Do you think is it possible that the modern Cosmos’ world view can be revolutionized like that when the heliocentric world view came upon the geocentric world view? I am asking it because there is a rational theoretical Cosmos’ model, unknown by you, suggesting that reality is very different than we are thinking. For instance, while we think that stars are born, they are dying, and vice-versa. Wait: remember that only proved known facts can debunk this hypothesis, do not deny it supported only upon the believed concepts built by the current theoretical model.

The author is not scientist neither amador astronomer and never thought about thinking out the box in relation to the mainstream model. But, 30 years ago and spending 7 years studying the natural systems that composes the Amazon jungle total biosphere, he found that explanations about the origins of each system must comes from the astronomical system surrounding Earth. That’s the cause he searched data from Astronomy, and concluded that the modern Nebular or Standard Theory must be not complete. Trying to complete it for getting a model able to create this biosphere, he built which is called “The Universal Matrix/DNA of All Natural Systems and Life’s Cycles”. It includes new and very different models for atomic and astronomical systems.

Since that Astronomy, quantum theory, were not his business, and he is a skeptical naturalist philosopher, he tried to forget his models, but, by the last 30 years, the bombardment of news, data, images, every day remembering the predictions of his model, made him to search scrutiny and testings, by the academic teams. Due its isolation at the jungle or even in New York ( he is American citizen) never reached someone for talking about. Here, at CosmoQuestX, appears to be a great opportunity.

There are thousands of evidences for this new model, collected at his unknown website, the unique source of divulgation. So, I don’t know which I will bring here first for beginning a discussion. I will try only one by know, referring the picture attached here.

How Nature – the state of the world, the state of the Solar and Milk Way systems – at 4 billion years ago, built every properties of biological systems at Earth surface? Metabolism, life’s cycle, sexual reproduction, genetic code, etc.,? The Matrix/DNA model is a unique astronomical model that shows where all these biological properties were hidden as potential natural forces and elements inside the Solar and galactic systems. I know you will not accept and grasp this idea, but, the unique rational and scientific thinking way is pointing out one detail of this biosphere at a time, asking here for me pointing out the principle or primordial force at the astronomical model. For beginning to understand what I am talking about, the picture attached here is about the primordial process, forces and elements contained inside the building block of all astronomical systems, 4 billion years ago, that evolved into the modern human sexual reproductive system.

Is there someone interested in this issue? I will be grateful… Cheers for everybody here…

What is your theory? Do you have any mathematical models?

testing

( Thanks for remembering me how works the mainstream mindset – it is product of brains hard-wired by a millenary culture based on a specific logistic called Mathematics. If you are interested to know how works brains hard-wired by other life’s experiences – like the rules of salvage jungle and crude Nature plus absorption of scientific data coming from the civilization – here you will have an opportunity. But, please, does not believe that these brains are not worth to know because you have seen no technological and scientific production. This world view is suggesting many new ways for producing new technology. And I think yours quickly question was due the attached picture on my post did not worked, but I have solved it. Please, go back to the first post for seeing the kind of models I have applied.)

Mathematical models? I am talking about a theory about “natural systems” models. Not about man made models for expressing their thoughts. And graphics produced by this theory are suggesting that the linear logistic of Mathematics is good for translating a smaller phase of any natural systems longlife. Here is the predictive power of Math: it can predict the smaller phase of the next systems inside the big hierarchy of systems that composes the Universe. Matrix/DNA formulas are based on human mental translation in shape of designs that register the internal circuit flow of energy/information at observed natural systems and the final result of these draws seems something like genetics and simple computational software’s diagrams. That’s the way Nature works. Math falls when trying to calculate the whole of any system because they are not solely based on Mathematical logics.I will try an analogy:

Aliens made of iron and rubber that does not know life as we know and does not see the our visible light arrived to Earth. They saw lots of bone skeleton walking on the streets ( their vision can’t see the soft meat). Their Cosmology and Astronomy are based on Physics and Math. Quickly they learned and described the skeleton, its origins, composition, etc. Nothing about Biology, neurology, mental sciences, then, nothing about the whole system “human body”. This is the way that Physics and Math is seeing the Universe. Only its skeleton composed by atoms, galaxies and its “mechanistic” processes, not the other levels of processes necessary for understanding the whole. Matrix/DNA’s Universe have a coverture of biological organization of matter which reveals that all natural systems, like atoms and galaxies, have also their “DNA” and express some primordial principles of genetics and so on. Welcome to the universal Matrix/DNA world view.

What do DNA and human sexuality have to do with the universe at large?

Would this “unknown website” be www dot universalmatrix dot com? Because that’s what comes up first when you give universal matrix dna to Google (after some articles that mention the words independently).

Your diagram is not in English, so it is not helpful to a monolingual chap like me.

Fred

I only had to look at the diagram for a few seconds to get the
general idea. The original poster learned about genetics, and
it impressed him so strongly that now he interprets everything
in terms of genetics, including the origin and evolution of the
Universe.

Have I got that right?

— Jeff, in Minneapolis

the diagram is not in English so I’m not sure what it is trying to claim. I will how ever address some of the OP comments.

 Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA 

Do you think is it possible that the modern Cosmos’ world view can be revolutionized like that when the heliocentric world view came upon the geocentric world view? I am asking it because there is a rational theoretical Cosmos’ model, unknown by you, suggesting that reality is very different than we are thinking. For instance, while we think that stars are born, they are dying, and vice-versa. Wait: remember that only proved known facts can debunk this hypothesis, do not deny it supported only upon the believed concepts built by the current theoretical model.

Your understanding of how we have come about the current mainstream models seems a bit flawed. It isn’t that someone just came up with a model and “well this model say things would have happened this way” and then just believe.
The theories have been developed and changed over time based on observations. The hallmark of a good theory is that it is not only falsifiable but that it makes very good predictions within its domain of applicability. As a hypothesis coming in to replace a established theory you have to do a number of things. 1st is that the new hypothesis is at least as good at making predictions and fitting the data as the current model within its domain of applicability. This also means that the new hypothesis can be independently verified via the scientific method. Next the new theory should be capable of distinguishing itself from the existing theory. IE you can’t just say “It makes all the same predictions as the existing theory”. This is where new “ideas” most often fail and fail miserably. They can’t be qualified. They often involve a lot of hand waving and seem to always not be defined well enough that anyone can independently verify of falsify them.

 Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA 

The author is not scientist neither amador astronomer and never thought about thinking out the box in relation to the mainstream model. But, 30 years ago and spending 7 years studying the natural systems that composes the Amazon jungle total biosphere, he found that explanations about the origins of each system must comes from the astronomical system surrounding Earth. That’s the cause he searched data from Astronomy, and concluded that the modern Nebular or Standard Theory must be not complete. Trying to complete it for getting a model able to create this biosphere, he built which is called “The Universal Matrix/DNA of All Natural Systems and Life’s Cycles”. It includes new and very different models for atomic and astronomical systems.Since that Astronomy, quantum theory, were not his business, and he is a skeptical naturalist philosopher, he tried to forget his models, but, by the last 30 years, the bombardment of news, data, images, every day remembering the predictions of his model, made him to search scrutiny and testings, by the academic teams. Due its isolation at the jungle or even in New York ( he is American citizen) never reached someone for talking about. Here, at CosmoQuestX, appears to be a great opportunity.

There are thousands of evidences for this new model, collected at his unknown website, the unique source of divulgation. So, I don’t know which I will bring here first for beginning a discussion. I will try only one by know, referring the picture attached here.

How Nature – the state of the world, the state of the Solar and Milk Way systems – at 4 billion years ago, built every properties of biological systems at Earth surface? Metabolism, life’s cycle, sexual reproduction, genetic code, etc.,? The Matrix/DNA model is a unique astronomical model that shows where all these biological properties were hidden as potential natural forces and elements inside the Solar and galactic systems. I know you will not accept and grasp this idea, but, the unique rational and scientific thinking way is pointing out one detail of this biosphere at a time, asking here for me pointing out the principle or primordial force at the astronomical model. For beginning to understand what I am talking about, the picture attached here is about the primordial process, forces and elements contained inside the building block of all astronomical systems, 4 billion years ago, that evolved into the modern human sexual reproductive system.

Is there someone interested in this issue? I will be grateful… Cheers for everybody here…

English doesn’t seem to be your first language but even so much of that last main paragraph makes no sense to me.

First is that the solar system is about 4.6 billion years old. The material that makes up our solar system is billions of years older and formed from stellar processes from earlier stars. Something we continue to observe today. It isn’t like we just think stars form in a certain way without proof. We can see stars in every stage of the process from their initial formation to their often very violent death. We can tell you what the star is made of, how hot it is, how big it is, how old it probably is, how it will progress in its life cycle. We can now even detect the planets around many stars and tell you a lot about them. There is still a lot to learn but nothing so far points to the current models being just out and out wrong like the old heliocentric or geocentric views.

So what problem is there with the current theories on the formation of our solar system?
Why do you not think that normal chemical processes could not form the biochemistry of the early Earth?
Why do you not think that normal biological processes could not account for the diversity of life from its being on the Earth?
What does DNA have to do with anything in regards to the formation of solar systems?
Why do we care about the “human sexual reproductive system”? Why is it more special then the reproductive system of any other life form on Earth, many of which share traits because of common ancestry.

 Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA 

Mathematical models? I am talking about a theory about “natural systems” models. Not about man made models for expressing their thoughts. And graphics produced by this theory are suggesting that the linear logistic of Mathematics is good for translating a smaller phase of any natural systems longlife. My formulas are based on softwares that works like genetics, no Math. Math falls when trying to calculate the whole of any system because they are not based on Mathematical logics.I will try a sample:Aliens made of iron and rubber that does not know life as we know and does not see the our visible light arrived to Earth. They saw lots of bone skeleton walking on the streets ( their vision can’t see the soft meat). Their Cosmology and Astronomy are based on Physics and Math. Quickly they learned and described the skeleton, its origins, composition, etc. Nothing about Biology, neurology, mental sciences, then, nothing about the whole system “human body”. This is the way that human Sciences is seeing the Universe. Only its skeleton composed by atoms, galaxies. My Universe have a coverture of biological organization of matter which reveals that all natural systems, like atoms and galaxies, have also their “DNA”. Welcome to the universal Matrix.

No, you can’t just make up stuff and make unsupported claims about it in a science forum like here.

First you’d have to explain how alien life could exist from just iron and rubber.
Next you have to explain how that alien life “sees” the universe around us. Even if there was a part of the electromagnetic spectrum that did let them view us like that it doesn’t change the actual physics of the universe so that they wouldn’t be able to make observations in other spectrums.
for example we only “see” in a very narrow band of we define as “visible light” yet we “see”, via instruments, pretty much the whole electromagnetic spectrum. Even if something is completely invisible to the naked eye we can observe it. When you look up at the night sky and see black our telescopes look up in all different wavelengths and see so much more then our eyes alone would.
Could the alien life not have access to technology that would see our flesh? I guess but just because they are ignorant and form bad models on incomplete data doesn’t mean anything. If you think there is something science isn’t “seeing” then you have to explain a) how you can detect it and b) how it is needed to explain what we do see.

I can say that the orbits of the planets are controlled by IPWUs (Invisible Pink Winged Unicorns) pulling them along and we just can’t detect them but this doesn’t make it a better explanation then gravity because since it is undetectable it is not falsifiable.

So far the hypothesis you are supporting doesn’t rise to the classification of science. It is squarely in the realm of what is akin to new age pseudoscience.

To Nowhere Man:

Differences of cultures coming from different habitats makes difficult a conversation, but, with patience, each part will understand the other. You need to learn how doing it because you are going to meet very different culture at new planets. So, by while I didn’t understand why you have interpreted my say – “all these biological properties were hidden as potential natural forces and elements inside the Solar and galactic systems” – as – ” What DNA and human sexuality have to do with the universe at large?” I never said such thing and my answer should be another question: “What the fetus have to do with the egg at large? Maybe, that the egg is merely an accessory supporting the fetus?”. But, I can say: “DNA and human sexuality are evolutionary products made in this Universe and by primordial states of bits-information present at the Big Bang”. For sure! If not, show me what supernatural force coming from outside the long universal chain of causes and effects made them? If you forget this logical principle of reasoning, you will need inventing mystical forces, as gods or ex-machine randomness.
But, will we go anywhere debating concepts. We need to attaining at real facts. My affirmation is: Human sexuality – the machinery and process – is the product of biological organization of matter evolved from the part of the machinery and process of the mechanical astronomical primordial organization of matter.
If we have not seen it, we need search them there, because they must be there. For doing it there is some methods, which the principal are:

a) comparative anatomy between biological systems and astronomical systems ( I did it with atomic systems also). This is a long process because you get thousands of differences, thousands of sameness ( like: biological systems have life’s cycle and astronomical systems have it also);

b) Calculating the reverse pathway of universal evolution, along 13,7 billion years. Starting from the top of evolution here and now and going back to the Big Bang. These calculation will be driven by the the 3 known variables of biological evolution ( VSI- Variation, Selection, Inheritance), plus 4 variables mechanisms of cosmological evolution. Never forget that cosmological mechanisms are involved upon biological and biological mechanisms must have been involved into cosmological.

c) never makes a new step in yours calculations without searching everywhere in universal nature a known real proved fact that supports as parameter the prior theoretical conclusion ( if you does not do it, you will fail away off the beam)

d) and strictly formal logics.

Doing that you will find ( theoretically) what machinery and processes at astronomical systems evolved into biological reproductive sexual machinery and processes. It will be very difficult to recognize the biological process of self-reproduction at the Newtonian described mechanics of astronomical systems, as it is difficult to find inside a computer the corresponding parts and processes that mimics the human brain. But, it is possible going further and discovering these machinery and process at electromagnetic organization of matter, also. The final level inside this Universe where you will see this phenomena is at a positive light wave mixed with negative light wave. ( See the graphic here. Please, try:http://theuniversalmatrix.com/pt-br/…-Spectrum1.bmp

So, the fundamental unit of information of DNA is a lateral pair of nucleotides and it has the same configuration and functionality as the fundamental unit of information of all known natural systems, including atomic and astronomical systems.
( I am busy now, but will come back for other contributions here. Thanks to the contributors…)

 Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA 

[…
The author is not scientist neither amador astronomer and never thought about thinking out the box in relation to the mainstream model….

TheMatrixDNA: You have may get some issues with this ATM thread. As far as I know, you have to present and defend the ATM idea here. The second hand presentation and defense of someone else’s idea will be prone to misinterpretations.

Presenting what could be a diagram of the author’s ignorance about physics and biology in an non-English language is not a good start :P!
For a start

• the universe is at least 13.8 billions years old (not 4 billion).
• astronomy is not biology and biology is not astronomy.

 Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA 

My Universe have a coverture of biological organization of matter which reveals that all natural systems, like atoms and galaxies, have also their “DNA”. Welcome to the universal Matrix.

So, in reading the diagram, I can’t help but notice that there are no details. Y contains half the info of what? X contains all the information of what? You have a series of points labeled Function 1, Function 2 and so on. What “function”?

My Portuguese is nearly non-existent.

 Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA 

To Nowhere Man:Differences of cultures coming from different habitats makes difficult a conversation, but, with patience, each part will understand the other. You need to learn how doing it because you are going to meet very different culture at new planets. So, by while I didn’t understand why you have interpreted my say – “all these biological properties were hidden as potential natural forces and elements inside the Solar and galactic systems” – as – ” What DNA and human sexuality have to do with the universe at large?” I never said such thing and my answer should be another question: “What the fetus have to do with the egg at large? Maybe, that the egg is merely an accessory supporting the fetus?”. But, I can say: “DNA and human sexuality are evolutionary products made in this Universe and by primordial states of bits-information present at the Big Bang”. For sure! If not, show me what supernatural force coming from outside the long universal chain of causes and effects made them? If you forget this logical principle of reasoning, you will need inventing mystical forces, as gods or ex-machine randomness.
But, will we go anywhere debating concepts. We need to attaining at real facts. My affirmation is: Human sexuality – the machinery and process – is the product of biological organization of matter evolved from the part of the machinery and process of the mechanical astronomical primordial organization of matter.
If we have not seen it, we need search them there, because they must be there. For doing it there is some methods, which the principal are:

a) comparative anatomy between biological systems and astronomical systems ( I did it with atomic systems also). This is a long process because you get thousands of differences, thousands of sameness ( like: biological systems have life’s cycle and astronomical systems have it also);

b) Calculating the reverse pathway of universal evolution, along 13,7 billion years. Starting from the top of evolution here and now and going back to the Big Bang. These calculation will be driven by the the 3 known variables of biological evolution ( VSI- Variation, Selection, Inheritance), plus 4 variables mechanisms of cosmological evolution. Never forget that cosmological mechanisms are involved upon biological and biological mechanisms must have been involved into cosmological.

c) never makes a new step in yours calculations without searching everywhere in universal nature a known real proved fact that supports as parameter the prior theoretical conclusion ( if you does not do it, you will fail away off the beam)

d) and strictly formal logics.

Doing that you will find ( theoretically) what machinery and processes at astronomical systems evolved into biological reproductive sexual machinery and processes. It will be very difficult to recognize the biological process of self-reproduction at the Newtonian described mechanics of astronomical systems, as it is difficult to find inside a computer the corresponding parts and processes that mimics the human brain. But, it is possible going further and discovering these machinery and process at electromagnetic organization of matter, also. The final level inside this Universe where you will see this phenomena is at a positive light wave mixed with negative light wave. ( See the graphic here. Please, try: http://theuniversalmatrix.com/pt-br/…-Spectrum1.bmp

So, the fundamental unit of information of FNA is a lateral pair of nucleotides and it has the same configuration and functionality as the fundamental unit of information of all known natural systems, including atomic and astronomical systems.
( I am busy now, but will come back for other contributions here. Thanks to the contributors…)

Biology is just chemistry. Chemistry is just physics. Physics is just the rules that stuff in our universe obey.

