Archive for fevereiro 22nd, 2019

A centelha de luz no Big Bang: casamento perfeito entre a teoria acadêmica e a teoria da Matrix/DNA

sexta-feira, fevereiro 22nd, 2019

xxxx

“Long, long time ago (and I mean really long, this is not a fairy tale), long like 13,7 billion years ago, there was only darkness. Suddenly, a spark of light smaller than an atom entered this darkness and tada, The Universe was born.

This light and the darkness, entangled in an eternal dance, created the 4 fundamental forces of The Universe (Gravity, Electromagnetism, Weak and Strong). The Universe started expanding and very soon the first quarks were created. Then the first electrons, the first protons, and all of this happened in the first second, like literally.”

Esta frase, assim colocada com estas palavras, veio elucidar em inglês como devo fazer minha narrativa em inglês,  e veio emparelhar melhor a minha teoria com a teoria acadêmica. Pois esta frase pode ser entendida como sugere minha teoria como descrevendo um evento de fecundação, com a luz-software/genoma trazendo todas as informações para um processo universal de reprodução. Portanto, ambas as teorias estão de acordo com o fato do evento. O que começa a diferir a partir de agora e’ devido ao mesmo fato ter sido visto por ângulos diferentes devido dois observadores localizados em diferentes pontos do espaço/tempo o que gerou a enorme diferença de interpretações do mesmo evento. Enquanto o observador acadêmico se encontra na civilização e no ambiente acadêmico o observador da Matrix/DNA se encontra isolado e na selva pristina amazônica. 

Frase encontrada no link:

https://www.lifecoachcode.com/2016/07/21/the-mind-blowing-chain-of-events-so-you-can-exist/

Don’t Believe In Destiny?! THIS Is The MIND-BLOWING Chain Of Events So YOU Can Exist…

No inicio havia apenas uma nuvem de substancia escura, cercada pelo nada. Começando a perder porcões que se despregavam da nuvem criou-se um principio de gravitação entre os pedaços dispersados e a grande nuvem de maneira que os pedaços retornavam a nuvem. Com o passar do tempo estas ocorrências se tornavam mais constantes e a nuvem começou  a rodopiar-se sobre si mesma, os encontros com seus pedaços criavam ondas e cristas de ondas se tornaram energia escura. Tantos raios de energia escura foram produzidos que num dado evento a explosão do encontro macico dentre eles criou a energia branca, e com ela se refletiu a luz…

Nada disso. Foi uma possibilidade que me ocorreu agora, mas não vou prosseguir nesta elucubração mental porque ela parece não ter muita sustentação. Mas como foi a real origem do Universo?

 

 

O baixo custo para erradicar a extrema pobreza dos atuais 700 milhões de humanos

sexta-feira, fevereiro 22nd, 2019

xxxx

Neste excelente e informativo artigo o autor sugere que uma certa quantia em dinheiro distribuída a cada um dos pobres acabaria com a extrema pobreza. Eu ainda sou da opinião que outra coisa devia ser feita. No sentido de, ao invés de dar o peixe, ensinar e ajudar a obter a vara e ensinar a pescar, para sempre. Isto seria feito coordenando os pobres de cada localidade a montarem cooperativas de consumo e produção. Absurdo que estes pobres estejam pagando os lucros da intermediação de comerciantes na aquisição dos produtos básicos de consumo, quando eles poderiam comprar estes produtos direto das fabricas. E absurdo que estes pobres estejam pagando royalties e intermediários inclusive estrangeiros para terem sabonete, pasta de dente, chinelos, etc. Poderiam criar seu próprio trabalho, evoluir industrialmente, se produzissem tais produtos em associações fabris cooperativadas. A ONU ou ONGS com pouco dinheiro, mais captando os próprios recursos da comunidade local, poderiam fazer esse trabalho, não muito difícil. Mas não vejo ninguém acenando com essa alternativa. parece que tem medo da Colgate, Kolynos, dos latifundiários ou dos chineses…

No entanto é muito informativo o artigo:

The low cost of ending poverty

https://archive.thereporterethiopia.com/sites/default/files/Pdf%20Archive/Reporter-Issue-1076.pdf

For the first time ever, eradicating poverty worldwide is within humanity’s financial reach. So why do our political leaders repeatedly adopt expensive policies that achieve much less – and why do these poor choices go unchallenged? asks Bjørn Lomborg.

