Archive for setembro 17th, 2013

Experimento Sugere Interação entre Cometas e Planetas Gerando Aminoácidos e Confirmando Previsão da Matrix/DNA Theory

terça-feira, setembro 17th, 2013
Ice-blasting test proves that comet impacts can spark life’s ingredients

Meus comentarios postados aqui:

  • comment author avatar Louis Charles Morelli

30 years ago was copyrighted a theory just saying: ” half of informations for new systems comes from F5 (comets) and the another half comes from the host (Earth). Nobody else published something connecting comets and origins of life at that time. The Theory, called “The Universal Matrix/DNA for Natural Systems and Life’s Cycles” shows the formula at its website. You can see at my avatar here how the formula works: look the internal circuit where, from the nude man is emited the spermatozoon towards the woman by the same process that from pulsars’s volcanoes at the right side emits comets towards the yellow colord vortex at the left side. And every day each new scientific discovery is proving the models of that theory. But its suggestions are totally different. For instance, there was no origins of life since that the ancestor and creator (building blocks of astronomical systems) of biological systems shows all biological properties. There are no division among natural systems as living systems and non-living systems. Pulsars and comets were ancestors of Y chromossome. And so on…

raymond-392453 commented 

Life is ubiquitously universal ! This proves it.

Louis Morelli replied 

IN REPLY TO: raymond-392453 #1  — If you understand life as biological system it is not universal. Universal is a natural system that began at the Big Bang in shape of quantum vortexes and evolved to atoms systems, stellar systems, galactic systems and here, into biological systems. Any atom heavier than carbon has hidden in it the seven properties of life, in shape of electromagnetic layers. When there are electrons occupying a layer, the atom expresses one property, while the other six are hidden. So, these atoms could be called “life”? Astronomical systems are described by Newtonian mechanics, we think they are mechanical systems, but, the resulted processes from internal interactions are equal the biological processes of life. (Ok, I am based in Matrix/DNA Theory models), and I could be wrong.

Danny McNeal commented 

Chemical mechanisms for the fusing of simple amino acids into long-chain nucleotides have classically been hard to hypothesize.

Louis Morelli replied 

IN REPLY TO: Danny McNeal #2 You said: fusing of simple amino acids into long-chain nucleotides have classically been hard to hypothesize.)

Amino acids into nucleotides?! I need some help here about chemistry. Amino acids are not fused into chain of proteins? And nucleotides fused into chain of RNA/DNA? I think they are two different things. By the way, the Matrix/DNA formula is suggesting that proteins are the biological representative of flows of energy/information running inside the systemic circuit, while nucleotides are biological representatives of bodies composing the system. The formula for natural system is composed of energy/information in shape of waves (which are related to time and processes) = proteins. And particles (the bodies), which are related to space/inertia. That’s the explanation for proteins and RNA having different formations.

Danny McNeal – replied 

El Profe:

So. spontaneous evolution could form the 3 billion units of specifically ordered biological information on the human DNA molocule? Get real… not even in the time span of a million universes.

Well that’s a hefty claim, which is fine provided you can actually back it up, and the burden of proof for your statement is on you. On what do you base this? (Most of us know better than to claim a negative, which cannot be proven. You can no more prove that human DNA could not possibly have evolved in 4.65 billion years of earth’s history than you could prove that pink polka-dotted unicorns don’t exist.) Meanwhile, scientists are making no claims of certainty, as you have just done, only honestly reporting that they see absolutely no evidence thus far that rules out the possibility of life spontaneously evolving, while hypothesizing and testing possibilities for how parts of that process may have occurred.

In terms of what is realistic, the vast majority of all evolutionary biologists, geophysicists, and other scientists whose areas of expertise touch upon these concepts identify absolutely nothing in the known laws of physics or statistics that lead them to believe that billions of years is an insufficient time period for human DNA to have evolved. And indeed, with each salient scientific discovery on these subjects, it seems ever less unlikely. It would be foolish and unscientific to categorically ignore that statistical trend.

Louis Morellireplied 

comment author avatar

  • YOU

IN REPLY TO: Danny McNeal #2.3

You are almost right. Human DNA can be a result of 4 billion years of biological evolution which can be a result of variation, adaptation, natural selection and reproduction. But… if is there a hidden agent driven this evolution? And maybe it exists, as suggested in Matrix/DNA Theory. Who is the invisible agent? Merely the creator and host of organic matter and biological systems, inclusive the DNA. This hidden agent is this astronomical system and its Cosmological Evolution. Nucleotides are merely biological copies of building blocks of galaxies, which are half-mechanical/half biological. At my website you can see the pictures, side by side of a nucleotide and the astronomical building block. This invisible agent is driven this whole biosphere, created by him, for to be its copy, like at any process of reproduction. Human beings are going to be merely a piece of this mechanical/biological system, that’s is the explanation for we are going towards the Brave New World under the Big Queen, as already went the social systems of ants and bees. And the scientists are not seeing this visible agent that is surrounding us from all sides due Astronomy and Physics making the wrong cosmological model.

Flame77_7 commented 

comment author avatar

There is a lot of “Ifs” and “possible” with there experiments….. but hey will see where the experiment lead… The problem is the same  “debris” also “should” have struck Mars, Moon and other planets (as they mentioned in the article) but the crux is the “conditions” for life not the chemistry.   You can find the “essence” of base nucleatides “everywhere” but to “coax life” even impacts with the right ingredients would not be enough.