Your image makes no sense.
Explain what you mean by it.
Why is electromagnetic wave lengths from 10³– 10^-2 labeled with Stars and the elderly?
Why is electromagnetic wave lengths from 10^-2– 10^-5 labeled with Comets and adults?
Why is electromagnetic wave lengths from 10^-5– 10^-6 labeled with Pulsars and sperm?
etc

Nothing just slapping labels on a existing chart doesn’t mean anything. You have to explain the components and the relations and what it means.

Fact ~13.8 billion years ago the universe started and produced hydrogen, helium and lots of photons.
Fact soon after the hydrogen and helium gas collapsed to form the first generation of stars then fused those light elements into heavier elements.
Fact after a few tens or hundreds of millions of years stars started forming that had higher metallicity
Fact Chemical processes allowed elements to form into molecules.
Fact Those same chemical process allow for biological molecules to form.
Fact There is no reason to think that those chemical processes could not and did not result in at least one abiogenesis event.
Fact There is no reason to think that we are a product of evolution from one such abiogenesis event.

Yes we are part of the universe and our biochemistry is just a product of chemistry. Note the “chemistry” in both those words. Chemistry is just a manifestation of interaction based on physics.

To that end yes the laws that govern our universe are also ultimately responsible for you and me being here. That is it. I’m not even sure what you are trying to claim but it smells of new age pseudo science.

So how about actually explaining what you mean. Because if it is just what I’ve already listed then you have discovered what the science says. Your graphic suggests you are implying more and it really makes no sense as is.

For those that are wondering about the Portuguese from left to right it is
Cadaver
Elderly
Adult
Sperm
child
babe
gestation
chromosomes X + Y

To Solfe ( thanks by the right question):

I will try to explain a little bit of the diagram because we need several big books for everything ( I am working it during 40 years and every day discovering something new about this formula). It is about ” systems”, which connects and interacts with all natural systems and account for 13,7 billions years of transformations/evolution. I don’t know how to begin and which detail should be the first. Before explaining the diagram, I think that it is better an introduction about the general meaning of the whole theory. This diagram is based upon other diagram, which could be seen as a formula, the most simple software diagram:

The non-scientific merely philosophical observation of the elements composing the Amazon’s biosphere, the way they interacts themselves and with the surrounding whole, identifying and seeing these elements as units of systems, finally suggests that there is a pattern common to every system composing that biosphere. You can see the pattern when trying to draw the channels of interactions between those elements and inside the elements, between their organs and cells ( wait: if you like Astronomy and Physics I will show these patterns at those fields). Drawing those channels where runs blood at animal bodies, or runs those fluids of plants ( I need advise you something very important here: sometimes I forget the right words,, names, in English, or use wrong words, like now I don’t remember the English names of those liquids running inside plants), or the chain of food among the species, all of them results into the same final drawing, or figure. They have the same shape, the same configuration, same dynamics. So, the conclusion by the author is that those fluids or energy changing are carried or they transports a flow of energy/information. It is like an electrical circuit unifying parts into a system. This circuit is a kind of soul of all natural systems. And this circuit models the shape of material structures repeating the same pattern visible at every biological architecture. So, this formula is the circuit inside which runs the flow of energy/information of a complete, perfect, closed, natural system. This flow is composed by particles or parts ( the Fs) which express the dimension space with those intervals between the parts, which express the dimension time, the chronological order of events during the lifetime of a system.
We have no animals and plants visible here, so, I will point out something that you have just now at yours eyes and makes easy to begin understanding what this pattern is about, how it models every biological architecture. Please take yours left hand. Now put it with palm down over the formula. Please, put the palm over F1, that figure of a vortex. The minor finger will be over F2, the followings fingers upon F3, F4, F5, F6 and F7. Don’t get conclusions yet.
Now, please, try to see that the formula have the same shape of a lateral horizontal pair of nucleotides of the DNA. F1 is the left sugar and F4 is the right sugar, while the others Fs are the four nitrogenous bases, linked by hydrogens bridges.
Now, please put yours two hands in front of you. One hand with palms down, the other with palms up. Turn the hands in a way that the fingers of left are superposed upon the fingers at right. Imagine that the two palms are the two horizontal lateral sugars of DNA. The four superposed fingers are the bases, and the thumbs are the left and right streams of the DNA. Still, it could be merely coincidences. It is DNA that makes hands, but, forget it by now.
Do not make any judgement by while, please. This exercise had the goal only for showing to you the basic principles used by the author for beginning to grasp the existence of that universal pattern. If you know the explanations of that formula, you will notice that yours fingers repeat the five principal shapes acquired by yours own body due the process of life’s cycle ( the minor is the baby shape, the other is the child, till the thumb, which is the elderly. And the usual different, specific function of each finger repeats the usual function of each human body shape at familiar and social humans systems, which are, by extension, copies of natural systems. And going further into the levels of different dimensions of this universal Nature, you will notice that the intensity of energy and work of each finger, each shape of human body are equal the intensity of energy of each frequency/vibration of the electromagnetic spectrum of any light wave. The sequence of vibrations/length, etc., are the same.
Now, don’t’do that, but imagine putting yours face upon this formula. The mouth and nose goes over F1. Two eyes are F1 and F7. Two ears are F2 and F6. The front head will be F4. Since that this formula makes the same effect when we put a building block of astronomical systems 10 billion years old, you will discover that the human face was written in the stars.
Don’t do that, but only imagine putting the whole body over the formula, the stomach over F1, the heart over F4, ( both Fs works as a bomb, like stomachs and hearths)… Or take this new system built by Nature, the top of evolution here, called “brain” and put it over the formula, hippocampus over F1 and locates the other hormonal glandes upon each F.
It means that there was a working formula at that terrestrial soup where life began. ( I will explain it later). And working that soup was the energy from the Sun. The author took his eyes from the pantano where he was looking for LUCA ( the Last Universal Common Ancestor of all biological systems) and drove his eyes towards the Sun, The secret is coming from there… that’s when he began to search about everything that the scientific field of Astronomy had collected. And finally draw a model of what must be a building block of astronomical systems that fits the formula. The first drawing made at the jungle with rough papers and pencils was this one, a system containing all known seven principals different shapes of astronomical bodies, but, connected by the same systemic circuit:

As all living beings have a common internal pattern called DNA which was the carrier of biological evolution, all natural systems, from atoms to galaxies to human beings, have in common this pattern, so, let’s say, it is their “dna”, their inner template. But it sometimes is mechanical, biological, electro-magnetic, etc. till existing at a light wave. So DNA is merely its biological shape and the top shape of the long evolution of this “pattern”. Let’s call this universal pattern as Matrix/DNA.
This pattern works like a fractal, but not like the Fractal obtained by Mandelbrot using Math because it is living fractal and evolves from the simplest shape ( merely a vortex) till the most knowns complexes system’s shapes, that’s difficult to identify something that change its shapes and composition accordingly to each different environment.
This pattern is a working natural system. It has parts, nucleus, internal interactions and a final identity of the system, which is the sum of all parts’ information plus the informations derived by fuzzy internal logics, and this identity determines the behavior of the system. But, now, going further into natural history, emerges the suggestion that the great secret of this system is that it is formed when any portion of inertial mass ( dark matter, aether, space’s substance?) is penetrated by a natural light wave which means that the code for all natural systems began with a light wave emitted at the Big Bang. ( wait… this is merely a non-scientific theory – it is a theory as coined by the Greeks philosophers).
Now, if the moderator don’t close this thread because – I agree – it is to much “weird” and seems off topic, the next post I will try to explain the first diagram, which suggests what were the ancestors elements and forces that evolved into sexual chromosomes.

To WayneFrancis
Wayne , I will try getting time for answering each question from yours, but the few time now permit me an answer:

So what problem is there with the current theories on the formation of our solar system?

There is no problem. But… my models are suggesting that have two processes, or two methods for astronomical systems formation. It mimics the two processes, or two methods of cell’s systems formation. The first cell system was formed by symbiosis, then, the cells learned how to replicate themselves. All existent cells today were formed by the second process. My models are suggesting that the first galaxy ( or first astronomical system) was formed by symbiosis. From all existent galaxies today, I don’t know are there old galaxies formed by the first process. Our solar system seems to be the second process, so, the current academic theory could be right. Ihave a question for you, about images captured by Hubble. There are images where two galaxies are together, them, the current theory interprets the image as “collision” of galaxies. My model is suggesting the opposite thing: those galaxies were twins and they are separating. My question is: what data the current model have for proving that they are colliding? If Nature makes that everything equal are self-repulsive and the opposite are attracted, why galaxies should be different?

But why I am telling that they are separating? Because I search the whole Universe, the whole Nature, and never saw a system colliding and entering inside other. By another hand I can see here nature showing the same image sent by Hubble: when a cell system enters into mitosis. We know that it is two galaxies because we see two shapes of galaxies and two nucleus. But, when a cell goes to replicate, first it creates a new nucleo, then the organelles, then the two cells separates. It is the same image I am seeing in the sky, thanks to Hubble and the prestigious NASA’s team. The repulsion between galaxies and their “replication” could explain why the Universe is expanding – for arrangement of places for newborn galaxies, like a fetus or embryo expands.

