But moving on to the details, I differ a bit on the view of the many potential pathways that could lead from chemical evolution to biological evolution. “Selection bias”, likelihoods, would be front and center. For example, there are thermodynamic reasons why RNA could have been favored as the first genetic material, if that was what happened. ["Statistical Physics of Self-Replication", England, TBP; "Thermodynamic Basis for the Emergence of Genomes", Woo et al, PLOS Comp. Biol. 2012.]
That is where I think Spiegel and Turner fails. As I remember my problem at the time was that they had to posit different pathways on different locales in order to make the result less constrained. Eg a failure to find life on Mars would be due solely to the pathway.
But for the same reason we should expect evolution, differential reproduction, to be a universal process among life because it promotes the most successful populations by its very nature, we should expect a successful pathway to life to be dominant. The recent find of earliest, even metamorphic, BIFs of Isua @ 3.8 Ga bpas likely result of anoxygenic photosynthesis pushes life within 1 Ga from Earth formation. [ http://www.sciencedirect.com/s... ] That is early enough to find our pathway, likely alkaline hydrothermal vent biochemistry by homology with early autotroph metabolism as per Lane and Martin, easy so likely generic.
Small nitpick which do not detract from environmental theory/selection bias (aka various “Anthropic Principles”): “Without all these ducks lined up in a row, there would be no carbon.”
Not all carbon is synthesized by the resonant pathway. This even seems to have been a problem, since too easy direct three-body formation at low temperatures would have been inconsistent with astronomical observations. Luckily it is sufficiently low in production. [http://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.2136... ]
I don’t know if this alternative pathway production rate is too low to prohibit more massive element formation in all kinds of potential universes where the resonant process is suppressed or vanished.
And while I looked for the non-resonant process reference which I had misplaced, I found an article that could be of interest re the apparent selection bias in carbon production. It seems it is not too fine-tuned, the excited state could vary with a factor 3 in energy excess. [http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/... ]
Biological Fe oxidation controlled deposition of banded iron formation in the ca. 3770 Ma Isua Supracrustal Belt (West Greenland) -
Abstract
The redox balance of the Archean atmosphere–ocean system is among the most significant uncertainties in our understanding of the earliest history of Earth’s surface zone. Most workers agree that oxygen did not constitute a significant proportion of the atmosphere until after ca. 2.45 Ga, after the Great Oxidation Event, but there is less agreement on when O2 production began, and how this may have been consumed by reduced species such as Fe(II) in the oceans. The Fe redox cycle through time has been traced using banded iron formations (BIFs), and Fe isotopes are increasingly used to constrain the conditions of Earth’s paleoenvironments, including the pathways of formation of BIFs. Iron isotope analyses of BIFs from the 3.7 to 3.8 Ga Isua Supracrustal Belt (ISB), obtained by micro-sampling of magnetite-rich layers and conventional analysis, as well as by in situ femtosecond laser ablation (fs-LA-ICP-MS), indicate a consistently narrow range of non-zero δ56Fe values. Analysis of magnetite by fs-LA-ICP-MS allows for precise and accurate micron-scale analyses without the problems of orientation effects that are associated with secondary ion mass spectrometry (SIMS) analyses. Magnetite δ56Fe values range from +0.4‰ to +1.1‰ among different bands, but within individual layers magnetite grains are mostly homogeneous. Although these BIFs have been metamorphosed to amphibolite-facies, the metamorphism can neither explain the range in Fe isotope compositions across bands, nor that between hand samples. The isotopic compositions therefore reflect “primary”, low-temperature sedimentary values. The positive δ56Fe values measured from the ISB magnetites are best explained by deposition of Fe(III)-oxides produced by partial oxidation of Fe(II)-rich ocean water. A dispersion/reaction model, which accounts for rates of hydrothermal Fe(II)aq input, rates of oxidation, and rates of Fe(OH)3 settling suggests exceptionally low O2 contents, <0.001% of modern O2contents in the photic zone. Such low levels suggest an anoxygenic pathway is more likely, and the data can be well modeled by anoxygenic photosynthetic Fe(II) oxidation. Comparison of the Fe isotope data from the Isua BIFs with those from the 2.5 Ga BIFs from the Hamersley and Transvaal basins (Australia and South Africa, respectively) suggests a striking difference in Fe sources and pathways. The 2.5 Ga magnetite facies BIFs of Australia and South Africa have δ56Fe values that range from −1.2‰ to +1.2‰ over small scales, and are on average close to 0‰, which is significantly lower than those reported here from the Isua BIFs. The wide range in Fe isotope compositions for the Hamersley and Transvaal BIFs, in concert with C and O isotope data, have been interpreted to reflect bacterial dissimilatory Fe(III) reduction (DIR). The absence of low δ56Fe values in the Isua BIFs, as well as the lack of fine-scale isotopic heterogeneity, may indicate formation prior to widespread DIR.