Louis Morellireplied 

comment author avatar

  • YOU

IN REPLY TO: Flame77_7 #5

but the crux is the “conditions” for life not the chemistry.   You can find the “essence” of base nucleatides “everywhere” but to “coax life” even impacts with the right ingredients would not be enough.

There are bits-information for formation of natural systems that resembles the galaxy everywhere inside this galaxy. This galaxy is a system attacked by entropy, so, any star (which has bits-information of the entire system) is radiating fragments of this system in shape of photons, which are bits-information and can work like genes if they meet at the surface of bodies that has conditions for them to join and trying to reproduce the galaxy. But these conditions are dependable of lots of circumstances. Matrix/DNA Theory models are suggesting that the ideal planet must be located in a solar region corresponding to a specific frequency of solar magnetosphere. The weird thing here is that there are possibilities for formation of systems that does not resemble ” life” as we know it, but this system could become intelligent also. Then, we must take the picture of the building block of astronomical systems (the picture is in Matrix/DNA website) and calculate all possibles shapes that they can evolve into. Maybe there are “living beings” made off iron, rubber, plastic, etc.

Moe Szyslak commented 

comment author avatar

One question :  Did the Ice cristals Have some form of Life from the Begining or was it totally without life of any kind , including adam , proton , neutron movement , which is a life in it self ?

Louis Morellireplied 

comment author avatar

  • YOU

IN REPLY TO:Moe Szyslak#6

” Did the Ice cristals Have some form of Life from the Begining?”

Yes Moe, they did. Dry ice is the solid form of carbon dioxide (chemical formula CO2), comprising two oxygen atoms bonded to a single carbon atom. It happens that carbon atom is the unique atom that mimics the building block of astronomical systems, which are the ancestors of the building blocks of RNA/DNA and aminoacids. The problem is that we understand as “life” the biological shape of that astronomical system. Biology is result of increasing a new state of matter – the liquid state (water) and then, emerging the organic chemistry. The ancestor in the sky was made with only two states of matter – solid and gaseous. Then, biological shape is a big mutation due different environment ( at Earth surface we have gravitational force) and different materials. There is no problem for Nature reducing a system of astronomical dimensions into a system of microscopic dimension, since Nature applies nanotechnology, like when it resumes an adult human being inside a microscopic genome. Carbon atom reproduces at atomic dimension the astronomical building block because both, have six elements that works as systemic functions. That’s why carbon was selected for being the foundation of organisms. But… everything I said is based in the models of Matrix/DNA Theory and it could be wrong… take care.

Here we are again commented 

comment author avatar

The problem is not going to be finding life. I think life is abundant, Every fifth star system will have a Goldilocks planets. The problem is Distance. Time. Space is too cast, the distance will stop us unless some great breakthrough comes along showing us how to warp space-time. We are doomed to be a one planet species until such time comes along. Oh how I wish it could be in my lifetime. Sigh. Is the next Einstein here currently?

Louis Morellireplied 

comment author avatar

  • YOU

IN REPLY TO:Here we are again#7

The problem is Distance

Maybe we will solve the problem of distance while you still being alive. The key is a better understanding about natural light. Our ship must be rocketed by something that mimics the sources of natural light. Any light wave expands forming at least seven different frequencies. But… it expands into space, there is no time in light wave expansion,, or at least, it is dispresible . At Matrix/DNA Theory I have discovered that any light wave  has the code that imprints life into inertial mass as the one that fits the space. Because the sequence of different vibrations, or frequencies, is the same sequence of a life cycle that transform our body into at least seven different shapes (blastula, fetus, baby, kid, teenager, etc.). So, if a star is at 200 light years from here, we need to calibrate the source/rocket that reduces a light year into one day and multiply it by 200… and our ship will be there inside 24 hours. How will be the source/rocket? We need to reproduce mechanically any natural source of light, like, for instance, stars. It will not be that difficult since that we are almost creating black holes inside those synchrotrons…and Matrix/DNA has the formula for doing it. (but, maybe the theory is wrong… take care.

a—rand commented 

comment author avatar

Amazing to what extent some people will go, to disapprove the existence of a higher power or intelligence.  No, I don’t think the earth was created in 6 days, but something somewhere was created from nothing.  NOTHING!  When something is made from nothing, it is called Creation.  Meditate on that concept for a while.

Louis Morellireplied 

comment author avatar

  • YOU

When something is made from nothing, it is called Creation

Something from nothing, accordingly L. Krauss, does not violates any laws of Physics, but Nature is not limited into matter organized by Physics laws. There are matter organized by biological laws also, which is one level more complex. At Matrix/DNA Theory the models are suggesting that this galaxy is covered by a layer of primitive biological organization that Physics can not grasp it. And must have the laws related to consciousness, also. I think that “something from nothing” violates the laws of rationality, which is related to coinsciousness.

You need to define what you understand by “creation”. Yours own body was made throughout an initial Big Bang ( if the observer was inside the egg when exploded the spermatozoon’s membrane). Nature does not play dice with us, so, the method it uses for creation here it must use everywhere. That’s why Nature makes you by triggering an initial “explosion/expansion” – Nature was made by the same process. So, if you understand the formation of your body as “creation”, no problem with that.

We know that before and beyond the egg that gave birth to you there were the parents ( the observer inside the system can not see them, because nobody inside a system can knows the truth about the system – a Godel’s theorem) like we can not know what was before this cosmological egg called Universe. But… the conclusion is clear: some kind of parents.