The first process of symbiosis is necessary for explain the origins of bodies that are not in the solar system, like quasars, pulsars and galactic nuclei. Who drove this process was just the Matrix, at an evolved state from its primordial state… a light wave. So, using yours own words:

Fact ~13.8 billion years ago the universe started and produced hydrogen, helium and lots of photons.
Fact soon after the hydrogen and helium gas collapsed to form the first generation of stars then fused those light elements into heavier elements.

Till here, I almost agree. The problem is the word “stars”. I would say: … helium gas collapsed to form the first generation of a kind of astronomical body. And other problem is that my models says: there were hidden variables acting upon this evolution, as the spatial substance ( which could be dark matter) that was penetrated by waves of light emitted by the Big Bang. A light wave have seven principal intensity of vibration which imprints the life’s cycle into mass, or matter. When those bodies absorbed the light waves they acquired the process of vital cycles, so, they were being transformed as any body have their shapes transformed under a vital cycle. Having now seven different shapes of bodies, and since their shapes and vibrational states mimics the seven frequencies of light, those bodies were aligned by the same sequence… this was the astronomical symbiosis. It happens that when you curve the line of this sequence, at opened space, getting a spherical shape, and links the initial point with the final point, the flow of the vital cycle becomes the flow that runs inside a circuit performing a perfect closed system. This was the building block of astronomical systems. Its shape and configuration is the same shape and configuration of a lateral base-pair of nucleotides, which pair is the fundamental unit of information, the building block of DNA. So, the seeds for life are being spreaded everywhere, searching a planet in good conditions. It is not panspermia. Astronomical systems projects themselves as a whole as the seed for biological systems. Are there some problem about sizes? The astronomic is big and the nucleotide is microscopic? Nature applies nanotechnology and giantology ( sorry, I need to invent this world just now) everywhere. Yours own body is the result of yours parent bodies that have collapsed and nannotechnolyzed ( another rampant word) inside a microscopic chromosome. I am suggesting that the current academic model is not wrong, only that it is not complete. And with some mistakes: when they think that a image reveals a star born, it is dying, and vice-versa. But, the birth or death of a star takes millions years, so, we never will prove what theory is wrong here. With the Matrix/DNA’s formula we can explaining everything that exists today and the Natural Universal History of 13,7 billion years. And my models are suggesting there are no black holes as theorized by Hawkins: at the nucleus of any astronomical system there is a vortex made by the rotation of a nebula of dust coming from died systems.

 Originally Posted by Reality Check 

TheMatrixDNA: You have may get some issues with this ATM thread. As far as I know, you have to present and defend the ATM idea here. The second hand presentation and defense of someone else’s idea will be prone to misinterpretations.

Later posts suggest that you are the author of the ATM idea, so this may not be an issue. To confirm this my first question.
IF1: Are you the author of this ATM idea, TheMatrixDNA?

I will point out a couple more errors in your OP.

• Any evidence against the mainstream model is not support for your model.
  Your model is not the only alternative to the mainstream that exists (just read the ATM section )!
• No evidence can support a model that does not exist.
  A model in science is not an idea in someone’s head and their thoughts about what that idea means, even with pretty pictures. A model in science produces predictions that can be tested against the real universe. That involves mathematics.

Scientific terminology exists for a reason – so that people can agree on what things are!
A star is … a star!
Hydrogen (and a bit of helium, etc.) collapsed to form the first generation of a kind of astronomical body called a star!
Light waves are … light waves!

 Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA 

To Solfe ( thanks by the right question):I will try to explain a little bit of the diagram because we need several big books for everything ( I am working it during 40 years and every day discovering something new about this formula). It is about ” systems”, which connects and interacts with all natural systems and account for 13,7 billions years of transformations/evolution. I don’t know how to begin and which detail should be the first. Before explaining the diagram, I think that it is better an introduction about the general meaning of the whole theory. This diagram is based upon other diagram, which could be seen as a formula, the most simple software diagram:

Seeing I have been a business analyst/ software engineer for over 26 years know I fully understand software diagrams. The diagram you link to makes little sense compared to a software life cycle diagram.

Let us examine your various images. First off your understanding of cosmic evolution seems flawed.
You have this sequence
Black hole => Baby star => Planet => Pulsar => star => star dust
and star dust looping back to black hole.

First off besides the early stars where there was no material to make planets besides those that were failed stars planets and stars form about the same time. During the time the star is forming the planetary system is also forming.
Next is pulsars come after a star has used up all of its fuel and not before.
Also most stars do not form pulsars.

So the actual sequence is something is more of a tree and the next step depends on the previous step. For example a molecular cloud may or may not form a protoplanetary disk and may or may not produce a star sufficient to cause nuclear fusion.
A star when it runs out of fuel will produce different things depending on its size. It may end in a nova leaving behind a white dwarf. It may super nova leaving behind neutron star or black hole. If a neutron star is left behind it may or may not be
a pulsar depending on a number of factors.
Black holes produce almost nothing. The radiation left over from the surface of last scattering, also known as the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, over whelms the hawking radiation from any black hole out there at the movement.

The fact is that new stars, and planets, are produced from the material ejected from nova and supernova of earlier stars. But in the animal kingdom that would be the equivalent of when someone dies they explode into a bunch of cells. Those cells group up into zygotes. Those zygotes collect more cells and form blastocyst. Those blastocyst gather more cells forming an fetus. That fetus gathers more cells from the surrounding cloud to make a baby. That baby develops not gathering any more material and cannibalizes itself until it grows old and dies. No need for mothers and fathers. But this isn’t what we see.

You’re charts are almost meaningless. They are factually in error and the fact that there is a “stellar life cycle” and a “biological life cycle” is only similar in name. The links you try to establish art even weak. At best they are badly poetic.

To continue on with your failed analogy. Children inherit their characteristics from their parents. For other life their is no change but just effectively cloning. In astronomy the characteristics of a star system isn’t as strictly linked to the previous generation of stars. A star could be made from the material of 0 – n previous stars and very likely to be more then just 2 previous stars. As pointed out for a new star to be formed it’s parent star(s) must have exploded. Stars don’t pop out of other stars. Some stars die and eat other other stars living for a brief moment again. So in astronomy terms white dwarves/neutron stars are like zombies.

So you need to provide some actual evidence beyond your hand waving and VERY bad analogies between the life cycle of humans and stars.

 Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA 

– ” What DNA and human sexuality have to do with the universe at large?” I never said such thing

Then why do you keep bringing up DNA and X and Y chromosomes? DNA is a molecule specific to biology, and not universal there (some viruses use RNA only). While X and Y chromosomes aren’t specific to humans, they are what most people are familiar with because that is what our species uses for sexual determination (generally – there are complicating details). However, it is far from a universal system. Many species don’t reproduce by sex in the first place. Then there is the fact that there are a number of sex determination systems. There is the ZW system, with males having ZZ chromosomes and females having ZW. There’s the X0 system. There are environment based sex determination systems.

X and Y chromosomes are far from universal even in earth life, and DNA (as well as RNA) molecules are far from universal, period. So what’s the point of even mentioning them?

 Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA 

Fact ~13.8 billion years ago the universe started and produced hydrogen, helium and lots of photons.
Fact soon after the hydrogen and helium gas collapsed to form the first generation of stars then fused those light elements into heavier elements.Till here, I almost agree. The problem is the word “stars”. I would say: … helium gas collapsed to form the first generation of a kind of astronomical body.

Are you claiming that helium, not hydrogen, is the most abundant element in the universe? Are you claiming that stars are generally made of helium? Note that our own star is mostly hydrogen, and hydrogen is, per the evidence, the most abundant element in the universe.

As said this post isn’t even wrong. It is pseudo science word salad and mean absolutely nothing.

 Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA 

To WayneFrancis
Wayne , I will try getting time for answering each question from yours, but the few time now permit me an answer:So what problem is there with the current theories on the formation of our solar system?… And my models are suggesting there are no black holes as theorized by hawkins: at the nucleus of any astronomical system there is a vortex made by the rotation of a nebula of dust coming from died systems.

You have no models. You have hand waving word salad with no proof. Hand waving and word salad don’t count as proof.

We know galaxies collide because we understand how gravity effects matter. We don’t have to watch 2 galaxies colliding over tens – hundreds of millions of years to know that it is happening. We have plenty of evidence of gravity pulling matter together. We have absolutely no evidence at the scales you are talking about pushing anything apart. We have never seen, and I can predict with great probability, will never see a human or other body of mass suddenly fly off the Earth do to a repulsion of gravity especially naturally occurring gravity.

Just because you interpret the data in a manner that goes against all known physics doesn’t mean anything besides the fact that you have a very poor grasp on the relevant science. When you look at a picture of a galaxy merger and say it appears to you that they are separating I can agree that a still image could ignorantly be thought that they are separating. Looking at the images there are 3 possible answers.
1) The galaxies are merging
2) The galaxies are splitting
3) The galaxies are static in that formation

Now again if you don’t know any of the science you might as well flip a coin on which one is correct.
But thankfully we don’t have to do this. There not only is a lot of science to back up #1 and that same science falsifies #2 & #3.
We don’t even have to stop there. While you look at a static image that just gives you some visual data actual scientists can use more data then you can see to determine what is going on.
While it is true that these mergers would take much longer then any human would be able to individually watch we don’t need to watch it for that long.
We can detect the motion of these galaxies even with just the images we take. We do this using the doppler shift objects in motion cause.
Think of it this way. Say you are inside a house sitting on a chair looking out a small window.
Outside there are 2 children playing catch. You can’t see either child but when they throw the ball you see it pass the window. Even with that small window you can tell which direction the ball is going and thus which child threw the ball.
Likewise these images can be analysed to indicate the motions of the galaxies and the motions indicate a merger not them flying apart.