Today 9.1 percent of the world’s population, or almost 700 million people, live on less than USD 1.90 per day

Poverty is humanity’s cruelest affliction. If you are extremely poor, you can’t afford to avoid even the easily curable diseases that cause every sixth human death. Your lungs are likely to be filled with indoor air pollution, because, like 2.7 billion others, you cook and keep warm with fuels like dung and wood – with the same effect as smoking two packs of cigarettes every day. An inadequate diet makes your children grow up physically stunted and impairs their cognitive development, costing 4-8 IQ points on average. Such deprivation leads to profound stress and despair, making it difficult to act in ways that improve your life.

Of course, the world has made great progress in the fight against poverty. In 1820, nine out of ten people lived in extreme poverty. The World Bank estimates that for the first time in human history, the global poverty rate dropped to single digits in 2015. Today 9.1 percent of the world’s population, or almost 700 million people, live on less than USD 1.90 per day (or what used to be one dollar in 1985). This USD 1.90 threshold for extreme poverty is a really tight limit: it is not what a wealthy tourist could buy in a low-cost, developing country. It is what an American could buy in the United States for USD 1.90. The level is adjusted to the equivalent purchasing power in the local currency. The late economist Anthony Clunies Ross made an initial attempt to calculate the cost of solving the poverty problem forever, by estimating how much money would be needed for cash transfers to lift every single person on the planet out of poverty. Let’s update his approach (an exercise also carried out recently by the Brookings Institution).

We can start by looking, for example, at Indonesia – with some 257 million people, the world’s fourth-most populous country. Just 20 years ago, about half of Indonesians were poor, whereas in 2014 (the most recent estimate) shows just over eight percent, or 21 million people, below the USD 1.90/day threshold. On average, these Indonesians are 29 cents short of USD 1.90; so 21 million people need 29 cents more every day – or about USD six million in total – to get out of extreme poverty. Over a year, that adds up to USD 2.2 billion. Since this is based on what Americans could buy for USD 2.2 billion in the United States, the actual cost in Indonesian rupiah would be much lower. The exchange-rate cost would be about USD 700 million in actual dollars. With an estimated 268 million people in extreme poverty in the latest survey from 2011, India is home to the largest absolute number of poor people on the planet. Each is on average 38 cents a day below the extreme poverty line. For India, the cost adds up to almost USD 11 billion exchange-rate dollars.

The most expensive countries in which to end poverty would be the Democratic Republic of Congo and Nigeria. In the DRC, 77 percent of the population is extremely poor and falls a dollar short of the poverty line, on average. Combined with a weak exchange rate, the cost for the DRC runs to more than USD 12 billion actual dollars. Adjusting for the lack of data from states like North Korea, Yemen, and Zimbabwe, the total cost of eradicating poverty based on the latest available data appears to be somewhat less than USD 100 billion actual dollars. Brookings has extrapolated previous trends and data from other countries within regions, and finds that the cost in 2015 could well be as low as USD 75 billion annually. To put this figure in context, the world spends USD 140 billion on development aid each year. Of course, this is a thought exercise with limits. In the real world, it would not be possible to identify all of the world’s needy poor and distribute exactly 29 cents or 38 cents without incurring much higher costs. But it does let us identify the scale of the world’s biggest problem. It is expected that there will be slightly fewer than 400 million poor in 2030, and income growth should almost completely eradicate poverty by 2060. Based on this information, we can estimate the aggregated future cost of eradicating poverty at about USD 1.5 trillion. If we set aside the money now in a fund (which would accrue interest over the next 45 years), we would need a little less than USD one trillion to eradicate human poverty forever.

A trillion dollars sounds like a huge deal. In fact, it is equivalent to roughly one percent of annual global GDP, 18 months of US military spending, or one-twentieth of US national debt. It is also equivalent to the cost implied by just one year of the Paris climate agreement, which promises – if we keep paying a trillion every year – to rein in temperature rises by 0.17°C in 2100.

The real tragedy is that the best solution to poverty would not cost a thing. Broad-based economic growth has always been the most effective pathway to reducing deprivation: over 30 years, China’s economic growth spurt lifted an unprecedented 680 million people above the poverty line. A global free-trade agreement – such as a successful conclusion to the stalled Doha Development Round – would likely lift another 160 million people out of poverty. Global skepticism about free trade on the part of US President Donald Trump and others means that we are missing out on an incredibly important opportunity.

