Gyres: Nova Bomba para a Matrix/DNA Theory

Está causando controvérsias e derrubando profissionais de seus emprêgos um documento cientifico (paper) publicado por um professor microbiologista de 105 paginas e 800 citações de referencias. O paper intitulado “Theory of the Origin, Evolution, and Nature of Life” sugere que a explicação para tudo o que há no Universo material é uma coisa, uma espécie de fôrça que êle denomina “gyres” (Gyres seria simplesmente uma espécie de rodamoinho, tornado, vórtice).
Dei uma rápida olhada no paper em PDF e sorrí. O “gyres” do Dr. Andrulis é um pedaço da fórmula da Matrix/DNA. É apenas a Função 1 da fórmula, a qual tem mais seis igualmente importantes funções, as quais o Dr. Andrulis ainda não percebeu. Para nós leigos o documento é um trabalho espantoso, suficientemente técnico, todos os argumentos arrolados são fundamentados em 800 outros comprovados trabalhos cientificos, etc.. O problema maior do Dr. Andrulis é tambem um dos meus problemas com a Matrix/DNA: é quase impossível comunicar na linguagem humana a outros humanos as figuras, os movimentos, as conexões que se vê apenas com a mente. Êle tentou mas para isso têve que criar do nada um imenso glossário de novas palavras, o que torna seu texto impossível de ser entendido por alguem mais alem dêle.
É claro que com o passar do tempo vão surgindo novas descobertas que não cabem ou não são explicadas pela teoria e então o autor, ou outros depois dêle, vai remendando, consertando, ampliando a teoria, até um dias chegarem na fórmula completa da Matrix/DNA (Ou, se a teoria da Matrix/DNA estiver errada, chegar no outro resultado correto). O primeiro resultado desta teoria que inicia nos caminhos da Matrix/DNA já é deficiente, produto da reduzida fórmula do autor. Por exemplo, no artigo da universidade diz:
” Dr. Andrulis confirms the proposed existence of eight laws of nature. One of these, the natural law of unity, decrees that the living cell and any part of the visible universe are irreducible.”
Irreductivel quer dizer, surgiu pronta, não foi produto da longa cadeia natural de causas e efeitos que tem imprimido evolução na matéria. Para o autor, estas coisas como a célula viva surgem quando aparece um “gyre” (que seria uma espécie de vórtice adaptado a cada diferente circunstancia, com certas caracteristicas calculadas pelo autor), então essa espécie de fantasma – se de fato existir – seria a causa das coisas surgirem fora da causação natural. Êle está no bom caminho, apesar que uns mil anos ainda atrasado em relação à mais complexa fórmula da Matrix/DNA, mas, muito mais adiantado que a maioria dos humanos. De fato, arquiteturas novas como a célula surgem depois que no local chega a Matrix/DNA. Mas a Matrix não é um fantasma e não faz milagres: é a mesma coisa que acontece conosco desenvolvendo os computadores. Antes de surgir a terceira geração de computadores (um mais sofisticado hardware), surgiu os diagramas de programas operacionais e softwares exigindo e sugerindo a nova máquina baseados em que as máquinas de segunda geração não mais eram suficientes para incorpora-los. Mas os novos hardwares são feitos em cima da fôrma da máquina ancestral, conservando o tronco, o esqueleto, os seus elementos, e são aduzidos mais algum material existente no ambiente na forma de novos dispositivos… os quais tambem são colhidos da tecnologia que se desenvolve em paralelo. Por isso, na Natureza, nada é irreductivel. Se dissermos que o sistema celular é como um computador de décima geração, então podemos dizer que o sistema galáctico é como o computador de quarta geração. O sistema celular é totalmente reductível à galáxia onde êle surgiu. Mas isto só se vai entender quando conhecerem a fórmula completa dessa espécie de software natural que é a Matrix/DNA.
Mas essa teoria veio bagunçar o meu coreto. Já não chegasse os milhares de assuntos que estão parados ou avançando muito lentamente porque não tenho 50 braços para fazer tudo sózinho, agora vou ter que fazer uma pausa em tudo não sei quantos dias porque vou ter que ler, traduzir, e entender aquêle paper porque já ví que êle toca em centenas de tópicos que nos interessam sobremaneira. Claro: a cada novo tópico, primeiro tem-se que ler a versão do autor. Talvez êle esteja mais certo que a nossa versão da Matrix/DNA. Mas a seguir tem se que reler cada tópico trocando o “gyre” pela fórmula da Matrix/DNA e assim, enriquecer nosso trabalho com novos ítens.
Por ora vou compilar já algum material e registrar aqui para ser lido:

Erik D. Andrulis

xxx
Discover Magazine – Blogs
The Loom
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/
January 31st, 2012 12:18 PM by Carl Zimmer in Writing Elsewhere | No Comments »
Life turned upside down
xxxx
PDF:
Theory of the Origin, Evolution, and Nature of Life
Journal Life
http://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/2/1/1/
Life 2012, 2(1), 1-105; doi:10.3390/life2010001
Article
Theory of the Origin, Evolution, and Nature of Life
Erik D. Andrulis
Department of Molecular Biology and Microbiology, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Wood Building, W212, Cleveland, OH 44106, USA
Received: 15 November 2011; in revised form: 10 December 2011 / Accepted: 13 December 2011 / Published: 23 December 2011
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Origin of Life – Feature Papers)
Download PDF Full-Text [1937 KB, uploaded 23 December 2011 15:33 CET]
xxxx
ARS Technica
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/01/how-the-craziest-fing-theory-of-everything-got-published-and-promoted.ars?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss
How the craziest f#@!ing “theory of everything” got published and promoted – UPDATED
By John Timmer | Published 10 days ago
xxxx
EUREKALERT
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-01/cwru-rte012612.php
Radical theory explains the origin, evolution, and nature of life, challenges conventional wisdom
Case Western Reserve theorist develops incomparable model that unifies physics, chemistry, and biology
Public release date: 26-Jan-2012
[ Print | E-mail | Share ] [ Close Window ]
Contact: Jessica Studeny
jessica.studeny@case.edu
216-368-4692
Case Western Reserve University

xxxx

Meus posts/comentários publicados na mídia:

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/01/resignations-fallout-from-recent-bizarre-scientific-publications.ars?comments=1&p=22541812#comment-22541812

TheMatrixDNA | 6 minutes ago | permalink | reply

emk : “We have now arrived at the full realization of religion masquerading as science.”

Mr Emk is right, I think. Humanity is paying a hard price for another dark age under an intellectual dictator regim. Nature does not belong to any group of human beings neither must be approached by a limited investigation method. We must keep Nature free for every method/worldvision as condition for keeping the freedom of counsciousness.

This kind of science as religion believes in miracles. One miracle believed is that human beings can create things that Nature has no material information for. Like the existence of computers containing hardware and software. And this is the cause about the shock between scientific patrols and Mr. Eric Andrulis. Computers are merely mimicking the human brain, composed by hardware and a kind of natural software. The Human brain is merely an ultimate product from the evolution that began with the Big Bang. So, at the Big Bang, someway, should have the principles as brute forces of this composition in shape of hardware/software.

What Mr.Eric is doing is trying to detect how is and how works the software in Nature, which is the instructions present in DNA, in the human brain, and must be present at any natural system in less evolved shape, like atoms, galaxies, etc. Mr. Eric has a new generation kind of hard-wired brain. The existence of computers when he was born, the long comvivence with it, has waked up and hard-wired Mr. Eric brain towards the perception of natural software. The old people here and peer-reviewers can not understand it.

Physics already has touched the idea that all matter began from ghost vortexes. There is a possibility that the reduction of any matter finishes when it is reduced to these ghosts vortexes. Mr. Eric has the new brain hard-wired for to see the world in this way, for to search what is these vortexes, where they come from. Then, he is able to perceive movements, patterns, shapes, fractals, in Nature arising from these principles. We, the old generation are not. Mr. Eric’s brain and imagination is believing, really and honestly believing, that these vortexes contains the simpliest diagram of this natural software. But he is not alone. In the whole world are borning people with the same hard-wired brain. The patrollers of nowadays worldvision will can not stop them, they are a new emerging natural phenomenon, product of natural evolution.
The “gyres” is the suggestion that natural matter contains a kind of natural software in shape of vortexes, which can be derived in several kinds, dependable of time/space. The natural software is deductive reasoning, logical thinking, but vortexes could not be the kind of natural softwarfe’s diagram. Which matters are that must have a diagram, then, the job of Mr. Eric is valious, because he is investigating this diagram. He can be wrong, but for sure, he is helping the science evolution.