So for your idea to be true we would have to do the following
1) throw out what we know about gravity.
2) discover some process that would do what you are suggesting.

I would say: … helium gas collapsed to form the first generation of a kind of astronomical body.

And you would be wrong given everything we know about physics. First off the first generations of stars formed from a mix of hydrogen and helium. A ratio that fits very well with the main stream models. There is no separation of those gases and
if the first generation of stars formed from just helium things would be a bit different. So we have yet another problem where your idea doesn’t AT ALL match the reality we see around us.

And other problem is that my models says: there was the spatial substance ( which could be dark matter) that was penetrated by waves of light emitted by the Big Bang.

First off you having stated a first problem unless you count your actual first idea as a problem. But that doesn’t mean anything because your first idea is fantasy.
The statement “there was the spatial substance ( which could be dark matter) that was penetrated by waves of light emitted by the Big Bang.” means nothing. It is a great example of pseudo science word salad. It says nothing and means nothing while trying to coopt terms in an effort to impress the ignorant. When I was stationed in Hawaii I used to assist our IT help desk. I’d often go out to look at someones computer that called in with some problem. Very often when I got there everything worked fine. Many times it would be something stupid like the computer was unplugged. When asked what was wrong often I would say that I couldn’t find a fault or point out they didn’t have their computer plugged in. One time on a call that it was just the computer being unplugged, and told me on the call at our help desk if it was plugged in and was told yes, I was asked what was wrong with the computer. I responded with “The flux capacitor was oscillating, I just had to invert the modulation to obtain a spherical sinusoidal wave period from the CPU.” and the person nodded in agreement and said “Oh, OK”. When I left their office with a work mate they looked at me and asked what that was about and I told them “Before we came up I asked him if his computer was plugged in and he said yes and it wasn’t and I wanted to see how ignorant about computers he was.”. My word salad didn’t fool my work mate and only made them ask why I said the ridiculous thing that I did. Like wise spouting out a sentence like indicates either 1 of 2 things to most people here. 1) You don’t know even the basics of the science topic you are dealing with and your really think that what you said makes sense or 2) You are just trying to fool people hoping they’ll just nod in agreement.

A light wave have seven principal intensity of vibration which imprints the life’s cycle into mass, or matter.

Again pseudo science word salad. The grouping of Radio, Microwave, Infra Red, Visible, Ultraviolet, X-ray and Gamma ray are all just arbitrary human classifications of the electromagnetic spectrum. In fact the “Visible” spectrum is very arbitrary to the human eye. Other animals have different visible spectrum ranges. We could have any number of break downs and there is nothing about it that “imprints the life’s cycle into mass, or matter”

When those bodies absorbed the light waves they acquired the process of vital cycles, so, they was being transformed as any body have their shapes transformed under a vital cycle. having now seven different shapes of bodies, and since their shapes and vibrational states mimics the seven frequencies of light, those bodies were aligned by the same sequence…

WF1 Define: vital cycles
WF2 State how light waves carry “vital cycles”
WF3 State how different “vital cycles” are part of different frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum.
WF4 State how the “different shapes of bodies” are defined and how they transition from one shape to another. IE at what point does a baby become a child? How do we quantitatively know if a young human is either a baby or a child?
WF5 Define: “vibrational states”
WF6 State how the “vibrational state” aligns to a body and why other “vibrational states” can not align to a body.

Consider those official questions. We need answers that can be used by independent parties to validate your claims. If your answers can’t be used to validate your claims then you aren’t talking about real science.

Finally you don’t seem to understand what Stephen Hawking says about black holes. So your final statement, like pretty much every other line in your post, says nothing and isn’t based in reality.

To WayneFrancis
Thanks by yours contribution to my work. My suggestion is that gora out from concepts, interpretations and straight on some facts. So, yours question:

WF1 Define: vital cycles

Wikipedia: In biology, a life cycle is a series of changes in form that an organism undergoes, returning to the starting state. (…) Reproduction completes and perpetuates the cycle.
Ok, the world view produced by Matrix/DNA Theory suggests that this phenomena called “vital cycles” came by evolution from the ancestor of biological systems, which is this planet, plus the solar system, plus the galactic system. Yours model says no, everything that is “life” exists only at biological level. Then the mainstream mindset is not considering this phenomena when elaborating the standard model. Or it have did it and I am not known it?
If a cosmic model does not see the vital cycle of astronomical systems, it will be obligated to conclude that these systems and its parts are formed by spontaneous generation, in the shape they are just as we see them. And this is just what the standard model suggests as the formation of astronomical bodies. In Biology we made this mistake long time ago, when the Greek philosophers believed in spontaneous generations of organisms.
A big mistake made by one is comparing a system with parts of another system. Organisms are systems, their organs are parts of a system. The vital cycle is applied over the system, not over the organs, since that organs does not change shapes.
If the vital cycle came from Cosmos, as suggested by Matrix/DNA, it is or was applied over astronomical systems, not astronomical bodies as parts of that systems. Any rational astronomical model need including the calculations of changing shapes. The big problem for doing these calculations is knowing that astronomical systems had two processes of formation, and we does not know who is first generation or later generations.
Then, we are getting lots of images of distant astronomical systems and bodies and the first worry is the classification: it is planet, a dwarf, pulsar, a star? Several bodies have not fit the definition of any group and is becoming common scientists saying… ” This goes against what was believed, meaning that we need fix something in our theory…”
For me, at Matrix/DNA Theory there is no such problem. It is like an alien specie observing humans, each time that see a new human creates a debate: is it a child? a teenager? or maybe an elderly? But, okay, it is good trying to know the most about each object. That’s why I kept the Matrix/DNA cosmological model by 20 years only at my pocket, as an exercise of curiosity, observing the data coming from the mainstream, and making comparisons with my model. My real interest is the Matrix/DNA formula applied over here and now, not cosmology where I can’t do nothing.
The big problem is what this Standard Model is suggesting about ours origins and meanings of our existence. It is suggesting that our existence is not supported by the Cosmos, we are like intruders virus and the meaning of the Cosmos existence is not our meaning. This world view is modeling the mind of humans which is building this civilization based on it. And Matrix/DNA world view is suggesting that the Humanity health is in needs that is time for fixing the Standard Model, before to be too much later.
So, my question is: What happens at 4 billions years ago that changed cosmological evolution in the way that the systems ancestor had no life’s cycles and the systems after that event have life’s cycles?

 Originally Posted by WayneFrancis 

You have no models. You have hand waving word salad with no proof. Hand waving and word salad don’t count as proof..

Then, I am in better situation than you. I have ours hands, faces, everything in our body and ihis biosphere, for accounting as proof of my models. You have nothing here at Earth’s biosphere as proof for yours models, and lots of word salad that are convincing the ingenious students.

You don’t have the human being as account for proof of yours Cosmic model because you have separated Universal Evolution into two blocks – Cosmological Evolution and Biological Evolution – without any evolutionary link between them. You took the long natural chain of causes and effects that comes from the Big Bang and left it outside the Earth’s surface, because the final product of this chain here and now does not fit with yours model as the producer. Then, for explaining our presence here you need fulfill the gap between the two blocks with something non-existent, as the magic randomness. Wake up now for not finishing like yours gurus writing books explaining how something could came from nothing, and put words salad there… Or Stephen Hawking seeing non-existents black ghosts monstrous cannibals of galaxies in the sky…

Do you know the worst thing about this? Is that, I think, it is possible that yours models are right. I have no proof for debunking them, so, I should be mystical, not rational, if merely saying that they are impossible. The first rational reaction when we have no proofs for debunking a specific world view, is the Einstein’s reaction: “One doesn’t need to prove that his theory is right. Only that it makes sense.” So, the absence of proof is not enough for repealing a theory – that’s why it has the name of theory. The problem is that yours model does not make sense. I am asking a unique real proved fact that debunks my models and till now, nobody brought it over the table. Only bringing on another hypothesis and theories. I know it does not means that these models are right, I only ask the mortal fact for putting the models into the garbage and be free for searching on another direction, because I am here after the final thru – if it exists or not.

After all yours bombardment, I still prefer the Matrix/DNA model when making comparisons with the Standard model because the few facts that I really know pointings out that it makes more sense. Matrix/DNA is something from something and something always back… Again, I am on better situation than you, because I have not broken my head on a wall of Nothing… at least, yet.