Highlights
► Analysis by fs-laser-ablation allows for precise and accurate micron-scale analyses. ► Iron isotope analyses of BIFs from Isua indicate a narrow range of positive δ56Fe values. ► Narrow range of positive magnetite δ56Fe values reflect primary sedimentary values. ► Positive δ56Fe values best explained by anoxygenic photosynthetic Fe(II) oxidation. ► Iron in Isua BIFs has a different source and pathway than that of 2.5 Ga BIFs.
The author is forgetting relativity, which suggests that differente observers of a unique object, located at different point in time space, should have different interpretations. He says that “ At the hands of astronomy and cosmology, we seem to have been reduced to near nothingness”. It seems for him, an observer based in Astronomy, Physics and Mathematics, not for me, an observer based in Biology and Systemology. His theory is based solely on the skeleton of the Universe (the structure of galaxies), my theory is based on the soft meat that covers the skeleton, the biological organization of galaxies.
Our problem initial is: was this Universe produced by a previous design ( I am not saying “designer” and not “intelligent”) or not, merelly or randomly from nothing? If there is a previous design, certainly the shape at the top of evolution, ( consciousness must be significant. If not, everything from nothing, will be forever, nothing. My method is suggesting that we are like genes building our future shape as pure and unique consciousness.
Since that the author exposed the evidences that supports his theory, I have the right to do it, although have no space here for 1% of my evidences. My method began with seven years isolated at the heart of Amazon jungle studying systems and its connections (biosphere, Earth, Solar system, Milk Way), applying the old method of comparative anatomy among all systems – living and non-living – searching evolutionary links, as the link between cosmological and biological evolution.
If an intelligent being smaller than an atom living inside human skeleton, his natural sensors and artificial sensors ( scientific tools), which are merely extension of his natural sensors, will see his ” Universe” finishing at the limits of the skeleton. He never will see the soft meet, the organs, even the mind. The effects of these things will be called ” dark matter or dark energy”. But comparative anatomy makes the investigation in reverse way, from top to botton, starting at the final product – neurology, biology – and the student will be an observer strongly affected by biological interpretation of the skeleton and the Physics observed by Mr. Caleb.
Only a unique sample of same evidence under different interpretation: The Big Bang.
The Theory is strong supported ( cosmic radiation, expansion, etc.) for both observers. My method also arrived to biologically organizing quarks, went further seeing the vacuum plenty of vibrations of ” dark” light waves as the code for life’s cycles and the source of these emanations of light was a big Big Bang. But while Mr Lawrence Klauss saw everything from nothing, and after that, a small high condensed atom, my method suggests a different thing after and beyond the Big Bang. The salvage Nature in Amazon always suggested to me: Nature does not play dices with her creatures. The chaos saw in biosphere is product of order, see the sky”. And I never saw this Universe making magics, taking something out from nothing. So, the complexity here is merely the convergence of spread informations existing at the Big Bang. The Universe only do things that he has information for. He creates things by the same process that he was created. Then, my specific type of observer plus skepticism about magics, made me see that my own body was made throught a bigbang. The first initial moment of a human body – one top evolutionary product here and now – begins when a small spermatozoon “explodes” inside a big ovule. And all sequential shapes ( morula, blastulae, recapitulates the sequential shapes of the Universe (atomic nebulae, mass of galaxies…). But my method leads me further: you can see at my website, the graphic of electromagnetic spectrum, how natural light wave has the same shape of a universal Matrix that is the actual biological DNA. It is scientific falsiable or testable: the works of DNA inside the nucleus emits the biological counterpart of cosmic radiation. This Universe is a cosmic egg (or the fossil of our ancestors) where is occurring a natural process of genetic reproduction of the system that was before the Big Bang. This is falsiable, universes from nothing is not scientific testable.
Ok, I would like to debate here detail by detail each evidence has the two sides. It is interpretations against interpretations, since that the evidences are known by both sides. But I would like that the other side always brings on the table, a natural known parameter for supporting each Math formula or another thing used as links among the data. Like here, my known parameter for interpretation of Big Bang is embryology. I don’t know where the other side will find a natural parameter for their “nothing”, and for ” a microscopic atom able to grow to the size of the Universe” , etc.
A Formula da Matrix nos ajuda em situacoes novas porque ela torna mais facil identificar funcoes de objetos, ajunta-los como partes de seus sistemas, conectar as partes num todo e visualizar o quadro completo.
Se sinto a mesma falta de energia, cansaco, de Reilly, devo recorrer a meditacao ou procurar a pilula Nuvigil?
“It’s made me feel awake for the first time,” he says. “I’m much more creative and much more productive. If I’m project- managing, it’s like seeing the matrix. It makes it easier to put the pieces together to come up with a complete picture.”
For years, Jonathan Reilly, a 41-year-old biomedical engineer based in Los Angeles, would start his workday in a fog.
“I’d come into my office feeling like I had woken up at four to take someone to the airport,” he says. “It took me twice as long to accomplish anything important.” But now he walks into his regular 8 a.m. meetings with crystal-clear focus and enough energy to drive through an intense 12-hour day at the office.
Plus, he’s always in a good mood.