The big mistake of Mr. Eric washe did not understanding the difference of evolution among generations of human beings. A native Indian never could read and understanding a modern scientific paper. That is the case of differences between Mr. Eric and the staff occupying the controls of science today (corporations, profits as target, manutention of social status inside universities, mystical worldvision, etc.). He needs to look for and talking with people like him, the same kind of hard-wired brain. Introducing his thesis to strangers was a bad idea.

xxx

Criticas/Comentários vistos na Midia a serem pensados:

Retraction Watch

Editor who published Andrulis paper tries to explain how it happened

http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2012/02/03/editor-who-published-andrulis-paper-tries-to-explain-how-it-happened/#more-6265
Conrad T Seitz MD

February 6, 2012 at 12:51

The lacuna “hypothesis” would validate the estimate chris makes of Andrulis’ good faith: he really, really believes in what he’s writing. Since fMRI is supposed to detect lies (supposed to, anyway) I think the scan would show “truth.”
More importantly, Andrulis doesn’t make any testable predictions (unfortunately, this prompts a comparison to string theory) or produce any better explanations of anything (although he claims to.)
I tried to read the paper, really tried; but the first sentence struck me as inaccurate: there is, to me, no mystery as to how life abides by the second law of thermodynamics while becoming more complex over time. Life only develops in open systems; if stuck in a closed system, life eventually ebbs away. The fate of a closed system is death: the goldfish winds up floating upside down. Right? Pretty basic stuff, but Andrulis calls it a “mystery.”
The more I tried to read the paper, the stupider I felt.
On another subject, as I loosely associate my way across the universe:
I just got through a web site that touts a “petition” against global warming; it presents a 12 page paper that supposedly refutes global warming claims. It looks good, superficially, but I noticed it was published in a medical journal (Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons) and I thought, if it’s about climate change, what’s it doing in a journal about medicine (which, as far as I know, has no direct relationship to meteorology or atmosphere science)?? Perhaps the editors of the journal could explain how they reviewed the paper with their special expertise (sarcasm intended.)

.Talk about ways to waste your time. I have found the ultimate. Try, just try to read this paper by Andrulis.
It has been three hours and I’ve gotten to page 30. So far, I find such remarkable items as the assertion that water has memory, the Earth formed by expansion rather than accretion, and solar output is related to earthquake activity. I have had to look up words such as “quale” only to find that they added nothing to the sentence Andrulis used them in.
Then there are the assertions that his “theory” explains the particle-wave duality, the nature of leptons (they are slowed-down photons), the existence of water, the presence of oxygen and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere(with a shout-out to Keeling), the origin of the Solar System, and so on up to and including man, I suspect, I just haven’t gotten that far. The “theory” is, literally, some hand-waving with mostly chemically-derived equations and a series of assertions that are either so elementary as to be useless or highly improbable. I kid you not.

This is junk of the worst sort, I do honestly believe.
I’ve only read a third of it, yet I am already convinced that this guy dropped acid, saw the fact that there are spirals everywhere in nature, and went, “ooh, pretty…” Then when he recovered, two days later, all he could remember was that he had had this transcendental experience and that somehow it was related to spirals. This is a perfect example of Conrad’s first maxum: “Obsessive-compulsive individuals should not take LSD.”

That’s maxim, not “maxum”, which has been bothering me since yesterday.
And of course, “denier” means “one who denies”, not the weight of a fabric, nor an obsolete coin of France.
This morning I am again entertaining the possibility of a “Sokal” based on the unnecessarily dense and obfuscating nature of the text; common phrases have been replaced with obscure equivalents in many places.
For example, “throughout the cosmic and tellurian realms.” instead of “everywhere.”
In addition, there is the paragraph which states: “The gyromodel is incommensurable with prior and existing theories.”, “this theory challenges…patience.”, and “this manuscript is dense.” (Why does he have to wait until page eight to tell us that it is “dense”? If you’ve made it this far, you know it’s denser than depleted uranium already.)
The same paragraph redefines Ockham’s (Occam’s) Razor in a somewhat idiosyncratic fashion that separates it from its essential test: “Ockham’s Razor[52]–the scientific principle that things behave or are connected in the simplest and most economical fashion” followed by, he says, a separate criterion: “…the ability to explain the available scientific data.” I thought that Occam’s Razor says, “the simplest theory that connects all the facts is the most likely to the the correct one.” Silly me.
(Sokal, A. 1996. “Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity”, Social Text, 46/47: 217-52.) (By coincidence, I discovered the exact reference in the latest issue of “Skeptical Inquirer” which came in the mail yesterday.)
No, I never did(to the best of my knowledge)(though I did have some curious experiences during services at the local Unitarian Church), but some of my friends (who never graduated) did. A sad waste of human potential.
“Twas brillig, and the slithey toves
Did gyre and gymbal in the wabes;
All mimsy were the borogroves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.”