Yours parents did not used intelligence for doing you. It is all about natural, genetic process. At Matrix/DNA Theory we re-wrote the History of Universe and the final conclusion is that inside this Universe is occurring a process of genetic reproduction… of… the unknown natural system that was before the Big Bang. No problem if you want call it “God”. But…everything I said is based in a theory, which can be wrong…


comment author avatar

IN REPLY TO: danangel #9

Doesn’t say that this proves comets DID create the ingredients for life.  Only proves that they could have.  A common argument is that random physical events could not have created complex organic molecules.

Louis Morellireplied 

comment author avatar

  • YOU

IN REPLY TO: Brisaber #9.3

It is a random physic event that Marie meet John, but it is not a random physic event that they created a new life. It is enough that the “program” for creating life was, half inside John and half inside Marie. At Matrix/DNA Theory you can see the suggestion about how the program for doing amino acids was half inside the comet and half inside Earth’s matter.

Chuck-3538322 commented 

comment author avatar

The problems of primodial soups are big, but bigger yet is the infeasability of generating without supernatural input an enormous increase in complexity. A wide gulf separtes an aqueous solution containing a few amino acids from the simlest living cell.

Years ago, molecular biophysist Harold Morowitz calculated the size of this gulf. If one were to take the simplest living cell and break every chemical bond within it, the odds that the cell would reassemble under ideal natural coditions ( the best possible chemical environment) would be one chance in 10 to the 100 billionth power. Most of us cannot even begin to picture a speck of chance so remote. With ods so remote as 1 in 10 to the 100billionth power, the time scale issue becomes irrelevant. What does it matter if Earth has been around for ten seconds, ten thousand years or ten billion years?  If all the matter in the universe were converted into the building blocks of life, and if assembly of these building blocks were attempted once a microsecond for the entire age of the universe, then instead of the odds being one in 10 to the billionth power, they would be one in 10 to the 99,999,999,916 power… Some people will believe in anything as long as it is not the hand of God in creating all that surrounds you. Sad.

Louis Morelli replied 

comment author avatar

  • YOU

 The problems of primodial soups are big, but bigger yet is the infeasability of generating without supernatural input an enormous increase in complexity. A wide gulf separtes an aqueous solution containing a few amino acids from the simlest living cell

Chuck, there is the possibility that God is more intelligent, as such that He does not need going to each planet touching its matter with supernatural input for starting life. Cell system is the exactly copy of this astronomical system surrounding us. The primordial soup was being bombarded by sun’s light. But… before the formation of any astronomical system, the inertial mass of this space was bombarded by waves of light emitted by the Big Bang. Should be enough if God created light waves containing something like computational program under evolution. Then, the program was inserted into the whole space, creating atoms, systems, galactic systems, and emitted by stars like our Sun, creating biological systems, till, conscious systems. But… such God even did not need using intelligence for doing that, if such program was inside Him, like the genetic program that made you was inside your father. Nothing supernatural, everything natural. It is enough that such God is made off a substance: light. If you want to know how a cell system is the exactly copy of an astronomical system – like son and father – see both pictures at Matrix/DNA website. It is a theory, but it solves this problem, rationally.

JoeAllen commented 

comment author avatar

SCIENCE is, by definition, a body of knowledge that has been established by the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

The following TWO BASIC HYPOTHESES of Darwinian Evolution have NOT yet been established by precise, repeatable experiments as demanded by the SCIENTIFIC METHOD:

HYPOTHESIS #1: Life-less matter with NO Genome, was somehow TRANSFORMED into a living single-cell organism with a Genome.*

HYPOTHESIS #2: Single-cell organisms somehow EVOLVED into a multi-celled organism.**

When these two Basic Hypotheses are established by means of the SCIENTIFIC METHOD, I will 100% accept Darwinian Evolution as SCIENCE.



* Nobel Laureate FRANCIS CRICK, the co-discoverer of DNA, after spending more than 40 years trying to prove this Hypothesis, eventually rejected it as … UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE … !!!


** Nobel Laureate WERNER ARBER, a Swiss micro-biologist, has spent more than 50 years of his life, documenting the cumulative effects of MUTATIONS on thousands upon thousands of generations of single-cell organisms. Thus far, Werner Arber reports that he has found … NO MECHANISM … that would enable a single-cell organism to evolve into a multi-cell organism.

Louis Morelli replied 

comment author avatar

  • YOU

The following TWO BASIC HYPOTHESES of Darwinian Evolution have NOT yet been established by precise, repeatable experiments as demanded by the SCIENTIFIC METHOD:

It happens that Darwinian Evolution is not about universal evolution (it is biological evolution, a micro-cycle of universal evolution), and interactions between comets and planets is about cosmological evolution. Darwinian evolution has found only three variables (VSI = Variation,selection, inheritance), but, universal evolution has these three variables and more four variables – which has influenced biological evolution also.

” Life-less matter with NO Genome, was somehow TRANSFORMED into a living single-cell organism with a Genome.”

If you say that a single cell is life, you must say that the building block of this galaxy is life also, because all properties here are there also. And about genome, it is merely a pile of derived shapes of a unique system – encrypted into a base-pair of nucleotides. It happens that this same system exists at astronomical scales. So, portions of matter does not have “genome” but, astronomical system have it.