Reilly isn’t high or wired on caffeine—he’s taking a pill called Nuvigil.
In lieu of Adderall and eight-balls, hard-charging professionals are turning to a new class of nootropics (a type of smart drug) to score an edge at work. It’s a category of substances that includes prescription analeptics like Nuvigil and Provigil, as well as less-potent supplements like New Mood and Alpha Brain (both are sold on Amazon.com for around $30 a jar) that are made of vitamins, amino acids, and antioxidants, which purportedly stimulate your brain receptors. Devotees say nootropics are a wholly different experience from energy drinks, as they give you a mental edge, increasing memory, intelligence, motivation, and concentration—without the jitters or crashes that can come with stimulants.
So have these guys actually found a magic pill? Emily Deans, a psychiatrist in private practice outside Boston, cautions that, in high enough doses, smart drugs may affect your temperature, heart rate, and blood pressure and advises seeking a prescription. Supplements, unlike prescription- or pharmaceutical-grade drugs, can be prepared with varying amounts of active ingredients—meaning two pills from one jar may be three times the strength of two of the same pills from a different jar. Deans says to be especially careful of the plant-derived supplements that contain Huperzine A (as Alpha Brain does). “This ingredient can make you more alert or sharpen thinking,” she says, “but if you take too much at once, you can make yourself psychotic.”
For four months, when he couldn’t get a prescription, Reilly missed Nuvigil’s effects.
“I was getting up later in the day and getting less done,” he says. He recently started taking it again. “I enjoyed the person I was more when I was taking it, so I decided this is something that should be part of my life.”
Earth, and all living beings have two distinct bodies. The physical body, and the sheath around it, the energy body — a matrix comprising of four strands: emotional, mental, Higher Soul, and Eternal Consciousness. Visualise the matrix as an energetic hologram, the emotional and mental energy strands overlaid by the Higher Soul energy, which is overlaid by the strand of Eternal Consciousness often called the Akashic Records. This matrix is dynamic, changing with each thought and emotion.
- Ler o artigo, visitar website e iniciar pesquisa:
Bacterias se movem deixando um rastro de sugar para que outras ai se localizem criando um biofilm. Isto ev similar a imagem de fotons de LUCA dirigindo atomos para as novas combinacoes. Estariam as bacterias simplesmente sendo guiadas por instinto seguindo o registro de LUCA em sua memoria? Pesquisar isto.
1) Bacteria on a surface wander around and often organise into highly resilient communities known as biofilms. It turns out that they organise in a rich-get-richer pattern similar to the distribution of wealth in the economy,
”Some of the bacteria remained fixed in position,” Parsek said. ”But some moved around on the surface, apparently randomly, but leaving a trail that influenced the surface behavior of other bacteria that encountered it.”
1) Home / Forum / Astrobiology for Solar Systems Exploration / Ideas / #261 – If organics were found on Mars, to what extent would one consider such a discovery as a 1) indicator of life, 2) indicator for the presence of life, 3) should such a detection be a major endeavor of Astrobiology?
George Cody - In other words. Are we being to Mars focused. Perhaps we should be satisfied that Life exists on Earth. The question of life on Earth may well hinge on understanding our entire solar system. Focusing on Mars for a second example of life does not follow from any scientific hypothesis. I say focus the question of life on Earth with a broader understanding of our entire solar system. Now- ready, aim, fire… please!
I am a layman but doing a rude research about natural phenomena in general and I am asking if my questions and suggestions will be accepted here. If so, it will be necessary an initial patience from readers.
Why searching for life – as biological systems – and not also any other pathway of evolution at Mars? The elements and forces inside Milk Way can only produces biological systems as new universal species and shapes? My suggestion is that we need paying attention to occurrence and compounds of Boron and Nitrogen also, and others liquid states of matter.
I think that organic compounds indicates an evolutionary advanced step in relation to the evolutionary state of its precursor system – the system that generates the organic compound There are three known systems that are not composed by organics: atomic system, stellar system and galactic system. These systems were formed by three states of matter (electromagnetic, solid and gaseous . When entropy attacked the closed galactic system, it produced a new state – the liquid. It brought a novelty – organic chemistry or chemistry at all. Chemistry is the evolutionary product from physics forces and its elements. So, we have a novelty – biological systems – which includes those three states of matter plus liquid state. We know that biological systems are carbon-based. But… why chemistry could not produces any other evolutionary system more advanced in complexity than the existent systems, from another element-based? And using natural forces not detected by Physics?
The Matrix/DNA models is clear and rational when explaining why carbon was selected here. It is the unique atom that copies perfectly and entirely the building blocks of astronomical systems. So, for to increasing complexity to a given system (Milky Way) Nature first needs to reproduce the existing top system, and then, trowing it at a more complex environment than the cosmological environment where Milky Way was formed. And the unique place of the world where there was a more complex environment was the internal environment of galaxies. Carbon, number atomic 6, is the fidel copy of astronomic building blocks, functions number 6.
But, by my calculations, Boron (5), Nitrogen (7) are strong candidates also, for generating new evolutionary systems, not as good as carbon-based.