To Jeff Root:

Almost right Jeff, but was not in that order that the theory was developed. First there was no genetics and no Universe, only a man living alone in the jungle, excaping from slavery by human modern civilization. As naturalist philosopher every time observing details of Nature and asking “why?, how?, “what’s produced this phenomena?”, he noticed a general pattern, put it in the paper – it is the Matrix/DNA fórmula. Genetics and the Universe came after, because the formula left him there.
But, what is wrong thinking that this Universe is a kind of egg where is occurring a process of genetic reproduction of the thing that was existing before the Big Bang? The fact is that I am in the last 30 years, looking for any real proved fact that debunks this idea and nobody shows it. So, why isn’t it possible? Remember that genetics is based on DNA and DNA seems a computational program. Then, if we say that is occurring a genetic process or a computational process, maybe is something in between.
There are two ways for investigating evolution. You can start from the Big Bang and calculating the next steps till arriving here and now; or you can start from everything that is known here and now and calculating the steps back in time, to arriving to the singularity and the Big Bang. The Standard model applies the first method; Matrix/DNA applies the second.
You look to the diagram. My question is the repetition of the question made by the author when he saw a picture of sexual reproduction and learned about chromosomes: “What’s hell… How Nature had the idea when created this extraordinary engineering?! Where and how the long chain of causes and effects coming from the origins of this world, that created this phenomena here, had hidden the natural forces and elements used for producing this phenomena?”
I would like an answer from the cosmic standard model. Meanwhile, the Matrix/DNA model has suggested an answer with this picture, I don’t believe in it, it must be tested… against real facts.
What’s yours answer? But, please, no theories talking about magics of supernatural creative gods and supernatural creative randomness.

Reply Part 1

 Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA 

To WayneFrancis
Thanks by yours contribution to my work. My suggestion is that gora out from concepts, interpretations and straight on some facts. So, yours question:WF1 Define: vital cycles

Wikipedia: In biology, a life cycle is a series of changes in form that an organism undergoes, returning to the starting state. (…) Reproduction completes and perpetuates the cycle.
Ok, the world view produced by Matrix/DNA Theory suggests that this phenomena called “vital cycles” came by evolution from the ancestor of biological systems, which is this planet, plus the solar system, plus the galactic system. Yours model says no, everything that is “life” exists only at biological level. Then the mainstream mindset is not considering this phenomena when elaborating the standard model. Or it have did it and I am not known it?

Correct you don’t know it. You don’t seem to know the basics of science and there is the problem. You make untrue statements about reality then blame your ignorance of the science and claim it is wrong while you over simplified analogies some how provide a better explanation. They don’t. They might make you have a warm fuzzy feeling that you know something most people don’t but that does no good in the realm of reality where other people have to be able to take your claims and compare them to observations.

 Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA 

If a cosmic model does not see the vital cycle of astronomical systems, it will be obligated to conclude that these systems and its parts are formed by spontaneous generation, in the shape they are just as we see them. And this is just what the standard model suggests as the formation of astronomical bodies. In Biology we made this mistake long time ago, when the Greek philosophers believed in spontaneous generations of organisms.

You apparently ignored my previous statement that said basically Biology comes from biological chemistry which is really just a subset of chemistry which follow the rules of physics which seem to have been set in the first moments of our universe.

So VERY high level picture of what has happened in the last 13.8 billion years.

The universe was in a very hot dense state. Essentially a sea of energy unimaginable by most people.
Something, which we do not know and may never know, triggered a change in the hot dense state that made space rapidly inflate.
As it rapidly inflated the fundamental forces of our observable universe came into being. These forces being gravity, the strong force, the weak force and the electromagnetic force.
This allowed matter to form from energy which isn’t just an idea but an observable fact that we as humans have reproduced here on earth.
This first bit of matter was ionized hydrogen. This hydrogen was create at a point where the temperature and density of the hydrogen in the universe was able to also undergo fusion like what happens in our sun.
This allowed a portion of the hydrogen to fuse with other hydrogen into helium. Something we also know can happen and have duplicated here on Earth.
As space expanded, as predicted by General Relativity another highly tested theory that so far has never been falsified, the temperature of the material cooled. This is a simple rule of thermodynamics that says when you expand a volume of stuff that stuff will have its temperature lower. This is also tested here on Earth. Your refrigerator and air conditioner work on this exact principal.
After a few minutes of the inflation the temperature and density was low enough that the ability for hydrogen to fuse together stopped which led to a mix of about 74% hydrogen and 26% helium.
The universe was still pretty hot and dense. To hot for the hydrogen and helium to be able to hold onto any electrons.
About 380,000 years after the initial inflation the temperature of the universe dipped to about 3,000 degrees Kalvin. Electrons could then stay connected to the the nucleus of the hydrogen and helium atoms.
At this point the material became electrically neutral which allowed the photons to travel essentially ignoring the matter.
The universe continued to expand but at a much slower rate then it started at.
The Hydrogen and Helium gas that was spread through out the universe started to gravitationally collapse. This caused the first stars to form. Massive stars the burned very hot and very quickly.
Through stellar nucleosynthesis the hydrogen and helium started forming heavier forms of matter. The ratios that we observe perfectly matching what would be predicted by the periodic table and theory of stellar nucleosynthesis.
At the end of a stars life, because of processes we understand very well. The stars under go novas and supernova which is responsible for not only spreading the elements that formed in the star over its life time but also more and new elements that the star during its life time couldn’t produce because the energy levels within the star were not high enough.
These heavier elements, that because of the electromagnetic force, could then combine into things we call molecules via the rules of chemistry.
These more complex clouds of gas, still mostly hydrogen and helium, would continue to collapse down but now along with stars being able to be formed planets and other bodies could as well.
Chemistry allows large and more complex molecules to form some molecules that we classify as biological molecules but is still just chemistry.
This continues using not only the material provided by the stars but also energy from these starts to form the first self replicating molecules.
Because the process of self replication isn’t a perfect process, ie it doesn’t happen the same way every time, these replicating molecules could change over time.
Sometimes the changes would cause some molecules not to be able to replicate any longer.
Eventually, and at least once, these biological molecules combined enough into a system we would recognize as life.
This for Earth happened about 3.6 billion years ago. Only a few hundred million years after the Earth and less then a billion years after our sun formed.
Evolution is the science that explains how this first set of life evolved into all the life we see now and see evidence of in the past.

Not all life reproduces the same. Human reproduction is a highly faulty system. Humans can’t be classified as the most evolved life on our planet either. All we can say is that we have the most complex brain that we have discovered so far.

no “spontaneous generations of organisms” needed. Our biology is a product of chemistry which is a product of physics which results from the rule of physics within our universe

Reply part 2

 Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA 

A big mistake made by one is comparing a system with parts of another system. Organisms are systems, their organs are parts of a system. The vital cycle is applied over the system, not over the organs, since that organs does not change shapes.

And what is that word salad supposed to mean?
That a babies heart and an old man’s heart are the same shape? If so I’ll point out that they are only the same shape as much as a babies body and a old person’s body are also the same shape.

 Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA 

If the vital cycle came from Cosmos, as suggested by Matrix/DNA, it is or was applied over astronomical systems, not astronomical bodies as parts of that systems. Any rational astronomical model need including the calculations of changing shapes.

Meaningless word salad. What changing shapes? If you want to talk cosmology and most of astronomy the only real shape is a sphere and that is dictated because of gravity.

 Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA 

The big problem for doing these calculations is knowing that astronomical systems had two processes of formation, and we does not know who is first generation or later generations.

No! Your ignorance of the science leads you to this incorrect conclusion. Your incorrect conclusions lead you to make patently false claims that pretty much so far are not falsifiable only because what you are saying makes no sense. It would be like instead of saying “5 + 3 = 8”, I said something like “Banana + red = electricity”. Actually that statement is still better then what you’ve said because it actually makes claim with a result that can be compared to what we observe.

 Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA 

Then, we are getting lots of images of distant astronomical systems and bodies and the first worry is the classification: it is planet, a dwarf, pulsar, a star? Several bodies have not fit the definition of any group and is becoming common scientists saying… ” This goes against what was believed, meaning that we need fix something in our theory…”

Care to provide a reference to anything like that? Even so science doesn’t know everything. It probably will never know everything. Science takes new observations and tries to make sense of it by either fitting it into the current theories or coming up with new theories. But while you’ve claimed there are “thousands of evidences against the mainstream model” you have not presented even ONE here.

 Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA 

For me, at Matrix/DNA Theory there is no such problem. It is like an alien specie observing humans, each time that see a new human creates a debate: is it a child? a teenager? or maybe an elderly? But, okay, it is good trying to know the most about each object. That’s why I kept the Matrix/DNA cosmological model by 20 years only at my pocket, as an exercise of curiosity, observing the data coming from the mainstream, and making comparisons with my model. My real interest is the Matrix/DNA formula applied over here and now, not cosmology where I can’t do nothing.

You have no model. All you have nonsensical ramblings. You have so far shown no problem with the main stream models beyond you saying there are problems and that your model, that really doesn’t amount to more then a jumble of thoughts you’ve put down in a web site that make no sense given all that we know regarding science and reality.

 Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA 

The big problem is what this Standard Model is suggesting about ours origins and meanings of our existence.

Science isn’t about philosophical meanings of our existence. What it is about is the meaning behind why we think natural systems behave as they do. It is about predicting what those natural systems will do in the future given a starting condition. The big bang model doesn’t tell us anything about where the hot dense state of the universe came from. It just states that given it started from that state this is how we predict it evolved. But not in a biological evolved definition but the more simple definition of evolve which means something like unfolding. Trying to gleam philosophical meanings of our existence isn’t the realm of science. It is the realm of philosophy and religion and there are other internet forums you can go to if you want to discuss those but mind you making pseudo science statements to try to back up your philosophical claims isn’t going to help you with people that understand and care about both science and philosophy.

 Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA 

It is suggesting that our existence is not supported by the Cosmos, we are like intruders virus and the meaning of the Cosmos existence is not our meaning.

The physics of our universe allow for life to exist. Life isn’t an intruder in our universe. It didn’t come from outside of our universe. Another poor analogy that you are putting forward.

 Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA 

This world view is modeling the mind of humans which is building this civilization based on it. And Matrix/DNA world view is suggesting that the Humanity health is in needs that is time for fixing the Standard Model, before to be too much later.
So, my question is: What happens at 4 billions years ago that changed cosmological evolution in the way that the systems ancestor had no life’s cycles and the systems after that event have life’s cycles?

What happened 4 billion years ago is that the Earth formed and was capable of supporting life as we know it. It doesn’t say that life else where in the universe didn’t exist before then. We can say that life couldn’t happen at 380,000 years after the big bang because the universe lacked the appropriate complex material to form life. Not only do you need the right molecules for life to start but you need other conditions for life, as we know it, to start. For life as we know it that includes liquid water. If I was able to pop around the universe or even just our galaxy I’d expect to find life as we know it to be in many different places. I’d expect that the origins of some of those life forms to be older then 4 billion years and some to be younger. I’d expect that we’d probably even be able to find a system where an abiogensis event is occurring right now for the first time on some new planet.

First rule of replacing an existing theory is to know everything you can about the existing theory. You seem to not even have a pop science level of understanding of the formation of the universe let alone biology. No surprise you have questions about how it could happen. But instead of going to the Q&A board and asking questions, getting answers and learning you’ve come here and announced that the science you don’t understand at all is wrong.

 Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA 

But, what is wrong thinking that this Universe is a kind of egg where is occurring a process of genetic reproduction of the thing that was existing before the Big Bang?

You can imagine whatever you want, but if you want to support a scientific argument, you need to present a useful model supported by significant evidence. You haven’t shown anything like that.

The fact is that I am in the last 30 years, looking for any real proved fact that debunks this idea and nobody shows it. So, why isn’t it possible?

If I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard how do you debunk the claim?

You’re making a very common type of claim, one that is often seen in pseudoscience. The burden of proof rests on your shoulders. It is up to you to present a falsifiable argument, which you have yet to do. I’d suggest looking up “argument from ignorance.” And as others have pointed out, your arguments demonstrate extremely limited knowledge about the relevant scientific subjects, so if you don’t see the problems with the arguments you’ve presented, you either haven’t tried very hard to learn, or you just aren’t willing to listen to anything that contradicts you.

Just as one example:

 Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA 

The big problem is what this Standard Model is suggesting about ours origins and meanings of our existence. It is suggesting that our existence is not supported by the Cosmos

That’s fundamentally wrong. If our existence wasn’t supported by the Cosmos, we wouldn’t be here posting about this!

Response Part 1

 Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA 

Then, I am in better situation than you. I have ours hands, faces, everything in our body and ihis biosphere, for accounting as proof of my models. You have nothing here at Earth’s biosphere as proof for yours models, and lots of word salad that are convincing the ingenious students.

Again you have presented absolutely nothing here. If you have a problem with some main stream science topic then ask questions and learn. Some times the answer might be “We don’t know” and that is fine. We don’t know everything and probably never will. The main stream models you criticize have great predictive power. Your “model” isn’t even a model. Just because you call it a model doesn’t make it one. A model defines and quantifies a particular aspect of the natural world. This definition and quantification allows use to make predictions that can be tested. For example special relativity predicts that the faster you go relative to another observer the less time you will experience. It predicts this very precisely giving us the formulas that tell use how much time difference we should see if we run tests. Decades later after the theory was first presented we finally got the technology to test it and when we did the results matched prediction to a very high degree.

We test physics all the time. We test chemistry all the time. We test biology all the time. If you have a problem with something in one of those realms perhaps you should ask but you still haven’t presented even one piece of evidence against the main stream model.

Finally when I use the term word salad I use it in direct response to a statement you’ve made. Others can come along if I’m just totally misunderstanding your point. I point out where definitions are ambiguous. I point out where you use specific terms in a manner that they have no meaning in. That is word salad. If you don’t understand something that doesn’t make it word salad. So if you want to coopt terms for use in your idea then you have to define what you mean by those terms. Seeing as you haven’t that leaves your references to things like the electromagnetic spectrum having properties that they don’t based on arbitrary groupings that we humans use is a prime example of your word salad. Please tell me what word salad do you think I or any other person here has used?

 Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA 

You don’t have the human being as account for proof of yours Cosmic model because you have separated Universal Evolution into two blocks – Cosmological Evolution and Biological Evolution – without any evolutionary link between them. You took the long natural chain of causes and effects that comes from the Big Bang and left it outside the Earth’s surface, because the final product of this chain here and now does not fit with yours model as the producer. Then, for explaining our presence here you need fulfill the gap between the two blocks with something non-existent, as the magic randomness. Wake up now for not finishing like yours gurus writing books explaining how something could came from nothing, and put words salad there… Or Stephen Hawking seeing non-existents black ghosts monstrous cannibals of galaxies in the sky…

First off when we talk about evolution in cosmological and astronomical terms we are talking about a very different thing then biological evolution.
The former refers to how the basic structures within the visible universe formed.
The later refers to how life changes over time because of changes in genetics that work on a population scale. Process like inheritance, random mutation, horizontal gene transfer, sexual selection, etc.
The genes of a human are different then the genes in annelids (worms) from 500 million years ago. We share some of the basics. Both us and them use the same DNA tool kit. The chemistry is the same. But our evolution is very different.
There are planets out there in space that have been around much longer then the Earth. The oldest one we have discovered is over 12 billion years old. This planet will be around in another 12 billion years. We don’t know if the Earth will be. Maybe the Earth will survive our sun’s red giant phase. Something we know will happen because the science of stellar nucleosynthesis is well established and matches observation perfectly. We’ve witnessed many super nova. We even have before and after pictures of a star that has gone nova.

Take your alien example. Show an alien with intelligence a number of pictures of a human from fetus to death and there is no reason why they couldn’t put them in the order even not knowing our biology. With stars we not only have all the pictures but we know the physics as well. We know why our sun will not ever go super nova. We know our sun will stop fusing elements at carbon. This isn’t guessing and word salad. This is science.

 Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA 

Do you know the worst thing about this? Is that, I think, it is possible that yours models are right. I have no proof for debunking them, so, I should be mystical, not rational, if merely saying that they are impossible.

I don’t say the current main stream models are “right”. I, and any good scientist out there, would say that the current models are “The current best explanations for the current observations we have”. Science does a lot of disproving and what we are left with is models that have the best predictive power in their domain of applicability. Even then sometimes we use models that are less accurate because they are more simple to use. A prime example of this is Newton’s law of gravity. We know it isn’t right. We know GR provides more accurate results. But we still use Newton’s law of gravity because in its domain of applicability it works very well and is much easier to use.

Again how, specifically, is something that one of the main stream models says ‘impossible”. Give us an actual specific example and perhaps we can explain it to you. Not that not being able to explain something doesn’t make it impossible.
No one can explain exactly what the stars that came before our sun and provided the raw material for our solar system were. But we can make some general statements about it. No one can say exactly how life started here on Earth. Even when we get to the point where can produce new “life” in the lab we still won’t be able to say exactly what happened here on Earth. We can say there seems to be no barrier to life starting given normal physics and chemistry.

to be continued….

Response Part 2

 Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA 

The first rational reaction when we have no proofs for debunking a specific world view, is the Einstein’s reaction: “One doesn’t need to prove that his theory is right. Only that it makes sense.” So, the absence of proof is not enough for repealing a theory – that’s why it has the name of theory. The problem is that yours model does not make sense. I am asking a unique real proved fact that debunks my models and till now, nobody brought it over the table. Only bringing on another hypothesis and theories.

Do you mean Einstein’s quote of “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
And that is true. Science isn’t about proofs. Math is about proofs.
Science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
A scientific theory is very different then the common term theory.
A theory is defined as “an idea used to account for a situation”
A scientific theory is defined as “is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not “guesses” but reliable accounts of the real world.”

The problem with your idea is were possible I’ve pointed out where it isn’t supported by observations we have of the real world. Much of what you’ve said can’t be falsified because you don’t make any testable claim.
For example physics predicts that hydrogen when excited should have a very definite spectral signature and when we test it it matches exactly with prediction.
Our understanding of physics and elements was so good that elements were predicted before they were discovered. These predictions included much more then the spectral signature of the element. It included things like how it would react with other elements. The big bang model predicted that there should be a near uniform glow in the sky from the point where the universe cooled so that the hydrogen and helium could capture electrons. This glow should match a thermal black body spectrum of ~3000 calvin red shifted due to the expansion of the universe. Decades later this was discovered and that is what is called the Cosmic Microwave Background. There have been many attempts to disprove it but it is still the best explanation we have for the observation.