The evolution from a single-cell organism into a multi-celled organism happens by the mechanism of quorum sensing. A large population of single-cells attached as the marine corals has the tendency to self-organize by the same template that was organized one individual. It happened when the primordial nebulae composed solely by atoms became stellar systems. See Matrix/DNA models and you have more information.

comment author avatar

Michael (Astronomy.FM) replied 

And the scientists are not seeing this visible agent that is surrounding us from all sides due Astronomy and Physics making the wrong cosmological model.

Translation:  “Hey, lookee here!  With this magic wand I can see things that are invisible to science!”

Reaction:  “Poppycock and balderdash.”

Louis Morellireplied 

comment author avatar

  • YOU

Michael, magical wand is being applied by you, as astronomer, through mechanical sensors connected to a electromechanical brain, elaborating cosmological theories from computer simulations. The final conclusion of yours is that randomness is magical, able to create things like the genetic code, and the Nothing is magical, able to create something. What is the difference from the magical gods of creationists?

I have no magical wand, I have a real human scientific method, which is keeping a biological brain when analysing the data got by mechanical sensors, putting them under the scrutiny of human reasoning. My method is simple: comparative anatomy between living and non-living systems, the ancient method that began this enterprise called Human Science. But… human consciousness still is a baby (it can not open its own eyes for to see its own body, yet) and every baby translates the real phenomena that they are seeing into fantasies, maybe because they does not have a rational method. So, I am aware that my theoretical astronomical models must have some kind of fantasy, although I am trying to clean them when applying a rational method. Yours model has as the best representative a man that lost his natural sensors, they does not works anymore, he is connected to a computer, which sensors are mechanics, the data are analysed by computational simulations, so, the electromechanical brain is modelling the biological brain for to be a mechanical brain also, when interpreting the invisible dimensions at micro and macro scales. The final result is that yours theoretical Universal History is the same history of man made machines, beginning with the motor explosion in a big, big bang! Wake up man, while you have time. We need a universal history, the meaning of life and our existence, from a humanistic view point, narrated by our Reason.  Astronomers today are getting the Stephen Hawking disease. By the way, it is theory against theory, and since one can not debunks the other, only time wil be the final judge.


“Attacked by entropy”  What does that mean?”

Louis Morellireplied 

comment author avatar

  • YOU

IN REPLY TO: Ferrosynthesis-3490482 #5.4

What means “attacked by entropy”? First of all, you need remember that all of us here are talking about theories, each one trying to reach the final correct interpretation from the results of this experiment. But… thermodynamics is a theory also, since that it relates to natural systems, and nobody knows a real closed and complete natural system. My method has suggested a theoretical model of natural closed system, I am based upon it, because it has made right predictions and is rational, accordingly to my still infant and non-complete reasoning. I got this model of closed system when trying comparative anatomy between the data we have about this galactic system and the data we have about the nowadays results of its evolution, which is the cell system. This method draw a picture of an intermediary system between Milk Way and cells, which should be the missing evolutionary link. It happens that the picture reveals a complete working closed system, at astronomical level. My conclusion is that it in fact exists and is a kind of building block of astronomical systems. Then, calculating how this astronomical system was transformed into a cell system, the explanation is entropy. But… entropy of closed system is not like the third thermodynamic law, which is based into opened systems. Entropy of closed systems is internalized, something like when yours own body reach the final energy grow at 16 years old and begins to decrease. Informations from the periphery of yours body are driven into a small, microscope, copy of yours, called spermatozoon. The configuration of a astronomical building block is the same configuration of a DNA building block. Then, biological systems that emerged here are results from entropy acting over this galactic system. Also, pieces of comets falling over Earth surface means events of chaos, not order, which means the presence of entropy. The risen of amino acids means that from chaos is emerging a flow of order. But… still it is a theory, 30 years under testing against every new scientific discovery, and it could be wrong.


comment author avatar

My post was more directed at danangel, who was not satisifed with the title of the article.  I merely pointed out that the title was appropriate.  In my mind there is no doubt that comets were involved in biogensis of life on earth, both as a means of delivering materials and delivering energy.

As for some metaphysical matrix mumbo-jumbo, it’s not needed.  There is plenty of opportunity within the normal physical universe for things to happen randomly with astonishing results.  There is no need to rely on “hidden agents” or “unknown natural systems” that predate the big bang.  You can look all you want for some deeper meaning, but science is the study of the observable physical universe, not the metaphysical.

Louis Morellireplied 

comment author avatar

  • YOU

IN REPLY TO: Brisaber #9.6  –  You made a good point remembering to danangel that the title refers to proving the existence of a natural mechanism, does not prove that this mechanism was applied with comets. And I merely pointed out that yours saying “a  common argument is that random physical events could not have created complex organic molecules” suggests that this experiment proves that this argument is wrong. Nope. From these amino acids to the very complexes molecules of life there is an astronomical distance. If you want to fulfill this astronomical distance with your mumbo-jumbo magical randomness producing events that reaches the complex molecules as DNA, feel free for doing it. We will talk when you finally will prove it in the next 3,5 billion years. The program inside John and Marie are not metaphysical mumbo jumbo and they are not unknown natural system, so, it is rational that one use them trying to explain the origins of life. But, yours  sequence of random events as the creator of DNA, this is purely metaphysical, since that it is.not falsiable and never will be. But… I don’t worry about, it is theory against theory, nothing else…

Danny McNealreplied 

comment author avatar

Atom Balm:

In reply to: Danny McNeal #1.5also, isn’t there a difference between evolution and abiogenesis?