As a layman in Chemistry, I need know if water is the one liquid that Nature has used for organic chemistry? How we understand what is liquid state and which are the others liquid states existing at prebiotic life?
There are two possibilities for evolution in Mars and any other habitable-zone planets: 1) Carbon at another liquid state than water, going to pathways different from biological systems; 2) More evolved systems than the top ancestor, but less evolved than carbon-based systems, composed by Boron and/or Nitrogen. Any help will be welcome…
When thinking about the origins and evolution of life, it’s critical to think about the origins and evolution of planets. Terrestrial planets progress through several stages of their own geochemical, mineralogical, and tectonic evolution, each with distinctive physical and chemical “niches” for prebiotic processes. Thus, the near-surface environment where life emerges (and the related concept of “habitability”) is a constantly changing context. Earth, for example, has progressed through at least 10 distinct “stages,” each of which displayed wide global variations. As we learn more about extrasolar planets, it’s important to think about each of those objects as a dynamic, evolving system (in ways analogous to what is now understood about stellar evolution).
MatriX/DNA:
Not published (too much long)
I am a layman and if my questions/suggests are off topic, please, fell free for delecting it.
Why to limit us for thinking and doing experiments about life’s origins only based in ” what is now understood about stellar evolution”? Our culture exists about 15.000 years and any astronomical movement of stars and planet formation must takes millions or billions years, so, never nobody saw the birth of planets and stars. Our theoretical model is a temptative of connecting the dots, based in different stages of stars and planets seen now. It is too much little! And… if the model is not complete or is wrong… all others related models will be wrong. And we will not see signals in Nature about what we are looking for. Am I wrong?
I have applied a primitive method of investigation which final results is suggesting a different model for stellar evolution. Of, course, I am not able for finding the ultimate model, but my experience could help us, showing several another possibilities for building astronomical models. It was made in reverse way – taking biological systems as final product and searching the producer. The old method of comparative anatomy among living and non-living systems was applied.
Where, at stellar evolution theory was the force that developed to “self-reproduction”, verified at RNA-world? Where was at the current astronomical theoretical model, at the state of the world when life emerged here, the basis for genetic memory and code? Why left-handed molecules were selected? What bridge is missing for transforming the Urey-Miller aminoacids into peptides? And I have tens of similar questions… which the advocates of current Nebular Theory, Standard Theory and Modern Synthesis never answered to me, but the Matrix/DNA model answered all of then in a rational way. For instance, the process of biological reproduction is an evolutionary product coming from stellar systems self-recycling.
My immediate goal is learning, searching the Truth, because only Nature teach us the mechanisms and processes that composes our Science and leads us to technological power, which is the tool for my supreme goal: dignity, victory, for Humanity. And I am sure this is the supreme goal of NASA team and all of us studying these issues. So, I see no intelligence at competitive behavior among theories and worldvisions. We need joining more brains for thinking together.
I need an answer for an obvious question: We observe here a human body changing shapes due a process called life’s cycle. Now, you, Sir, is pointing out that… “ Terrestrial planets progress through several stages of their own geochemical, mineralogical, and tectonic evolution, each with distinctive physical and chemical “niches” for prebiotic processes.” My question is: Is it not clear, obvious, that the process of life’s cycle, that emerged here at this planet surface, is an evolutionary step based – and from – planetary evolution? And: Since that life’s cycle process applies over an entire body, as a system, and since that planets belongs to a larger system called stellar system, which will be the right explanation? The evolution and decay of living systems is an evolutionary product from planetary evolution or stellar evolution?
The Matrix/DNA Theory has its answers for such questions, but this is not the issue here. The issue is: the search for extra-terrestrial life must be amplified beyond our current theoretical models.
Many of us study and are funded to study extraterrestrial organic matter in meteorites (and rarely comets). What is the best argument we can make that better understanding of the inventory of organic molecules in primitive bodies is worthy as an Astrobiology goal, that is… primitive bodies contain lots of inorganic and organic phases- what is our best argument that study of these is of paramount importance to National Science interests
Louis Charles Morelli:
The most important product from any extraterrestrial research will be the jump from scientific reductionist method to scientific systemic method. Every big problem we have just now is not solved because we don’t have a Science of Natural Systems. From cancer disease to climate change to social and economic regulations we need apply the natural mechanisms that Nature knows and applies till building such perfect system like our solar system. The Genome Project proved that is not reducing to individual genes that we will found the roots of big diseases but known DNA as a system. Our study of natural systems had as precursors Margullis, Capra and the giant effort of Bertalanffy creating the General Theory of Systems. But at Earth we have no systems with known boundaries all systems here are opened systems which turns out difficult to identification and isolation of any system. The atomic systems has its problems related to quantum and electromagnetic aspects. So, these problems made that the study of natural systems was stopped and continuing through artificial and cybernetic systems, which put Bertalanffy lost and stopping his efforts. So, for returning to natural systems we have only the astronomical systems, stellar, and galactics. Since that we approaches the study of organic molecules detecting its properties and mechanisms, and projecting these findings for building the models of the astronomical system that produced them, we will contribute to these most necessary and spectacular jump towards a Super-Science.