The main stream models do make sense. It is apparent they don’t make sense to you but if you actually spent the effort to learn what the models predict and why you might actually start to understand them.
I have shown you already where your idea doesn’t match reality. I’ve provided that definition of “scientific theory” which your idea doesn’t even come close to matching. You don’t even have a hypothesis at this time because you haven’t clearly defined a problem, stated how your idea answers that problem with some data in a manner that other people can test if your idea.

 Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA 

I know it does not means that these models are right, I only ask the mortal fact for putting the models into the garbage and be free for searching on another direction, because I am here after the final thru – if it exists or not.

I think I understand what you are saying so I’ll address what I think you are saying after I repeat your statement in my own words.
“I think the main stream models are restricting the investigation of other ideas that may explain what we observe better”
This is often the argument of someone with a new idea. They think the existing models are wrong and because their idea goes so much against the existing model that people are unwilling to investigate their idea.
The actuality is 2 fold. First is the current models are the best current explanations for a reason. That is because they’ve survived everything that has been thrown at them. They produce the best and most accurate predictions.
The second problem is most often someones idea has fatal flaws that stop anyone from wanting to investigate it further. If someone presents an alternate explanation for some aspect of the natural world and the very premise that the new idea is built upon is based on a misunderstanding of something we can stop right there. It would be like someone told you that they could beat you in chess in 5 moves and you were a grand master at chess you might sit down with them. If they immediately move a pawn diagonally like it was a bishop or a queen then you have ever right to just get up and walk away. No matter what the rest of their game is the reality is they aren’t playing chess. I’m sorry but what you are doing isn’t science.

If you wish to say something like “The big bang model can not explain the abundances of hydrogen and helium in the universe and my idea is a better explanation” you’d already have a problem because it does explain it. Your idea might explain it better but the false initial statement won’t help your presentation.

 Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA 

After all yours bombardment, I still prefer the Matrix/DNA model when making comparisons with the Standard model because the few facts that I really know pointings out that it makes more sense. Matrix/DNA is something from something and something always back… Again, I am on better situation than you, because I have not broken my head on a wall of Nothing… at least, yet.

Once again you have not provided a SINGLE problem. The closest thing you’ve come to is making it clear that you don’t understand what the current science is. What even basic cosmology says and how physics, chemistry and biology work.
Your idea doesn’t explain the origin of the universe any better then me claiming the universe came from magical universe creating pixies.

So come up with an actual problem with an actual model and how your idea answers it and matches the observations we have.

Let me ask you some a simple question.

WF7 What is the ages of the universe as predicted by your idea?
WF8 What evidence do you have that your idea about the age of the universe is correct?
WF9 How can some interdependently test you ideas prediction of the age of the universe?

To Van Rijn

You: DNA is a molecule specific to biology, and not universal there… While X and Y chromosomes… it is far from a universal system.”

Okay, I have not explained the first picture. There is a universal formula that organizes matter into systems, from the Big Bang to humans and now, consciousness. Like there is a biological formula that is common to all biological systems, called DNA. This formula is a natural complete system totally unknown to human kind, because since Bertalanffy with the General Theory of Systems did not knew the formula and what really is a natural system, couldn’t develop this field which failed into cybernetics and artificial systems.
The formula is composed by any body under the force or process called life’s cycle ( which came first from waves of light which propagates by this process, but I will not go such further now). Under life cycle a body differentiate from other without it because it has “self-dynamics” ( sorry problems with English here). So the body propagates into time and space being transformed into new shapes, like light. At the picture, the arrows are the aspect waves, for the dimension time, while the bodies “Fs” are the aspect “particle” for dimension space.
Under life’s cycle a human body change every second when a cell is substituted, but for easing we will talk about only seven shapes: blastula, fetus, embryo, child. teenager, adult and cadaver. Usually we see these shapes aligned linearly, but if we encurve the line making a sphere, we got a natural, complete, perfect, closed system ( totally in thermodynamic equilibrium, a perpetuum motor, the most perfect possible machine, and would be eternal if have not the increase/decrease of energy, when entropy degenerates the system: such state was only reached by matter when evolution arrived to the first building block of astronomical systems. And it failed as biological systems, which are opened systems.
A system is composed by parts, each one performing a specific function ( the Fs). Since that each part is a shape of a unique body, and we can see the general aspects of each part, we can conclude which is each function: the dust of a prior system as degraded mass rotates building an axis and from here a vortex. The dust is entering the vortex (F1)which is mixed with energy in increase state coming with F5. This works like our kitchen machines ( liquefators?) with three levels of density and which creates bubbles high energetically and heavy elements, which are expelled from the vortex into space ( F1 is the generator womb). We have the shape of germ (F2) till embryo ( for biological systems, is not a seed yet). For astronomical bodies ( of the first original astronomical systems or building blocks) this was the nucleus. This bubble cross the event horizon composed by surrounding dust (part of F7) that works like amnion/placenta and this dust is aggregated upon the nucleus making concentric spheres (F2, F3) with different densities due the space becoming cold. Now it is a seed, seed for plants,animals galaxies, maybe universes and so on… At the building block of astronomical systems, F3 was the first planets. Here humans are teenagers).
The internal germ feeds on this “placenta” eating it from inside to outside. At the first astronomical body, this creates pression of gas which need be expelled and the body develops giant volcanoes. At human bodies this is the age of 14,16, when begins to ejaculate, at cells systems, mitochondrias begins expelling ATP, and so on…
Crossing gravity this expelled matter falls into the magnetic lines of the spiral going internally towards the nucleus, because it is a closed system. This is F5, comets at the sky or spermatozoon at human beings, or pollen for plants, or RNAt and RNAm for cells, etc.
So, inside the sphere has a circuit, where runs the flow of energy/information of the system. When the flow arrives to F4, it is shared, one part going to adulthood ( here begins entropy) and other part going to the nucleus. So, this lateral internal branch carries energy while it is increasing, that is what is mixed with degraded mass, creating a new cycle. Observing the picture we find that F4 performs the male function ( volcanoes was the astronomical shape of what evolutionary became “penis”. F1 performs the female function, so, the system is hermaphrodite ( like his first reproduction as biological system called primordial cells, which were hermaphrodite). The flow F1 to F4 to F1 is half-face, has only half part of informations from the whole system ( in fact it has all informations, but half part is dubbed, so, the left half part is dominant, then, it i expressed. It is the non-biological ancestor of chromosome Y; the flow F1 to F7 to F1 have also informations of the right face, so, total informations, it is the ancestor of female chromosome X. When the system was divided into two bi-sexual symetric faces, developed this newtoniam mechanical sideral astronomic process of sexual reproduction – which was a development coming from the change of pions between neutrons and protons at atoms systems. I have discovered thousands of marvellous details in this formula, I described only one, and here there is no space for continuing.
There were two processes for astronomical systems formations, like there were for cell’s system formation. This formula should be about the first process, which does not happens anymore. So, this was the building block which is equal the building block of DNA. While at biological systems their DNA is inside, at the astronomical system, its DNA was the whole system. I am composing how this DNA was the template for atoms. It is Universal. Under evolution also. It is the “Matrix”. I think this Matrix emerged at this Universe in shape of quantum vortex inside bubbles which was bits-information working as the first universal genes coming from the unknown system that triggered the Big Bang. When these vortex disappears they leave a wave of light, which has the code for life’s cycles in shape of seven different frequencies.
Now I need yours help for destroying this theory that is a kind of virus that I got in Amazon jungle and it is eating my life and I can’t resist to it because it makes to much rational sense for me and everyday I am discovering new evidences suggesting that it exists, but, I am a skeptical, I do not believe in it. Debunk it and you will save my life. Please, only a unique real known proved fact that debunks everything here. Thanks. Any question? Cheers…
Oh… it is missing the most important part; Matrix/DNA is saying that Humanity is 8 billions genes building together with other trillions of genes spreaded in this Universe, the final body made off consciousness substance in the shape of the matrix formula that will be the exactly reproduction of the thing that created this Universe. From the Big Bang to the Big Birth. So… you are the son… Congratulations.

To WayneFrancis

You:WF7 What is the ages of the universe as predicted by your idea?

I never thought about that, I accept 13,7 billions ( I said it in a post above. See b) Calculating the reverse pathway of universal evolution, along 13,7 billion years.) But, let me do now some calculations by my naturalistic method. The embryogenesis pf a human takes 9 months. I think that its consciousness appears at 6 or 8 months. Let’s say… seven. Since that in this Universe is occurring a normal natural process of genetic reproduction from some system that must have consciousness also ( if it appeared here, is because it was there); and since that natural processes here are fractals of universal processes or macroscopic fractals…Considering that the Universe today have 13,7 billions years ( yours model says it) and consciousness is emerging just now, it means that 7 months for humans is equal 13,7 billions years. to the Universe. So, 13,7 shared by 7 = 2, each human month is 2 universal billion years. Humans have birth 2 months after getting consciousness. So 2 x 2 = 4 and 13;7 + 4 = 17.7 … I will bet that this Universe will die, will be discarded as placenta, at the age of 17,7 billions years. Let’s wait till there, if I lose I will pay the beer, but if you lose you will pay, okay?