Well, it depends on how you define your scope. The comment left by jock59801 immediately below yours is correct in that “BIOLOGICAL evolution and abiogenesis are two completely different things”—that the evolution of living organisms, which are already arbitrarily defined by us to be “living,” is distinct from the question of how PRE-biotic building blocks actually assembled into self-replicating living systems. Abiogenesis is just one hypothesis for how this may have taken place. The term “evolution” can, however, and often is in the scientific literature and professional journals defined with a wider scope, which encompasses not only biological evolution but the evolution of pre-biotic building blocks across the arbitrary threshold of inanimate/animate, as well as the evolution of the physical conditions in which the laws of chemistry and physics play out among these building blocks. When evolution is defined this expansively, it is better thought of as the study of the principles of self-organization on all levels of matter and energy.

To define the term “evolution” expansively is necessary when scientists probe questions such as, “What is the range of conditions which a planet, a planet’s host solar system, and even a solar system’s host galaxy must evolve to in order to allow for pre-biotic building blocks to cross the arbitrary threshold into what we call life, not to mention the range of conditions which must be evolved for BIOLOGICAL evolution to take place.” Doing so takes account of the fact that, in the strictist terms, the earth gave birth to us, but only with the help of key characteristics of the solar system, such as the stabilizing influence of the moon on the precession of Earth’s axis of rotation and the gravitational influence of Jupiter that reduced the rate of cometary/asteroidal bombardment of the earth dramatically, as well as the help of key characteristics of our host galaxy, such as the organization of regions of low radiation flux, stable solar system orbit around the galactic core, etc.

Ultimately, my comment to BannedForLife above was in response to his/her use of the term “evolution” to encompass the process of pre-biotic precursors self-organizing through the laws of chemistry and physics over time. Since I had no way of knowing how expansively s/he was defining the term “evolution,” I just ran with it…

Louis Morellireplied 

comment author avatar

  • YOU

IN REPLY TO: Danny McNeal #1.20

Very well said. You have the ability to put the right words at right place. Sometimes I think that the relation between this galaxy and us is equal the relation between us and the 80 or 90% of cells that inhabit our body but does not belong to us. These tiny bacterias are totally dependable of the internal conditions and structure of human bodies, so, we are dependable of the right equilibrium of this galaxy and its structure. Do you think a billion year ahead these bacterias inside our body will evolve to insects, reptiles, mammalians, monkeys and microscope humans? Certainly no, because our body is different from galaxies and should drive their evolution to another shapes. What matter here is that we have a situation where it is clear that an invisible agent (to bacterias as observer in their little world) also drives evolution. Then, evolution is not a blind force, neither natural selection is merely a logistic that results from random events. It suggests that there is an agent behind natural selection. For our intern bacterias the agent is the human body, for us in this planet (as observer at our little planet) it is the galaxy… It is the Matrix/DNA and when I talk about it some people says that the Matrix is metaphysical… Only food for thought… Am I wrong? Where?!


comment author avatar

IN REPLY TO: Brisaber #2.5  Guys like that like to twist words and facts and concepts to their own side of an argument, even when they KNOW they’re being disingenuous. Even if they truly believe their position, they’ll lie to promote it. It’s the same in politics, conservative and liberal.

Louis Morellireplied 

comment author avatar

  • YOU

IN REPLY TO: dbarak #2.11  You are right. Steeling balls into blocks of ice with a glorified BB gun is news to be explored at exhaustion by believers in the theory that from nothing comes something and believers that the existence of life is a marvellous trick of Nature, since that if not collisions between comets and planets never would be life. These guys are not able to rationalize anymore that something from nothing is a metaphysical idea, and are not able to ask themselves why, hells, just happened that comets have ammonium hydroxide and methanol and planets have pristine water and carbon dioxide ice for such perfect marriage generating building blocks of life. I thought about, I made this question to myself 35 years ago when my hobby was calculating cosmological models that could produce life as it is here and the best model is designed here at my avatar. See there which are the mechanisms that give origins to comets,the mechanisms that drives comets towards planets and the composition of comets containing half information for creating biological systems. If you want understanding it, you need go to the Matrix/DNA website, which was copyrighted long time ago. There are several holes in the theory and yours contribution or yours prove against it will be welcome.


Post For Los Angeles Times:,0,4729019.story

At my avatar here you can see this mechanisms discovered now, how and why it works (comets emitted by pulsars towards the nucleus in analogy  of a spermatosoon emitted by a human male towards the pregnant woman. This mechanism is part of Matrix/DNA Theory copyrighted about 30 years ago, when nobody was thinking about such possibility. This news is more evidence and right prevision of this theory.

It is not  a random event that ammonium hydroxide and methanol from comets are complementary with pristine water and carbon dioxide ice from planets for producing building blocks of life. Like it is not merely coincidense that planets have the shape of eggs and comets the shape of spermatozoons: the offspring repeat the shapes of their creator. Then, the mechanisms that produces life at planets are ancestors of the mechanisms that produces human babies. Biological systems (aka “life”) are merely effects of reproduction of astronomical systems.  So, it is not a weird idea that comets hitting planets could produce amino acids, it is result of an unique universal evolutionary lineage of a unique natural system that began at the Big Bang.