David Eric Smith
It would be nice to understand why syntheses as different as Miller-Urey, meteorite, laboratory mineral-water organosynthesis, and perhaps some cometary or cold dust ISM synthesis as inferred spectroscopically, have any significant overlap with each other or with biochemistry.The dominant activation energy sources and channels are different, the quenching conditions and temperatures that lead to most complexity are different, and yet to varying degrees there are some common products. To the extent that mineral-water syntheses are meant as models of early earth, and by extension some asteroid conditions, the overlap is less surprising, but the overlap of these with gas-phase free radical syntheses, albeit less, is still interesting. To again harp on thinking at the network level, does this indicate that there are paths of least resistance that tend to take dissimilar starting conditions and render them more similar? If so, and if we could understand what the rules are that lead to convergence, perhaps this would be a starting point in thinking about what outcomes are robust or necessary.
Louis Charles Morelli:
David Eric Smith: “… and if we could understand what the rules are that lead to convergence…”
At Matrix/DNA models we have a clear understanding about the rules that lead to convergence … the problem is that the models are not scientifically proved yet. The convergence of all physical forces and elements into a primordial soup is produced by entropy attacking closed systems – like the building blocks of original galaxies. Differently from a thermodynamic opened system – where entropy causes the external dispersion of energy/heat – when at closed systems the disintegration begins at the surface, the periphery, and advances internally towards the center. The entropic particles, which we call free radicals are driven internally towards a center and then, we have convergence. It happens that the area next to the center still are intact, not reached by entropy and when these free radicals arrives, they can be stopped at these areas. So, the disintegration of Milky Way, like the radiation from the Sun, produced free radicals that arrived at Earth, most exactly at the primordial soup. Since that each radical is a dynamic bit-information of the system itself, they has the tendency for re-building the same configuration of the system they are coming from. These radicals are photons and inside the terrestrial atoms they driven the atoms to new connections. That’s why the cell system is a copy of the building block of galaxies.
So, convergence and the opposite movement – let’s call it divergence – draws the same image pictured by Hideki Yukawa for explaining the nuclear glue between protons and electrons. The image is a vortex, appearing and disappearing. Divergence begins as a point, which amplifies spirally, building the vortex. Convergence is the opposite direction of this movement, when the final end of the spiral is contracted to a point, the vortex disappears. Here, all points of the spiral line converges to the same point. That’s why all points of this spiral galaxy converged to the primordial soup, the point, and lifted up as a new system. Welcome to the world of life!
In my humble view. We have have one world where life clearly emerged, as most scientists believe, as a consequence of natural processes. Yet, in spite of claims over the past 50 years, we have no idea how life emerged. I believe this is a solvable question, but I also acknowledge that it is obviously not trivial- we have no credible answer yet. What we have is the laws of physics, chemistry, and a real world (as well as we know it). These facts are all that can guide us. I encourage all to use these tools (which are very robust) and our improving understanding of the Early Solar System to be very philosophically/scientifically rigorous and work towards our best efforts at constraining the origins of life. It is not “chemistry in a bottle”.
Louis Charles Morelli:
Dr. George, I know that you don’t like loosing your time and you can’t accept that other method of investigation besides the university academy could have something useful. But, while you don’t delete and expulse me from here I will post what my Matrix/DNA Theory is suggesting. To me, asking how did the early Earth lead to origins of life is a wrong question.
Why are you trying to take off chemistry from the bottle, but, at same time putting Earth and the origins of life inside the bottle?! Three things for thought:
1) The first real and complete living being was not a piece, a part, but it was a working system – the cell system. Same way that life come from life, systems come from systems. Earth is not a complete system accordingly our definition of systems. Which are the parts, where are the interaction among parts, and, certainly, the parts does not perform the universal systemic functions. So, in search of the creator of the first cell system, we must jump to the solar system.
2) Scientifically we can’t know the time that was necessary from the first aminoacids till the first cell system, but, rationally we bet that it was a lot of time. The duration of time for formation is more likely formations at astronomical levels than the 9 months or less required for formation of biological bodies. Again, astronomical time leads us to beyond Earth.
3) Where were at Earth the Physics forces and elements that, worked by chemistry, evolved to life’s properties? For instance, the RNA-world self reproduction? What was self-reproducing at Earth? I don’t know, but, our astronomical models and I think that yours Nebular Theory models suggests the same thing: stellar systems are disintegrated becoming nebular dust, and from here a new stellar system arises. This is self-recycling. What is the difference between self-recycling and self-reproduction? One need dying for born again and other makes a copy of itself. How Nature jumped from the simplest mechanism of self-recycling to the most complex mechanism of self-reproduction? The model of Matrix/DNA explains it very clear, with no problems. And so, we have genetic memory and code, metabolism. left handed molecules, etc. Where were the physics precursor forces or mechanisms at Earth? Nobody knows, but if we consider the stellar and galactic system, as the thing that leads to emergence of life, maybe will become ease for finding then. As the matrix/DNA models has found every precursor, theoretically of course.