xxxx

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/01/resignations-fallout-from-recent-bizarre-scientific-publications.ars?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss&comments=1#comments-bar

wizard69 | 7 days ago | permalink

Sounds a little draconing to me. Most of the great advances in this world have come from challenging established “fact”. I don’t doubt that HIV is the probable cause of AIDs, but is it really in the scientific communities best interest to surprises other ideas? If the alternative ideas are bone headed enough they will not stand the test of time.

I’m not here to promote the publication of sloppy research either, but as we have seen with the global warming crowd, sloppy research can become mainstream to the point that researchers will actively suppress credible research from others. At times I’ve actually have wondered if we have entered into a new science dark ages, where only the views of the high priests in power manner.

In the Case Western instance mistakes are made or have been made. The question is though is over reacting the right answer? More so is putting excessive power into a press officers hands a smart move? I understand a University has a reputation to maintain, but on the other hand I don’t think higher education would benefit from the types of controls on information that corporations maintain. There has to be some sort of balance between the interest of the university and access.

xxxx

emk | 7 days ago | permalink

We have now arrived at the full realization of religion masquerading as science. People resign and are fired from editorial boards for publishing work that challenges the sacred cows of science.

Peer review is about the method not the findings, so long as the findings advance science in some way. If somebody writes a methodologically sound paper that arrives at the well supported conclusion that HIV does not cause AIDS that paper should be part of the scientific conversation.

I suppose the word is out now, peer review is gatekeeping to protect the well established theories from challenges that their supporters consider ludicrous. Dark day for Science.

We are not children that have to be protected from dangerous ideas in the science journals. The penalty for publishing work that is wrong, even ludicrously wrong, should be the hit to your reputation.

Good thing Einstein did’nt have to go through journals like these. We’d still be waiting for relativity!

xxx

emk | 7 days ago | permalink

Astlor wrote:

emk wrote:

We have now arrived at the full realization of religion masquerading as science. People resign and are fired from editorial boards for publishing work that challenges the sacred cows of science.

[Citation needed]
In 2009 The Journal Medical Hypothese (not peer reviewed) was attacked and its editor force to resign because it published two papers questioning HIV/AIDS orthodoxy. Elsevier then shut down the journal. see: http://classic.spam site/blog/display/57204/

emk wrote:

If somebody writes a methodologically sound paper that arrives at the well supported conclusion that HIV does not cause AIDS that paper should be part of the scientific conversation.

Absolutely. Unfortunately, the paper in question was actually completely bonkers.
What does “completely bonkers” mean? Scientifically speaking. The paper was not completely bonkers to the reviewers and editor. It was speculative and controversial. Thats different

emk wrote:

I suppose the word is out now, peer review is gatekeeping to protect the well established theories from challenges that their supporters consider ludicrous. [/quote
If by “protect well establish theories” you mean “require actual evidence in order to challenge them” then yes, this is true.

Thats what peer review is for. Ensuring that the paper contains well supported arguments not disputing its conclusions. The conclusions have to fall where they may, provided they are supported by evidence. Who says the HIV/AIDS and HUman caused Global Warming critics don’t have evidence? You and I may not agree, but thats no reason to keep them out of the scientific record.

emk wrote:

Dark day for Science.

Only if by “science” you mean “things I believe but for which there is no evidence.”

Again. Who says that people publishing these papers have no evidence for their positions? Scientific conclusions are frequently wrong. Right now we are seeing the revelation that the Serotonin theory of depression is probably wrong after being held correct for 50 years. (see: http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/01 … hole-story). There are no dogmas in science and there should not be.

emk wrote:

We are not children that have to be protected from dangerous ideas in the science journals.

