xxxx
https://www.wired.com/story/this-computer-uses-lightnot-electricityto-train-ai-algorithms/
xxxx
https://www.wired.com/story/this-computer-uses-lightnot-electricityto-train-ai-algorithms/
xxxx
Nova foto de “orbes” por Rich Kane que utiliza tecnologia avancada e tem uma teoria intrigante sobre elas: seriam seres vivos, remanescentes de antigos alienigenas que habitaram a Terra, ( me interesso porque as minhas interpretacoes das formulas e modelos teoricos da Matrix/DNA Theory sugerem e predizem que deve existir neste planeta formas compostas por fotons oriundos da radiacao cosmica que seriam os precursores da vida terrestre, portanto, apesar de ser uma teoria bem diferente da de Rich Kane, as fotos e o continuo trabalho investigativo do Rich merecem nossa atencao…
https://plus.google.com/+RickKaneAccidentalScientist
E meus comentarios postados abaixo da foto no site do Rich Lane, em 2/28/18:
I am investigating the hypothesis that these things are what my theoretical models and formula are suggesting: groups, packets of photons half-astronomic/half-biological from waves of light that are emitted by cosmic radiation, stars, Earth’s nucleus, etc. The Matrix/DNA Theory suggests an evolutionary link between this galaxy and the first living being, a complete and working cell system. and the evolutionary link has a kind of DNA ( a universal matrix) which is fragmented due entropy into bits-information and when these bits meets here they try to compose the prior system by entering inside electrons of terrestrial atoms for driven them to compose the system, but, mutations due difference of environments results in biological systems. These orbs would be photons-bits joined before entering atoms. If so, they are elemental beings, not concious. Maybe they search in living beings the another bits that can ad to their composition; if so, they are feeding on us, our energy. They are aliens in the sense that they came from the whole galaxy, but they are terrestrials because the packet was built here. They are slices, peaces, of the universal natural formula for systems, sometimes almost complete systems. They are our link to the Cosmos and our ancestors astronomic systems, so, they are tye real creator of life here. Ok, this is merely the results suggested by my way of interpreting the models and formulas, I have n o proof about it, I do not believe in it since I am a careful skeptical, but, I keep the investigation because it makes a lot of sense. What do you think, Rich? Cheers… I hope you continuing yours very important investigation, I am watching it..
Segundo comentario:
+Rick Kane – Only for adding something: If these orbs are what my calculus are suggesting, they must have the human face’s shape. The universal formula that nature applies for organizing matter into working systems can be designed as a software diagram and when I did it, the final figure had the human face shape, with functions representing two eyes, mouth, ears, etc. It must be in this way because the human face also was built by that formula.
It is not merely coincidence because the building blolcks of DNA is made by the same formula and if you look to them, you will see the humans face. Of course, the DNA designed our faces.
And when we connect the seven known astronomical bodies as if they are formed by the process of light propagation which is the same process of life’s cycles, again we get the same working system, a figure ressembling the human face.
If they are real packets of bits of our ancient astronomic ancestors, when they penetrates rocks, they must design faces in the rocks because they are shaped as faces.
xxxx
Neste artigo o senhor Hans van Leunem postou um comentario que tem muito interesse `a Matrix/DNA Theory. Ele diz o que precisa uma teoria cientifica para ser valida, quando nao pode ser verificada por experimentos. Entao postei uma serie de questoes a ele, registradas abaixo ( verificar se havera resposta):
A theory that uses aspects that cannot be verified by experiments must apply a modeling platform that is based on a solid and trusted foundation. In fact it must be based on the belief that physical reality possesses structure and this structure owns a simple foundation from which higher, more complicated levels emerge. This hierarchy must evolve in the structure of physical reality that we can observe. In this configuration the lower levels can only be deduced from deeper levels. Also the foundation itself must be available. Thus scientists must already have discovered the founding structure.
https://en.wikiversity.org/… explores this possibility. “Structure in Physical Reality”; http://vixra.org/abs/1802.0086 highlights some aspects of this project.
Most new theories start without a proper foundation. They usually result in non-verifiable conclusions.