Posts nos Artigos em Portugues:

Louis Charles Morelli ·  Quem mais comentou · Queens

De onde a Natureza ou este inseto obteve recursos para construir esta engenharia se ambos são considerados não inteligentes?! No meu avatar ao lado está a explicação. Foi pela observação de milhares de fenômenos assim curiosos na selva amazônica que me levou a elaborar a Teoria da Matrix/DNA a qual sugere sempre explicações jamais pensadas antes. Todas as partes desta engrenagem e os mecanismos de impulso já existiam na Natureza antes das origens da vida, em qualquer dos antigos sistemas naturais, como átomos e galaxias. Por exemplo, a engrenagem com rodas dentadas. No núcleo galático existe um turbilhão espiralado na forma de cone e sua existência vem dos primórdios do Universo quando vórtices quânticos com sentidos contrários se ligavam formando partículas cônicas. Separando-se o cone verticalmente obtém-se duas metades cada qual contendo a meia parte de cada linha magnética, assim como duas partes de um zipper. Esta operação foi imitada ao surgir o DNA, formado por duas partes “dentadas”,porque tendo sido esta galaxia que produziu os sistemas biológicos aqui, suas características foram transmitidas aos nossos corpos. Tal criatura, tal criador. Depois repetiu-se no flagelo bacteriano. E os insetos nada mais fizeram que expressar os seus genes que tinham informação em potencial para essa maquinaria, devido alguma necessidade de sobrevivência. Também o impulso espontâneo já existia, basta lembrar dos vulcões emitindo magma, ou prótons emitindo píon. Esse inteiro fenômeno é visível na formula da Matrix/DNA e, a formula que a Natureza tem usado quando produz uma nova forma do sistema universal que vem desde o Big Bang, a qual está no meu website. Toda essa engrenagem foi descrita a 30 anos atras quando entrei com o registro para copyright. Mais uma vez nossas previsões se confirmam. Veja mais explicações no debate que se segue ao artigo na NBC NEWS, “Ice-blasting test proves that comet impacts can spark life’s ingredients”

Sérgio Pereira · Auxiliar Administrativo na empresa Prefeitura de São Vicente

A ciência cada vez mais mostrando evidências de projeto (Design Inteligente) nas plantas e animais. Isso não surgiu do acaso ou de um processo não-direcionado (seleção natural) de milhões e milhões de anos. Porém, alguma mentes obtusas não querem ver. O pior cego é aquele que não quer ver.

Louis Charles Morelli ·  Quem mais comentou · Queens

Mas também manter a mente no estado infantil quando se avança para a idade adulta não é aconselhável. Crianças fantasiam a realidade, falam com amigos invisíveis. Da mesma forma essa auto-consciência que surgiu na Terra ainda ontem em termos de tempo cosmológico ainda esta na sua infância por isto é natural que elabore construções fantasiosas como as religiões misticas e veja fantasmas inteligentes em fenômenos naturais facilmente explicados pela Natureza depois que o conhecimento racional observa e estuda o fenômeno. Veja a explicação de onde vem as origens desta maquinaria no meu post acima ou no meu website. No próprio avatar ao lado feito a 30 anos atras podes ver o mecanismo funcionando. A visão de mundo da Matrix/DNA não descarta a possibilidade de que antes e alem do Universo exista um sistema natural consciente e inteligente criador de universos e tudo que neles estão, porem como tudo aqui dentro foi explicado numa simples linha logica de causas e efeitos sem a necessidade de interferência de nenhuma inteligencia. A mamãe girafa produz uma girafinha, uma obra de extraordinária engenharia, sem usar nenhuma inteligencia. Assim tem sido tudo o que a Natureza tem feito. A auto-consciência de quem quer estudar pode agora dar o salto evolutivo e sair do estagio infantil. Concordo também que a ação de ateus no meio intelectual e cientifico revela imaturidade mental, ao criar acasos mágicos e absolutos que não estão presentes na linhagem evolucionaria descoberta pela Matrix/DNA. Temos nosso cérebro ainda muito pequenino, a imensidão e idade deste mundo é inimaginável,e isso aconselha a manter-mos a mente aberta a todas as possibilidades e continuar buscando respostas, amadurecendo. Não existem certezas para eliminar nossos deuses, porem devemos observar imensidão deste mundo para deixar de reduzir os deuses a nossas ínfimas dimensões, devemos restaurar os deuses a grandeza que eles merecem.
No Los Angeles Times
rRuhling at 7:56 PM September 16, 2013

Baloney! I have three degrees in science, including one in chemistry. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says the energy systems of the universe  run down unless acted upon by an outside force. To think that life “could” come as they hypothesize, is utter nonsense, “like a jumbo jet from an explosion in a junk yard, as one scientist put it in TIME magazine some years ago. For a really good website on the facts of life vs evolution, I recommend this website–

Louis Morelli at 6:17 PM September 20, 2013   Change your avatarThe 2nd law of thermodynamics is theory and is not complete since nobody never saw a closed system and does not know how it works. But, life couldn’t come as they hypothesize also, since that there is no knowledge about this galactic system that produced “life”. And the word “life” makes no sense if we don’t call the ancestors natural systems (atoms, galaxies) as life also. We have discovered that impacts into dry ice by bodies with carbon dioxide and methnol can creates some aminoacids, that’s it. Everything else is speculation and interpretations driven by privates world views. The Matrix/DNA Theory’s models suggested 30 years ago that comets are agents acting for biological systems formation and suggested other kind of mechanism, but, it is theoretical also. We have no other alternative than search more and more.