Quando a Lua sera do tamanho da Terra devido a continua agregação destes materiais vindos do espaço… Aumentando o peso e tamanho da Lua fará com que a gravidade jogue um contra outro… Ou a Terra se tornara um gigante de gás como Júpiter devido agregação da energia solar… Pensando-se em termos de bilhões de anos, tudo é possível. O modelo astronômico da Teoria da Matrix/DNA ainda não resolveu o problema de qual foi a origem do Sistema Solar. Teria ele se originado pelo processo das galaxias originais (simbiose e ciclo vital dos astros) ou pelo processo posterior das novas galaxias (mera reprodução ou reciclagem). (Obs: onde se vê três pontinhos entenda-se que é um ponto de interrogação pois estou sem o ponto neste keyboard maluco que mistura inglês com português…arre!)
- – - – - -
When will moon be the size of Earth due continuous aggregations of space debris? Increasing the weight and size of moon will make that gravity pulls one into another? Or will Earth becoming a giant gas planet due aggregation of sun’s energy? Talking about events in billion years, the impossible happens. The astronomic models of Matrix/DNA Theory did not solve the problem of our solar system origins, yet: had it originated by the same process of original galaxies (symbiosis and life’s cycle) or by the process of new galaxies (merely reproduction/recycling)?
“In the Earth’s past there were powerful volcanic explosions propelling millions of tons of earth soil and rock (now asteroids and meteors which may contain organic molecules or organisms) into space.
” Babu, please, be honesty and does not make people loosing their time. This is an affirmation, and you must show the evidences for it. Where are the words ” accordingly to my hypothesis…” ? You are mentioning an article of Newsweek, which was closed long ago, there is no Internet registry about it. Kenneth Nealson does not mention this publication at his biography, so, he must have changed his idea. If you want to continue to use Kenneth’s words, ask him, since it seems he has retired those words. At yours article you use the word “could be”, and now you had retired these words. It means that you are going from hypothesis to fundamentalism. That’s why you are not watching yourself anymore?
Food for tought:
When will moon be the size of Earth due continuous aggregations of space debris?
Increasing the weight and size of moon will make that gravity pulls one into another?
Or will Earth becoming a giant gas planet due aggregation of sun’s energy?
Talking about events in billion years, the impossible happens. The astronomic models of Matrix/DNA Theory did not solve the problem of our solar system origins, yet: had it originated by the same process of original galaxies (symbiosis and life’s cycle) or by the process of new galaxies (merely reproduction/recycling)?
If I am wrong, in the next three billion years, i will pay the beer. I am doing my calculations: 100 pounds each year, 100 billions pounds each 1 billion year…
The Earth is bigger, so it would catch more rocks than the moon does. So the Earth would grow too. And since the moon’s gravity is less than Earth’s, more of the matter from impacts might escape the moon’s gravity.
That said, consider that the mass of the moon is ~0.160 trillion trillion pounds, and the mass of the earth is ~ 13 trillion trillion pounds.
The fraction of mass added by meteor impacts is virtually nothing.
Mine is merely conjectures and will maybe are not affecting climate changes, but I have not seen someone calculating these issues trying to see things in billion years. Earth is absorbing sun’s energy, it means that it is becoming a giant gas like Jupiter and must be going out away from sun’s gravitational pull. Sun’s energy is reaching Earth’s nucleus which means that ignites nuclear reactions, like a seed. My worries here is about climate changes just now, maybe it is natural and not only man made.
Mine is merely conjectures and will maybe are not affecting climate changes, but I have not seen someone calculating these issues trying to see things in billion years. Earth is absorbing sun’s energy, it means that it is becoming a giant gas like Jupiter and must be going out away from sun’s gravitational pull. Sun’s energy is reaching Earth’s nucleus which means that ignites nuclear reactions, like a seed. My worries here is about climate changes just now, maybe it is natural and not only man made.
- – - – - – - – - – -
E resolvi brincar um pouco respondendo aos posts no Huffington:
Hello, hello,it’s raining meteors, alleluiah…I am selling magnetic umbrellas that protect you against meteors. U$ 4,99 each one.Go to my website for order yours…
Truth Rising is right! The 99% has people at Mercury thrown meteors straight towards 1% heads… Sometimes they make a mistake and the meteor go to moon..
Damage? Oh no… it is an opportunity. Paris Hilton said that she are going to build a swimming pool in that crater and a hotel… Take a vacation, buy your ticket…
Don’t you know?! Now is may and still cold here in New York. The sun is not doing his job. God phoned me and told that the moon and the sun are going to motel every night…
There’s more to this. A lot more. There are fewer lunar impacts on the side of the moon facing us than on the back side because the earth acts as a shield.