No, we are busy people with lives that don’t have the time, money, resources or even security clearance to reproduce every single scientific paper that gets published. We cannot possibly be expected to to in-depth analysis on the sum totality of the literature on a one-for-one basis. So some method must exist which ensures that what gets published actually has evidence, and doesn’t rely on rhetoric.

Anybody too busy to be exposed to controversial or even speculative theories in the science journals, should stick strictly to the 30min TV news. Again, who says these critics are not advancing valid arguments and evidence? The reviews think they are.

If you want to prove any – or all – major scientific theories wrong, I will support you…as will the entire scientific community. If only you provide evidence in the papers you wish to publish, and you follow relevant scientific methodology in obtaining and analysing that evidence.

This isn’t a hard concept.

Again who says they don’t have evidence?

emk wrote:

The penalty for publishing work that is wrong, even ludicrously wrong, should be the hit to your reputation.

No, the penalty for publishing work that is ludicrously wrong should be to personally have to explain how it is wrong to every single person who was exposed to your error. Publishing something wrong into the literature impacts the entire world. It can mislead billions of people, and even get hundred of thousands killed. Science isn’t a video game. It is actually, legitimately, life or death. In the real world.

I think most adults would prefer not to be protected in this way. And I hope not self respecting scientist (after all thats the target audience of science journals) would wish to be protected in this way. Plus there is a long history in science of scientists being condemned for ideas that turned out right. How about doctors washing their hands? Dr Semmelweis’s experience is instructive. see: http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi622.htm

emk wrote:

Good thing Einstein did’nt have to go through journals like these. We’d still be waiting for relativity!

In a lot of ways, its too bad he didn’t. Might have caused him to rethink some of his earlier mistakes. Maybe he’d have discovered more if he had a more closed-loop system to work in. We’ll never know. But as I recall, he was a fan of peer review. Interesting.

Einstein may have been a fan of peer review, but not this peer review. After all it was Einstein who said “The important thing is to never stop questioning”. What this sort of peer review says is; “the oracle has spoken, no more questions”. Thats the wrong message for science.

xxx

Astlor | 7 days ago | permalink

@emk

Oh, you’ve read the HIV paper and honestly think its scientifically valid. Well, I took the time to read it stem to stern, and I don’t. Especially given the researcher’s history and all the other baggage associated with it. (Delve into the references, for gawl’s sake!)

So I guess we have no more to talk about. You and I are obviously not talking about the same definition of science, or anything close.

Cheers

emk | 7 days ago | permalink

@Astor My reply to your comment got completely garbled. So I’ll post the parts that were in reply to you here in the order that I wrote them. Hope this makes sense :-)

I should add, that the point is not whether the conclusions advanced are right or wrong, its whether they are methodologically sound and evidence based. Peer reviewers are not high priests pronouncing the valid dogma. Also this idea that some views should not be published because they may lead to wasting billions of dollars or to loss of life is fatuous indeed. After all why limit this to only scientists? Why not extend the same logic to politicians, religious leaders, businessmen, lawyers, everybody? Why not get rid of free speech all together? Scientific/Academic journals are precisely the place where controversial conclusions should be published and hence subjected to the critical judgement of experts.

xxx

Astlor | 7 days ago | permalink

Who someone is – their history, experience, etc – can, should, and does play a role in whether or not a paper should ever even be published. If the individual is one of a small handful of people who understand their craft, K can see letting a paper through, even when you cannot grasp how they reached that conclusion from that data. In that situation, “are they nuts” or “am I just nowhere near well versed enough to grasp this” becomes critical. To the reviewer, to other scientists, to the science enthusiast.

When looking at the HIV paper, it is critical. “How he reaches that conclusion from that data” makes no sense. Worse; the references are in many cases – at best – questionable. The paper just isn’t sound…unless it is so brilliant that I can’t grasp it.

So here; which is it? The history and baggage tell the tale. It isn’t censoring to keep this kind of paper out of the literature. It is helping to save real flesh and blood human lives.

Science cannot become so obsessed with pandering to the emotionally frail that it fails to reject work that flat out doesn’t parse. When someone coughs up a monstrosity like the HIV paper – or that madness “vaccines cause autism one” – this needs be caught before it gets published.

Not ever crackpot theory has a right to be published. Only those that are sound science. Mas “sound science em relação a qual ponto de referencia? O conhecimento cientifico de hoje ou o daqui a mil anos?) That HIV paper was not. A paper with sound methodology built on (through) debunked references and basically made up statistics is not science.