Tiras da noticia:

–  “This process demonstrates a very simple mechanism whereby we can go from a mix of simple molecules, such as water and carbon dioxide ice, to a more complicated molecule, such as an amino acid,” the University of Kent’s Mark Price, one of the leaders of the experiment, said in a news release. “This is the first step toward life. The next step is to work out how to go from an amino acid to even more complex molecules such as proteins.”

–  ammonium hydroxide and methanol, two key compounds found in comets.

 the team found several amino acids in the goop, including glycine, norvaline, alanine and isovaline. No amino acids were found in the control ice. That suggested that the cometary chemicals were key to the reaction

– Goldman and their colleagues mixed up a batch of pristine water and carbon dioxide ice 

Ok. Entao os materiais que foram misturados (do cometa mais da Terra) foram: pristine water, carbon dioxide ice, ammonium hydroxide, methanol.

– That suggested that the cometary chemicals were key to the reaction

 “the catch is that these building blocks need the right conditions in order for life to flourish.”

– “This increases the chances of life originating and being widespread throughout our solar system,”

 “As this new work shows, amino acids, once formed, are relatively stable to further degradation,” Benner told NBC News in an email. “This is unlike ribose, for example, which is part of a genetic molecule. Unfortunately, it is not clear that proteins built from amino acids can ‘do’ genetics.”





1) Pristine water: definition, having its original purity; uncorrupted or unsullied. = h2o

2) Carbon dioxide ice or Dry ice, (gelo seco) sometimes referred to as “cardice” or as “card ice” (chiefly British English), is the solid form of carbon dioxide. Dry ice is the solid form of carbon dioxide (chemical formula CO2), comprising two oxygen atoms bonded to a single carbon atom. It is colorless, with a sour zesty odor, non-flammable, and slightly acidic.

Carbon dioxide (chemical formula CO2) is a naturally occurring chemical compound composed of two oxygen atoms each covalently double bondedto a single carbon atom. It is a gas at standard temperature and pressure and exists in Earth’s atmosphere in this state,

As part of the carbon cycleplantsalgae, and cyanobacteria use light energy to photosynthesize carbohydrate from carbon dioxide and water, withoxygen produced as a waste product

carbohydrate is an organic compound comprising only carbonhydrogen, and oxygen, usually with a hydrogen:oxygen atom ratio of 2:1 (as in water); in other words, with the empirical formula Cm(H2O)n (where m could be different from n).[1] Some exceptions exist; for example, deoxyribose, a sugar component of DNA,[2] has the empirical formula C5H10O4.[3] Carbohydrates are technically hydrates of carbon;


3) Ammonia solution, also known as ammonium hydroxideammonia waterammonical liquorammonia liquoraqua ammoniaaqueous ammonia, or simply ammonia, is a solution of ammonia in water. It can be denoted by the symbols NH3(aq).

Like other gases, ammonia exhibits decreasing solubility in solvent liquids as the temperature of the solvent increases.

4) Methanol, also known as methyl alcohol, wood alcoholwood naphtha or wood spirits, is a chemical with the formula CH3OH (often abbreviated MeOH).  From synthesis gas:  Carbon monoxide and hydrogen react over a catalyst to produce methanol.

(Nao confundir methane CH4 com methanol CH3OH)  – O methane volta a ser noticia porque a Curiosity nao acha metahne em Marte (antes satelites e telescopios imformavam captarem metano la) e isso confrona a teoria de que o planeta tenha tido ou ainda tem vida, pois metano pe fundamental para iniciar a vida. Estou deduzindo pela formula do metano que ele ja tras sua morte rapida em si mesmo, pelo atomo de oxigenio. Entao seria um gaz que constantemente estaria trocando seus building blocks como na sopa primordial do Big Bang. Mas entao teria que ter uma fonte produzindo metano constantemente, ou algo qie recebe o gaz desfeito e o refaz. Mas esta curta vida do metano lataria a possibilidade das moleculas iniciais da vida, como aminoacido, se firmarem. No entanto, tem a informacao que na Terra, 95% do metano pe produzido por organismos vivos.. Isto levanta a hipotese de que nao apenas as moleculas de gaz metano desapareciam, mas sim a totalidade do gaz tambem, porem, logo apos se firmarem, os organismos contornaram o problema do desaparcimento do gaz aprendendo eles mesmos a produzi-lo. Se aprenderam a produzi-lo pe porque a fonte do metano esta no corpo deles. Isto quer dizer que a fonte misteriosa que supria metano para a atmosfera de Marte, e da Terra, foi transferida ou transmitida sua copia para o corpo do organismo. Agora pe preciso saber como o organismo produz o metano, para saber onde esta a fonte inorganica que sumiu da Terra e talvez de Marte.

Surge a hipotese que o metano respira, ou seja…, A formula do metano pe CH3OH. Suponha que exista uma molecula CH4. E nela entra um Oxigenio. Torna-se metano. O oxigenio desfaz a molecula. Mas imediatamente outro CH4, ou o mesmo que resultou da morte de um metano absorve novo O. O metano surge novo ou ressuscita, se veio de outro metano desfeito. Isto pode ter sido o principio da respiracao no mundo organico.


Intuicoes, conclusoes:

Anino acido formam proteinas e nao nucleotides, nao estao no RNA e DNA. Parece-me que aminoacidos representam a corrente de energia que curcula no circuit, o que chamo de ondas do tempo, enquanto nucleotideos representam os corpos no circuito, ou seja, as mesmas ondas tornadas particulas. Isto porque ja tenho descoberto que proteinas representam os trechos do circuito entre os corpos.