Your post is very helpful to those that elaborated their own theory, like me. But, questions arises here. 1) What is a solid and trusted foundation for theoretical models? For example, I have a new model suggesting the formation of seven known astronomic bodies, like planets, stars, quasars, etc. There are no proved fact about any formation, only another theoretical models, so, what is trusted foundation? 2) I have a model of the evolutionary link between cosmological and biological evolutions. There are no proved link and the trusted idea today is that there is no link, since that the trusted foundation is that life arose by spontaneous generation from inorganic matter. it makes no sense, but, what we can do? How to suggest the obligatory existence of a link, and a model of it? 3) I have a model of the fundamental unit of DNA as a complete working system. If my theory is true, there is no genetic code, because the units of DNA are merely different copies of a unique initial system. Genetic code is nonsense since that matter can not creating codes, but it creates systems, working systems. How a theory that makes sense can prevail upon one that does not if the trusted foundation is a nonsense? if you could answer these questions I will appreciate. Thanks.
A resposta de Hans a minha questao:
A foundation must emerge in a full and self-consistent theory. It must be simple and easily comprehensible. A trustworthy interpretation must exist for the foundation and for everything that emerges from it. The evolution of the foundation into a full blown theory must restrict such that a theory grows that experiments can verify.
This means that you cannot start a theory at a high level where not every subject that is applied follows from the axioms that constitute the foundation of the theory.
Classical logic is well founded but does not evolve into a much wider theory. The orthomodular lattice is a relational structure that is quite similar to classical logic. However, it evolves in a theory that after a series of extensions becomes a structure in which aspects can be recognized that we know from observing physical reality.
Minha resposta/pergunta a Hans:
Thanks for the an answer. But, what to do when the academic official staff considers as the trustworthy foundation is clearly wrong, like they did with the geocentric model during 2.000 years?
The foundations now for any theory about life’s origins must obey to the current magical thinking, called abiogenesis. it is supposed the existence of magical randomness able to transform non-organic matter into life. It arises due missing the knowledge about astronomy that elaborates astronomic theoretical models without the forces and elements necessary for evolving into biological systems. The universal evolution is one, unique lineage, but arbitrary division into cosmological and biological evolution creates a gap, an abysm, between the two blocks, and the evolutionary link is missed and never searched. So, the necessity to fulfil this gap with something magical, like any religion.
Ok. Any theory that develops another astronomic model from which emerges the evolutionary link and explains rationally the origens of life will be discarded because it will go against the theories which are believed to be trustworthy. In the way you are asking the basic foundations, neither Copernicus, Galileo or Darwin would be considered a valid theory. Do you agree?
xxxx
Apenas depois que postei o Segundo comentario notei que Hans e eu estamos sendo redundante, ou seja, estamos repetindo nossos postulados as infinitum sem cruza-los com os postulados do outro para estabelecer um dialogo inteligivel que leve a algum resultado. Entao imediatamente postei o proximo comentario:
Sorry my persistence but after my second post and reading the prior posts I noticed that we are repeating ours statements without answering the another arguments. So, let’s go by parts:
You said: ” A theory that uses aspects that cannot be verified by experiments must apply a modeling platform that is based on a solid and trusted foundation.”
The theory of abiogenesis cannot be verified by experiments because we cannot repeat an event that occurred by chance. If we could do it, means that is a normal occurrence, not chance. Do you agree?You said: “In fact it must be based on the belief that physical reality possesses structure and this structure owns a simple foundation from which higher, more complicated levels emerge.”Ok. The supposed primordial soup, or the thermal deep oceanic vents, considered the simple foundations from where the more complicated levels of life emerged is not a solid foundation, because among the supposed ingredients in that soup there was no one replicating itself, no one transmitting hereditary a genetic code, no one doing metabolism, etc. It is observable that later these properties emerged from complex structures derived from the supposed soup. This is naturally impossible, something cannot comes from nothing, I mean, the academic theory supposes that those properties has no prior causes. Do you agree?You said: “This hierarchy must evolve in the structure of physical reality that we can observe. In this configuration the lower levels can only be deduced from deeper levels. Also the foundation itself must be available. Thus scientists must already have discovered the founding structure.”For abiogenesis theory the scientists believes they have available the foundation – the soup. They believe that they are reproducing it at lab. But how to prove that a soup intelligently designed at lab is the same soup produced in a unique event by chance 3,5 billion years ago? As I said, if it was product of chance there is no way to reproduce it. In fact, they have no discovered the founding structure. The synthetic soup made in labs trying to reproduce the reduced initial conditions has produced some amino acids and even simple polypeptides, but they never get the next step, these simple building blocks evolving into proteins and RNA. So, these lower levels of life – proteins, RNA, and even membranes cannot be deduced from the deeper level – the soup, or thermal vents.So, I think that the supposition of a primordial soup is rational, since that nobody can rationalize another naturally occurring foundation for life’s origins. But the big gap between the supposed ingredients and processes between non-organic and organic matter means, literally, that is missing important ingredients doing important processes in the theorized soup. Do you agree?I am the unique person making the questions in this way because my personal humble investigations with the most simplest method – comparative anatomy between the prior cosmological systems and the resulting biological systems – suggested the existence of more ingredients in that soup, which came from astronomical systems but, for seeing it, we need to do new theoretical models of those systems, where we get the elements and forces that already were expressing those life’s properties. What do you think?