In the meantime, we should champion the most powerful development investments: spending on child nutrition, immunization, early childhood education, and scholarships for girls can lead to meaningful, lifelong improvements in health and income levels. But we should also realize that, for the first time ever, an end to poverty is actually within humanity’s financial reach. And we should challenge our political leaders to account for expensive policies that achieve much less.

Ed.’s Note: Bjørn Lomborg is Director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center and a visiting professor at the Copenhagen Business School. The article was provided to The Reporter by Project Syndicate: the world’s pre-eminent source of original op-ed commentaries. Project Syndicate provides incisive perspectives on our changing world by those who are shaping its politics, economics, science, and culture. The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of The Reporter.

A Historia da Vida e as derivas continentais

sexta-feira, fevereiro 22nd, 2019

xxxx

Precisão matemática na geometria do sistema solar! Conduz ‘a hipótese de geometria na formula universal para sistemas

sexta-feira, fevereiro 22nd, 2019

xxxx

Neste link: https://www.lifecoachcode.com/2016/07/21/the-mind-blowing-chain-of-events-so-you-can-exist/

… foi obtido o seguinte texto:

In order for life to exist and thrive inside our solar system a planet needs to orbit the sun at just the right distance. Scientists call this belt “The Goldilocks Zone” were the conditions for life are just perfect. Guess what! Our home planet Earth formed EXACTLY inside this zone.

The Goldilocks Zone

xxxx

Like that’s not miraculous enough, our moon formed to be exactly in the right place so it would not conflict the evolution of life but help it thrive. When I say exactly, I mean EXACTLY and in an absolutely perfect ratio; not just with its distance but with its size too;

The Distance Between Moon and Earth and Sun

Really Interesting Fact: What makes a full solar eclipse possible is that the sun is 400 times the size of the moon, and the sun is also 400 times further from the moon than the moon is from earth. The distance between the moon and the earth is equivalent to 108 moons; the distance from the earth to the sun is equivalent to 108 suns; the radius of the sun is equivalent to 108 earths;

Perfect distance planet

Então surge nova hipótese de nova propriedade na formula universal para sistemas.

De fato, uma breve olhada na formula nos faz notar uma idêntica logica nas distancias e tamanhos entre as partes do sistema. A distancia e diferença de tamanhos entre F2 e F3 é bem menor que a distancia e diferença de tamanhos entre F3 e F6, e poderiam obedecer a uma razão proporcional.

Então vamos trazer a formula:

E o desenho do circuito do fluxo interno de informação da fórmula da Matrix/DNA na sua versão de sistema perfeito fechado, na forma de diagrama de software

E o desenho do circuito do fluxo interno de informação da fórmula da Matrix/DNA na sua versão de sistema perfeito fechado, na forma de diagrama de software

 

Suponhamos que a distancia entre F2 (a Lua na astronomia) e F3 ( a Terra) e F6 (a estrela Sol) obedeça a uma razão de proporção matemática.  Não vou me estender nisso agora que não tenho tempo, mas voltarei ao assunto. Se houver esta razão na formula, podemos juntar isso com o já calculado numero phi e adiantar nossa matematização da formula. Um grave obstaculo para estes cálculos é que não é possível fixar um momento exato que divide uma criança de um adolescente ou um jovem de um adulto. Então também esta dificuldade acontece na busca da exata dimensão dos astros num dado momento, pois eles também se transformam. E podemos também extrapolar para seres vivos, supondo que a diferença de tamanhos/volumes do corpo de uma criança de 2 anos (F2) com sua forma adolescente aos 14 anos (F3) e sua forma como adulto maduro aos 40 anos (F6) obedece a uma razão matemática, se o desenvolvimento físico for normal. Mas como calcular os volumes destes 3 corpos?

A experiencia do cientista maluco

Simples. Encher um tanque de 2 mts quadrados com água. Colocar dentro e inteiramente submerso o corpo de uma criança de dois anos. Colher a água que sairá do tanque numa vasilha. Encher o tanque, repetindo o mesmo com um adolescente e um adulto maduro. Então é só medir os 3 volumes de água. Vou agora correndo procurar três voluntários para experiencia e depois volto para continuar isso aqui…