Amino acids (/əˈmn//əˈmn/, or /ˈæmɪn/) are biologically important organic compounds made from amine (-NH2) and carboxylic acid (-COOH)functional groups, along with a side-chain specific to each amino acid. The key elements of an amino acid are carbonhydrogenoxygen, and nitrogen, though other elements are found in the side-chains of certain amino acids. About 500 amino acids are known[1] and can be classified in many ways. Structurally they can be classified according to the functional groups’ locations as alpha- (α-), beta- (β-), gamma- (γ-) or delta- (δ-) amino acids; other categories relate to polaritypH level, and side chain group type (aliphatic, acyclic, aromatic, containing hydroxyl or sulfur, etc.) In the form of proteins, amino acids comprise the second largest component (after water) of human musclescells and other tissues.[2] Outside proteins, amino acids perform critical roles in processes such as neurotransmitter transport and biosynthesis.(Ver mais)

Comparison of the structures of alanine and beta alanine. In alanine, the side-chain is a methyl group; in beta alanine, the side-chain contains a methylene group connected to an amino group, and the alpha carbon lacks an amino group. The two amino acids, therefore, have the same formulae but different structures.

Ok. Entao aminoacidos sao formados de amine (-Nh2) mais Carboxylic acid (-COOH). Vejamos o que pe isto:

Amines are organic compounds and functional groups that contain a basic nitrogen atom with a lone pair. Amines are derivatives ofammonia, wherein one or more hydrogen atoms have been replaced by a substituent such as an alkyl or aryl group.[1] Important amines include amino acidsbiogenic aminestrimethylamine, and aniline; see Category:Amines for a list of amines. Inorganicderivatives of ammonia are also called amines, such as chloramine (NClH2); see Category:Inorganic amines.Compounds with the nitrogen atom attached to a carbonyl of the structure R–CO–NR′R″ are called amides and have different chemical properties from amines (Ver mais)

secondary amine

Ammonia or azane is a compound of nitrogen and hydrogen with the formula NH3. It is a colourless gas with a characteristic pungent smell. Ammonia contributes significantly to the nutritional needs of terrestrial organisms by serving as a precursor to food and fertilizers. Ammonia, either directly or indirectly, is also a building-block for the synthesis of many pharmaceuticals and is used in many commercial cleaning products. Although in wide use, ammonia is both caustic and hazardous. The global industrial production of ammonia for 2012 is anticipated to be 198 million tonnes,[7] a 35% increase over the estimated 2006 global output of 146.5 million tonnes (Ver mais)

carboxylic acid /ˌkɑrbɒkˈsɪlɪk/ is an organic acid characterized by the presence of at least one carboxyl group.[1] The general formula of a carboxylic acid is R-COOH, where R is some monovalent functional group. A carboxyl group (or carboxy) is a functional group consisting of a carbonyl (RR’C=O) and a hydroxyl (R-O-H), which has the formula -C(=O)OH, usually written as -COOH or -CO2H.[2]

Carboxylic acids are Brønsted-Lowry acids because they are proton (H+) donors. They are the most common type of organic acid. Among the simplest examples are formic acid H-COOH, which occurs in ants, and acetic acid CH3-COOH, which gives vinegar its sour taste. Acids with two or more carboxyl groups are calleddicarboxylictricarboxylic, etc. The simplest dicarboxylic example is oxalic acid (COOH)2, which is just two connected carboxyls. Mellitic acid is an example of a hexacarboxylic acid. Other important natural examples are citric acid (in lemons) and tartaric acid (in tamarinds).


Nucleotides are organic molecules that form the basic building blocks of nucleic acids, such as DNA and RNA. A nucleotide is composed of a nucleobase, a five-carbon sugar (ribose or deoxyribose) and at least one phosphate group.

Nucleotides serve to carry packets of energy within the cell (ATP). In the form of thenucleoside triphosphates (ATPGTPCTP and UTP), nucleotides play central roles inmetabolism.[1] In addition, nucleotides participate in cell signaling (cGMP and cAMP), and are incorporated into important cofactors of enzymatic reactions (e.g. coenzyme AFADFMNNAD, and NADP+).

Synthesis[edit source | editbeta]

Nucleotides can be synthesized by a variety of means both in vitro and in vivo.

In vivo, nucleotides can be synthesized de novo or recycled through salvage pathways.[3] The components used in de novo nucleotide synthesis are derived from biosynthetic precursors of carbohydrate and amino acid metabolism, and from ammonia and carbon dioxide. The liver is the major organ of de novo synthesis of all four nucleotides. De novo synthesis of pyrimidines and purines follows two different pathways. Pyrimidines are synthesized first from aspartate and carbamoyl-phosphate in the cytoplasm to the common precursor ring structure orotic acid, onto which a phosphorylated ribosyl unit is covalently linked. Purines, however, are first synthesized from the sugar template onto which the ring synthesis occurs. For reference, the syntheses of the purine and pyrimidine nucleotides are carried out by several enzymes in the cytoplasm of the cell, not within a specificorganelle. Nucleotides undergo breakdown such that useful parts can be reused in synthesis reactions to create new nucleotides.

In vitro, protecting groups may be used during laboratory production of nucleotides. A purified nucleoside is protected to create a phosphoramidite, which can then be used to obtain analogues not found in nature and/or to synthesize an oligonucleotide.