Even though the materials on the moon test as billions of years old, the moon itself is fairly new as is the rest of our solar system.Our solar system is still forming – it wasn’t formed billions of years ago, it’s forming now. The meteors that continually strike the moon are adding mass to it. You can check this same as I have using the laser range finder at McDonald Observatory in Texas. As the moon gains mass it moves away from the Earth. Eventually the moon will become a planet, and then a star. Stars are made from planets.
Don’t cancel your subscription to TV guide yet, this will take some time.
Hey, Al, I am very curious about yours post. I never have seen before someone else saying that ” stars are made from planets”. The unique similar hypothesis I know is Matrix/DNA Theory astronomic model. Have you seen it or had you this insight?! As you can see at my avatar, the model is there aligned with human life’s cycle. But the model suggests that stellar systems can be formed by two different processes, like cell’s systems had two different process of formation (first, symbiosis, and second, reproduction), and we don’t know which is the process of our solar system formation. The model suggests that the first process makes stars from pulsars and pulsars from planets – a normal life’s cycle. Which are the evidences that you are based for yours suggestion that our solar system is forming now?
Espetacular melhoria na condição humana de existência e trilhões de dólares anuais economizados… seriam os benefícios se eliminássemos apenas um detalhe do caráter humano e sua consequência social: os conflitos nas relações humanas. Seria o fim dos sistemas capitalistas e comunistas selvagens, a redução em 99% das prisões, 70 a 80% de redução dos atendimentos hospitalares, a troca do clima dentro das famílias etc. e etc. A terapêutica para as crianças e jovens de difícil controle. Humanos são produtos de uma biosfera produzida pelo estado caótico da Natureza, e ainda possuem no cérebro um pequeno caroco que é resquício ainda em atividade do Complexo Reptiliano, onde jaz a Besta Fera que entorpece a inteligencia e gera os impulsos animalescos. Mas existe um método técnico, terapêutico para desativar, para não permitir se expressar, este tipo de tumores no inconsciente coletivo. E se todo mundo pensasse como eu, não perderíamos mais um minuto sequer, saindo nas ruas com o rolo da macarrão nas mãos que as esposas usam para bater nos maridos que chegam bêbados em casa e portando faixas de protesto e cercando os prédios de departamentos de educação Exigiríamos a urgente e rápida inclusão dessa disciplina nas escolas, acho que direcionado aos alunos com 12 anos de idade. A visão de mundo de uma pessoa que conhece e entende a Teoria da Matrix/DNA seria outro método eficaz para gerar este estado de harmonia social, pois dela se conclui que – todos os seres do Universo com auto-consciência desperta são como genes com a missão de construir um único ser consciente, o filho do sistema vivo e consciente que disparou o Big Bang. Mas… isso é para o futuro…
O experimento cientifico publicado no link abaixo revelou algo novo e muito importante. Vamos a ele:
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON
Study shows compassion meditation changes the brain
(Estudo revela que meditacao empatica muda o cerebro)
Recent brain imaging studies using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) have implicated insula and anterior cingulate cortices in the empathic response to another’s pain.
The insular cortex is divided into two parts: the larger anterior insula and the smaller posterior insula in which more than a dozen field areas have been identified. The cortical area overlying the insula towards the lateral surface of the brain is the operculum (meaning “lid”). The opercula are formed from parts of the enclosing frontal, temporal and parietal lobes.
Folha de Sao Paulo - QUINTA-FEIRA, 16 DE MAIO DE 2013 16H26
Blog – Darwin e Deus
Há grandeza nesta visão da vida”
Notas:
- já que estamos na temporada das frases inspiradoras
- Assim, da guerra da natureza, da carestia e da morte, o objeto mais elevado que podemos conceber, ou seja, os animais superiores, diretamente deriva. Há grandeza nessa visão da vida, com seus vários poderes, tendo sido originalmente bafejados em umas poucas formas ou em uma só; e que, enquanto este planeta se manteve a circular de acordo com a lei fixa da gravidade, de tão simples começo infinitas formas belíssimas e mirabilíssimas evoluíram e estão evoluindo.”
Comentario enviado ao artigo:
O autor sente-se inspirado por esta frase de Darwin a se regozijar que ha grandeza na sua visão da vida. Nada tenho contra que o autor expresse sua visão do mundo e seu estado de espirito, mesmo que pareca-me arrogância pois o discurso é livre. Porem, aqui esta claro que ele deseja influenciar outros (como diz: “para tentar dar ao gentil leitor alguma ideia”), e talvez ate mesmo “impor” sua visão de mundo, como fazem muitos professores darwinistas com os alunos quando diz “pra derrubar a versão simplificada dela que a gente aprende no colegial”, pois essa visão de mundo também tenta derrubar a visão que a maioria dos alunos trouxe da família a criacionista religiosa.
Eu não vejo grandeza nesta visão e também sou livre para discursar. Primeiro porque Darwin fixa a meia-face caótica da Natureza (da guerra da natureza) como ponto de partida das leis, dos vários poderes. Mas a natureza possui sua outra meia-face, a da ordem, basta ver como se comportam os astros no firmamento, a incrível e regulada mecânica newtoniana do sistema solar. Ele diz que ” os poderes foram bafejados em umas poucas formas…”. Mas ele se contradiz ao realçar ”este planeta a circular com a lei fixa da gravidade”. Pois isto não casa com a guerra da natureza. Como o estado de ordem bafejou o estado de guerra, o caos?