xxxx
Having a mobile-friendly website is a critical part of your online presence. In many countries, smartphone traffic now exceeds desktop traffic. If you haven’t made your website mobile-friendly, you should. Search Console’s Mobile-Friendly Test Tool is a quick, easy way to test whether a page on your site is mobile-friendly.
Testando http://thuniversalmatrix.com
(aparece primeiro a pagina simples Azul apenas com as duas bandeiras e letrinhas ilegiveis. porque?)
Tested on: Feb 24, 2018 at 4:22 PM
This page can be difficult to use on a mobile device
Fix the following 2 issues: Como resolver, ver em:
– Text too small to read ( tem que mexer no programa HTML)
– Viewport not set (que e isso?)
xxxx
Engracado video feito por criacionistas…
xxxx
A teoria da Matrix/DNA tem sugerindo que a teoria da evolucao e’ mais correta do que a teoria religiosa da biblia, apesar de que a Matrix faz uma complete reformulacao da teoria da evolucao sugerindo que a teoria de Darwin e mesmo o modern darwininismo esta muito incompleto. Aqui vai um texto escrito por pastores criacionistas para mostrar o que pensam da evolucao. Bom sera ver os comentarios a seguir que sao um alerta contra a impressao causada pelo artigo.
http://www.cornswalled.com/2014/02/the-wasted-career-of-charles-darwin.html#more
E-bbok na Amazon:
https://www.amazon.com/The-Wasted-Career-Charles-Darwin-ebook/dp/B00ICSZ5N4/
xxxx
Quem tem no cerebro as sinapses em estado caotico, e’ mentalmente saudavel. Quem tem as sinapses em estado de ordem, e’ mentalmente doente, como Parkinson, esquizofrenia, etc. Este e’ um misterioso paradoxo, contra-intuitivo, que precisa ser elucidado. Caos produz saude e ordem produz doenca!
Seria intuitive quando lem bramos que num estado de caos, se houver algo em ordem estara folra de seu habitat e o caos tentara expulsa-lo. Mas o corpo humano, e principalmente o cerebro e suas sinapses, e’ um principio tendente `a ordem ja bem sedimentado. E como nosso supremo objetivo e’ aniquilar com essas doencas… vamos ter que nos enfiar neste desgostoso prato de problemas.
O melhor video sobre Chaos Theory com muitos insights:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJAs9Qr359o
(continuar pesquisa revendo o video)
Porque a formula natural que formou o planeta e’ a mesma que forma os sistemas biológicos e a superfície da Terra foi mais bombardeada pela formula, alem do fato de que tanto o planeta como os sistemas biológicos estarem no mesmo nível do espectro eletromagnético.
xxxx
Apesar do problema das “duas gerações de galaxias”, meu modelo astronomico difere do modelo oficial acadêmico sobre as origens de supernovas. Nunca ninguém assistiu tal evento mostrando que eles também tem apenas teoria e não fato comprovado. Agora aparece esta foto, mas como os próprios cientistas dizem ” trata-se da explosão de luz no nascimento de uma supernova”. Ora, foi visto uma explosão de luz, e meus modelos sugerem que esta explosão de luz acontece, porem emitida pelo que era um astro escuro que se colapsa sobre seu luminoso energético núcleo liberando a sua luz ao espaço. meus comentários postados no artigo e copiados abaixo dizem mais.
