o outro está acertando, e no final, a alternativa verdadeira é a que resulta deste conflito, um meio-termo mais evoluído que seus dois produtores. Eu me resigno a isso, a aceitar que devo estar 50% errado, mas eles não, portanto nem querem saber da minha versão. O único juiz habilitado a resolver isto será o tempo.
E o problema é que nenhum lado tem fatos reais, cientificamente comprovados, para desbancar o outro! Veja qual a diferença, como as explicações aos 5 maiores mistérios do mundo hoje, são exatamente opostas entre si, entre estes dois mundos mentais, resumidamente aqui:
The article says: “There are a lot of things we have learnt about the universe over the last millennium. But some things are still unknown to us, and these unsolved mysteries seem suspicious to us. Let’s take a quick look at some of the puzzling mysteries we have no knowledge about to this day.”
Applying a new method for cosmological inquiry I have found surprising different explanations for these 5 questions. The method is based principally on calculations of universal evolution by the reverse way, starting here and now with biological organization of matter and going down towards the Big Bang. So, it is adding Biology and Neurology upon the unique method used by modern scientific theoretical models, which had applied only Physics and Math for studying the Universe.
1. What is the universe made of?
Matrix/DNA: Bits-informations coming from the system that generated this Universe, working as genes, like a human body is made off genes/bits-informations from its parents. If a bit is temporary active is energy, if it is inertial, is mass. Each bit emerges as vortex, which is the first shape of a universal natural system, having seven brutes forces/properties ( the universal systemic functions), that evolves into the nowaday seven life’s properties. Those first vortexes propagates as light waves, so, light has the code for functional systems, aka, life ( as suggested by the Matrix/DNA version of the graphic for electromagnetic spectrum of any light wave). All natural systems – from atoms to galaxies to human bodies are merelly evolutionary shapes of a universal Matrix evolving by a process of life’s cycle. So, all natural systems have their own version of DNA, which are identified in the models of matrix/DNA Theory. This universe is merely the fossil of our ancestors, inside which is occurring a process of natural genetic reproduction of the thing that created it.
2. Why do we need these pathetic four percent of ordinary matter,…
Matrix/DNA: As solved by Godel’s theorem, nobody can knows the thru of a system standing inside it. So, these suggestions about four percent or 30% is highly theoretical, as every human conception about the universe. We have seen less ordinary matter than other substances because our scientific power is limited to the universe’s skeleton due our method been Physics+Math. But, like the human body made by this Universe is composed by skeleton, soft biological coverture, plus mind, so, much be the whole Universe. We need developing “biological and neurological cosmology”, for studying this Universe, as we are doing at Matrix/DNA Theory. Only a biological coverture over the nowaday known galactic’s skeletons could explains life here, as shown by Matrix/DNA galactic model.
3. Are there other universes other than our own?
Matrix/DNA: Thousands of new discovered natural mechanisms and properties by matrix/DNA Theory are in needs of more researches and better understanding because they can improve human life and saving Humanity from extinction. We must study the universe, but stopping at its frontiers, because everything else will be metaphysics, which is scientifically a prejudice. This question makes no sense.
4. Oops. We still need to mention the word “universe” one more time. Are we the only ones in it?
Matrix/DNA: The answer is in the DNA: it is composed by atoms composing active genes intercalated with larger arrays of atoms composing “junk DNA”; so these larger distances between genes represents the larger distances between different life’s forms inside the universe. Evolution of the universal natural system makes that each time the genes are approximating, till all of them meeting in the shape of neurons, a superior natural architecture called brain. I can’t make this mental operation but things are suggesting that the encounter among developed life’s forms happens at a superior natural organization of matter. We are not bacterias limited to the skeleton of a human body, so, we are not limited to the skeleton of the Universe, composed by hard bodies like planets and stars.
5. What is inside a black hole?
Matrix/DNA: The whole modern cosmological model and theory that concluded by the existence of “black holes” is wrong, sorry. See at the Matrix/DNA Theory formula for natural systems what is the real structure inside galactics’ nucleus. As I said before, this galaxy has an invisible coverture where the connections among astronomical bodies and the transformations of these bodies is organized by less evolved life’s, biological properties. Our scientific team has not seen it yet due applying only Physiscs and Math, which does not translate the phenomenology and is not the language of the soft “meat” covering the galactic body.