It isn’t a question of methodology. It is a question of the evidence. The whole paper is built on the premise “the official numbers about death tolls and all the science that links antiretrovirals to a decrease in mortality is lies.” He backs that up with highly sketchy references, then proceeds to extract his WTF conclusion from there.

If I am allowed to start with the assumption “magic is real,” citing as my reference “the office of Southern Baptist Science” then I can make you a methodologically sound paper that concludes never-never land is a real place.

That doesn’t make it a sound paper, it doesn’t make acceptable science, and that should be caught waaaaaaaay before it gets published.

You challenge the existing scientific consensus be explaining extant evidence. Not dismissing it as lies and substituting in its place facts and figures that have been thoroughly debunked.

xxx

Buxaroo | 7 days ago | permalink

This is why science works. Can you imagine this happening in any religious or political organization where shams and liars are found out, they are never allowed to work in the field again? If only the ladder had the discipline and logical frameworks in place to weed out the crap in their systems like science does, the world would be a better place. When a scientist is shown to have falsified data/information, he is never funded again nor is his work published again in reputable publications, and no one ever takes them seriously again. Imagine if other systems like government/religion/business worked like that, problems would be so small compared to what they are now.

ps, what Astlor said, spot on
xxx

Through that door lies madness

xxx

Comentário de alguém que conhece Mr. Andrullis pessoalmente:

” I’ve actually met the person in real life, at the Origin of Life Gordon Research Conference earlier this month. He’s a great guy with a deep, rich mind; he runs mental circles around the majority of academic professors. He’s sociable, has a great sense of humor, relaxed, and very passionate about science and trying to discern the truth, like we all are. I really like the guy. I definitely DO NOT think he is psychotic, manic-depressive, or schizophrenic, as has been mentioned above – and I believe it is quite rude to even mention the fact, especially on a PUBLIC FORUM BOARD.

Unfortunately, at some point in his life, he got some very strange meta-scientific notions in his head (based, he says, on previous Real Science he performed – published in the journal Science) and expounded on these ideas until he came up with this… unprovable theorem that no one can understand, or comprehend. I’ve had hours of conversation with him, trying to get to the “nature of gyres”, how they came to be, how we can study them, how they create everything, etc., etc., but it is to no avail; he is unfortunately not amenable to debate or discussion about the existence of gyres.

It reminds me very much of trying to have a conversation about the nature of religion with someone who is wholly faithful in that religion – steadfast, dogmatic, and unmoving. He certainly does have the mental capacity to defend himself, and does so quite well, and if you do not have the knowledge of quantum mechanics, nucleic acids, polymers, etc., he will fill in those gaps and shame you – but you will never be able to convince him that his theory is bogus – just like you’ll never be able to convince any “true believer” that their faith is bogus, either. He will even admit to this if you ask him.

That all being said, as long as you didn’t talk to him about HIS science, he was a great person to converse with. He actually gave me some pointers for my own research that I found helpful, and he was, overall, a really interesting person to talk to.

Does his science deserve high-impact publication? Of course not – he said that he sent this publication into 12 journals before it was accepted – but that is the nature of our current publication system. If you have an idea, or a theory, submit it – and if the audience thinks it is bogus, we will debate it. These debates will help us raise important questions and issues that typically lay assumed, untouched – and though this debate, the publication process becomes stronger and better than before.

xxx

http://www.livescience.com/18207-crackpot-theory-reveals-dark-side-peer-review.html

Casey Shain · Vassar College

I really have nothing to back it up, lol, and I’m an artist, not a scientist, but I tend to believe that there is a “larger” level of life beyond what we know. I don’t mean a god, or a creator, I just mean another level, such as planets, universes, dimensions, time. I somehow feel they breathe and might even have a consciousness of sorts. It just seems that so many “large” things in the design of the universe, seem to look like microscopic items like atoms and cells etc. Just as atoms are part of our life, we’re part of the planet’s life which is part of the universe and time’s life. Who knows what the level is above what we know? Maybe I’m describing “branes” and multiple universes and dimensions?

xxx
http://www.livescience.com/18207-crackpot-theory-reveals-dark-side-peer-review.html

Sigal Dory

And we used to think the earth was flat. If we do not allow further study of theories just because they are new and different, we will not progress. If I were the writer, I would feel threatened by this type of response and hide as well.

Tags: , , , ,