Durante dois mil anos alguns homens limitados a um pequeno espaço físico tiveram a ideia de Deus para explicar as coisas. Então Darwin ampliou o espaço e pode ver uma nova dimensão dos fenômenos surgindo com a ideia de evolução Mas tanto Deus Bíblico como Evolução Darwinista são objetos conceituais, impalpáveis invisíveis Quem pode garantir que nos próximos dois mil anos, a ampliação do espaço humano para o Cosmos, não descobrira uma nova dimensão, e imaginara uma terceira ideia?
Eu também fiquei sete anos na selva observando sistemas naturais e tive uma ideia de algo invisível que explica-me tudo: a Matriz/DNA Universal dos Sistemas Naturais e Ciclos Vitais. O DNA seria a mera formula biológica de algo muito mais amplo, uma formula universal que a natureza aplica para organizar matéria em sistemas naturais. E ela explica como e onde estavam as forças no estado de ordem astronômico que atuaram produzindo o estado caótico da biosfera. Mas essa visão estará sob teste nos próximos dois mil anos antes que eu acredite que o pequenino cérebro humano surgido ainda ontem neste planetinha perdido na imensidão cósmica seja capaz de mentalizar a imagem correta do verdadeiro criador, ainda invisível e impalpável E muito menos tentarei influenciar mentes de jovens que ainda não tiveram tempo de pensar o mundo por si próprios Mas estou disponível para o autor me convencer que ele faz o melhor com estes artigos.
Esta ev uma imagem da superficie de uma planta com crateras e polens. Interessante ev que ev uma imagem muito semelhante a ideia sugerida pelos modelos da Matrix/DNA de como deve ser a superficie do pulsar com seus vulcoes emitindo cometas. Como a funcao do polen no sistema vegetal ev a mesma funcao do cometa no sistema astronomico, as coincidencias aumentam, para reforcar a sugestao da Matrix/DNA que as primeiras criacoes biologicas na Terra imitaram ou copiaram o ancestral celeste…! Tenho que pesquisar isso e essa imagem servira de inspiracao para o desenho do pulsar.
Relationship between pollen morphology and chromosome numbers in Brazilian species ofLippia L. (Verbenaceae)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0001-37652013005000010
XXXXXXXXXX
Pollen Formation: Development Of A Pollen Grain Within The Pollen Sac Of An Anther - A cross section of the developing anther displays four chambers. These chambers are called pollen sacs (see upper left illustration). Each pollen sac is filled with cells containing large nuclei. As the anther grows, each of these cells goes through two meiotic divisions, forming a four-celled tetrad. These cells are called microspores. Each one of these microspores eventually becomes a pollen grain. First, each nucleus divides by mitosis to become two nuclei. One is the tube nucleus. The other is a generative nucleus. The wall of the cell thickens to protect the developing pollen grain. As the anther ripens, the wall between the paired pollen sacs disappear. The pollen sacs burst open and the mature pollen grains are ready for dispersal.
Ovule Formation: Development Of An Ovule Within The Ovary At The Base Of The Pistil - While pollen grains are forming in the anthers, there are also changes in the ovary. An ovule starts as a tiny knob on the ovary wall. Each knob contains one cell. The ovule grows away from the wall on the end of a short stalk through which it is nourished. It is completely enclosed except for a tiny pore called a micropyle. The single ovule cell now goes through two meiotic divisions, resulting in four megaspores. One of these survives. This megaspore get larger and turns into an oval embryo sac ( see upper right illustration). More cell division occurs and a polar nucleus is formed in a cell in the center of the embryo sac. This sac goes on developing until it is ready for fertilization. In order for fertilization to take place, a pollen grain must get to a stigma pad of the pistil – pollination.
xxxxxxxxxx
REPRODUCAO DAS PLANTAS – WIKIPEDIA
Na maioria das espécies de plantas verdes, os indivíduos podem reproduzir-se tanto assexuada (agâmica) como sexuadamente (reprodução gâmica, ou por meio de gâmetas).23
Assexuadamente, as plantas se reproduzem através da separação de partes do indivíduo que podem dar origem a novos indivíduos. Neste processo, não há recombinação genética, e portanto os descendentes são geneticamente iguais aos “pais”, podendo ser considerados clones de um indivíduo. A reprodução assexuada nas plantas ocorre de várias maneiras: por brotamento (ou gemulação), por fragmentação, pela formação de estolhos, e poresporulação. Na esporulação podem se formar células especiais os esporos que podem ser aplanósporos (normalmente transportados pelo vento ou por animais) ou zoósporos (móveis) com dois ou mais flagelos.
O homem tirou partido desta capacidade de reprodução assexuada nas plantas, desenvolvendo métodos especializados de multiplicação, como aestaquia, alporquia e enxertia.24