Comentario postado em:
LOUIS MORELLI August 14, 2014 at 8:47 pm Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Hurricanes Iselle and Julio Nearing the Hawaiian Islands
Hurricanes Iselle and Julio Nearing the Hawaiian Islands
In early August 2014, not one but two hurricanes were headed for the Hawaiian Islands. Storms arriving from the east are a relative rarity, and landfalling storms are also pretty infrequent.
On Aug. 5, the Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite (VIIRS) sensor on the Suomi National Polar-orbiting Partnership (NPP) satellite captured natural-color images of both Iselle and Hurricane Julio en route to Hawaii. This image is a composite of three satellite passes over the tropical Pacific Ocean in the early afternoon. Note that Iselle’s eyewall had grown less distinct; the storm had descreased to category 2 intensity. The bright shading toward the center-left of the image is sunglint, the reflection of sunlight off the water and directly back at the satellite sensor.
Image Credit: NASA image by Jeff Schmaltz, LANCE/EOSDIS Rapid Response. Caption Credit: Mike Carlowicz.
Comentário da Matrix/DNA:
Foi bater os olhos nesta imagem e lembrar-me dos desenhos feitos na selva há 30 anos atrás quando iniciava a perceber a existência da Matrix e tentava calcular como ela teria surgido. Não é de todo um descalabro ou desvario mental comparar o que ocorre na atmosfera terrestre com o que ocorreu na atmosfera do Universo primordial, pois a atmosfera de qualquer lugar do Universo hoje é mero produto evolutivo da atmosfera primordial… claro, isto é pura lógica. Não é a tremenda complexidade de hoje resultante das diferentes combinações das partículas-informação originais que vai nos cegar para este imperativo da lógica naturalista. O fato de fazer-mos mentalmente esta conexão no tempo e espaço tão distantes entre si é fundamental para ver no fenômeno acontecendo na atmosfera terrestre – o qual é de muita importância porque afeta nossas vidas – elementos e fôrças que aqueles que não fazem este exercício mental não estão percebendo. Por exemplo, esta nova maneira de ver os fenômenos naturais está sugerindo que a energia solar tem grande influencia na formação e direção dos tornados, e que existe a possibilidade da Humanidade atuar também influenciando nesse processo, de maneira que lhe convenha.
Como me falta tempo agora para terminar este artigo, apenas copio abaixo o comentário que postei na noticia da NASA. Mas antes, para os que nada entendem da Matrix/DNA:
Os desenhos feitos na selva na época eram baseados em varios assuntos, tais como:
1) A Física do Prêmio Nobel Hideki Yukawa quando teoricamente calculou como seria a cola nuclear que liga prótons e nêutrons no núcleo atômico. Tenho artigos aqui falando dos “balões ou bolhas-rodamoinhos de Yukawa”, pois eles são fundamentais para começar a se entender como esta matéria organizada em sistemas se manifestou e afirmou neste Universo, e sobre de onde estes bits-informação vieram;
2) A intuição de que o Universo é meramente o palco onde está ocorrendo um processo natural de reprodução genética do desconhecido sistema que havia ou ainda há antes dele. A partir desta intuição comecei a calcular como teriam os bits-informações atuados pelos mesmos processos que os genes atuam a partir do “big bang” da fecundação;
3) A transferência do sistema galáctico e/ou solar para a forma de primeira célula biológica, através de fótons vindos de estrelas como o Sol e do núcleo terrestre; etc…
Comentário postado na noticia da NASA: ( para não ser lido por inteiro porque está em sofrível inglês ( preciso de alguém fazendo as revisões), porque leva o leitor a um palavreado e linguagem que parece de outro mundo, porque expressa uma visão de mundo totalmente diferente e contraria ao que o leitor acredita e portanto, para ser apedrejado… mas tenho que ir insistindo em cumprir a minha missão).
What do you think? Will be the human control of hurricanes dependable of more knowledge about the role of Sun’s energy?