Segundo, a teroia academica desconhece os mecanismos que levam a estas explosoes, como diz o paper da folto na Nature:
E meu comentário postado no artigo:
Austriak727 – em 2/23/18
” It is not an explosion, but a implosion, the structure collapses inward into itself”Well,… this is what is suggesting the astronomical models from Matrix/DNA Theory. I think that nobody can prove who is right and wrong, because the suggestion that it is an explosion is based on theory also, there are no enough data for saying it is a proved fact. I prefer Matrix/DNA Theory because its models suggests a better explanation: the astro’s nucleus is growing by “eating” the external geologic layers and when arrives to the last one, it collapses and the luminous nucleus florishes as a star….
Resposta de alguem:
ololo3 – em 2/23/18
@austriak727 Well, his photo is definitely something exploding.
Austriak727 em 2/23/18
@ololo3 Yes, it could be, in theory. As says the article: “… to scientists at UC Berkeley, who confirmed he was the only known person to ever take a photo of the flash of light produced by an exploding star.”It is an explosion of light, not seen if it was an explosion of a dark astro. The model from Matrix/DNA suggests that a non visible dark astro has a luminous nucleus that is growing by “eating” the external rock layers and when arrives to the last external one, everything collapses internally (implosion) and the light from the nucleus flourishes in a flash. So, the very known fact we see here when a corn seed has a germ eating the yellow external placenta and when the germe meets the star light it flourishes… is merely a sequitur of a mechanism that happens to our astronomic systems ancestors. If not, you need a big exercise for explaining how the stupid matter of this planet invented the extraordinary engeneery for the birth of a flower… But, I could be wrong..
Entao ololo3 fez o comentario seguinte sobre o qual tenho uma observacao: Ele comete um erro muito suspeito, trocando astronomia por astrologia. Isto pode sugerir que e’ mais um cientificista fundamentalista que reage na Internet a tudo que ele considera “pseudociencia”, e reage com malicia. Nao acredito que ele nada entende de astronomia, p;ois nao estaria lendo este artigo sobre uma futil noticia de astronomia.
ololo3 em 2/23/18
@austriak727 Well, you definitely seem to know WAY more about astrology than me, so I certainly can’t argue with you. You talk the talk, that’s for sure. I wish I would have learned about astrology when I was younger. For some reason, the universe didn’t interest me as much as stuff that ended up becoming TOTALLY pointless when I grew up. I suppose it’s never too late, though. I should look into some college classes on this kind of stuff.
E minha imediata resposta para esclarecer as coisas:
Austriak727 em 2/23/18
@ololo3 – I don’t know anything about “astrology” and I do not believe in it. This issue is about “astronomy”. I am like you, not an astronomer, but I had read every news about astronomy because after reading Matrix/DNA Theory the sky became very interesting and important for explaining life at Earth. The official academic theory offers no explanation and no solid bases for life being produced by their astronomical model. But, as I said, we are still talking about theories, not proved facts. The supernova birth is based on theories.
sonomarik – em 2/23/18
WOW, what I find interesting about this and I’m no huge fan of astronomy is that the chance picture lasted for such a short time. That star’s explosion I would figure to have exhibited remains for decades…but, snuff. out. that’s fast under any circumstance.
where’s the continued venom about Distorted View and TIm Henson ?
me thinks you’d get more exposure by taking on DV again
This is just my opinion, but I believe that most Christians would respect a “saved” child molester more than a harmless atheist. Atheists seem have very little respect in general, and in my experience, touting evolution hurts that even more. Wouldn’t evolution make God more respectable? The notion that He set events in motion billions of years ago, in such a way as to achieve the universe as it is now, is beyond incredible. To simply “create” the final product would be like playing a video game with all of the cheat codes on hand.
Aside from that, the evolution versus creation debate just seems to distract us from a bigger problem anyway—government schools. Everybody who pays property tax funds the government school system. Creationists dislike evolution because they would rather not fund the teaching of evolution and vice versa. As a creationist, you should not be forced to fund a system that would teach your children evolution. Just as someone without children should not be forced to pay for another’s child’s education.
Darwin did NOT recount his claims.
Science is NOT a belief system, and the theory of evolution is NOT about EARTH’S origin!
Building up muscles to pass to your offspring is NOT darwinian evolution, that is LAMARCKIAN and is known by science to be ridiculous.
Punctuated equilibrium occurs ALONGSIDE phyletic gradualism over BILLIONS of years.
What creationist research?
Atavisms have NOT been discarded
HITLER!?!? We are not talking about biology anymore?
Abortion has NOTHING to do with evolution
Darwin did NOT produce a new basis for racism
Evolution is NOT an ‘onward and upward process’
Evolution is NOT about chance
IDIOT