Posts Tagged ‘Macro Evolução’

Um minuto para o Universo é 23.4 bilhões de vezes um minuto humano!

terça-feira, novembro 4th, 2014

Eu estava pensando no excelente artigo de Brian Koberlein sobre a confusão que dá na cabeça dos astronomos quando tentam entender e calcular as gigantescas dimensões do tempo na escala de galaxias e do Universo quando tive uma idéia e inventei a “Morelli Constant Universal Rate”. O numero é 23,4 billions. O meu post abaixo explica como isso funciona:


Louis Charles Morelli – postado em 04, November,2014
It’s not so hard to wrap your head around the immense time scales of the Universe if you know the Morelli Constant Universal Rate. The number is 23,4 billion.
I will explain: Since that this Universe is a kind of cosmic egg where is occurring a genetic process of reproduction of the unknown thing that produced this egg;… Since that Universal evolution is the evolution of a unique natural system that began at the Big Bang in shape of quantum vortexes, then became atoms, galaxies, cells, humans and now consciousness,… Since that ontogenesis recapitulates morphogenesis… ours lifelong of 80 years is proportional to the lifelong of the Universe…

It means that the universal embryo being nurtured here takes 13,7 billion years for getting consciousness, while human beings takes 7 months. Since that the process for consciousness is the same for humans and universes, it is enough multiplying 13,7 billions years by 12 months a year, for knowing how many months is the Universe old: 164,4 billions months.
Now you must divide it by 7 months, getting the number/ratio of 23,4 billions. What it means?
If you want to know what is one minute for the Universe, multiplies the human minute by 23,4 billions. If you want to know how the Universe feels when sitting at a bus stop waiting one hour for the bus, multiplies yours one ours by 23,4 billion times.
But… if you want to know how manny times the Universe becomes furious when listen to my calculations, multiply the irritation that you had here reading my post by ten trillion times….hehehe….

Evolução: Diferenças Entre Darwinismo, Lamarckismo e Matrix/DNA

quarta-feira, setembro 3rd, 2014


1) Developmental plasticity is not Lamarckism – PZ Myers


Ver este artigo tambem:

Dragon fish could hold key information on crucial moment in evolution

Read more:

A species of fish native to Africa could shed light on the evolutionary process that led fish to move on to dry land. The Dragon fish, Polypterus senegalus is not a normal fish – it has two lungs, and can survive outside of water. In a new eight-month experiment researchers have shown that if a Dragon fish is raised outside of water, the fish changes notably. The fish raised out of water showed differences in their bones and muscles involved in movement not shown in those raised in water.

Fish moved on to dry land and evolved into quadruped vertebrates around 400 million years ago, and it is thought that the Dragon fish is a living demonstration of a phenomenon known as developmental plasticity. This theory states that a creature’s physiology can be changed by environmental factors, and that overtime, these changes are incorporated in to the animal’s genome.

Read more:


O artigo usa um tipo de peixe que tem pulmões posto fora d’água e desenvolve membros para caminhar. Então usa a teoria da seleção natural para explicar como repteis vieram dos peixes como esse. Diz o artigo que o peixe tem uma propensão para desenvolver ossos mais fortes, necessarios para transformar as barbatanas em pés e mãos. Essa propensidade é invisivel enquanto o peixe viver na agua, mas se levado para terra, ele força sua expressão e então fica visivel à seleção natural, que o seleciona. Enquanto estiver na agua, a seleção não enxerga essa propensidade. Então a autor diz que plasticidade desenvolvida não é Lamarckismo, não foi produzida pelo ambiente e transmitida do primeiro peixe para o segundo, não foi determinada pelo ambiente, portanto não é uma força teleológica, como queria Lamarck, mas sim foi desenvolvida pelos mecanismos Darwinianos.

Minha resposta:

1) Fish moved on to dry land and evolved into quadruped vertebrates around 400 million years ago.

I’m not convinced by this theory. It assumes the origins of life in the depths of the ocean and after that immigrated to the continents, while the theory that most convinces me, the Matrix / DNA, presents the most compelling arguments that life had originated on the beach, where there are oceans and continents , and then split up, going some species for water and other for the continent. The Matrix / DNA resembles that all the forces of the galaxy, or the Universe, converge on the beach, including bringing their dualistic aspects, ie, the negative and the positive trend of each force. And all I have seen here being created depends on the encounter and fusion of dualism, which generates a new creature. Must to have the light of day and the darkness of night to a process of generation of life succeed. Must to have the liquid, solid and gaseous states of matter. If had not appeared the Earth’s Moon, there would not have origins of life because it moves the ocean waters to collide with the rocks of the continent, creating a soup for the best work from sunlight, which brought the right template to land for organizing terrestrial atoms into organic molecules. It is missing in the ocean forces and elements that are in the continent, and vice versa. Thus the last biological ancestor must have been amphibian, then life was divided into aquatic and terrestrial. Why would a fish having lungs, if in water there is no necessity or an environment forcing to creates lungs? The dragon fish had lungs because their ancestors were terrestrial, and not the contrary.

2) “The animals have an inherent capacity for building stronger limbs that is not visible when they are raised continuously in an aquatic environment…”


That’s right, but… where this “propensity” came from? Matter has no propensity for creating anything that does not exist yet. matter has only one propensity: the resting at thermodynamic equilibrium. Ok, any portion of matter captured and modelled as bones, will have the propensity to more strong bones due natural gravity and they are better for getting the eternal resting. But here is not matter alone, we talking about a natural developed system, called “dragon fish”. And natural systems with propensity to thermodynamic equilibrium are those closed systems ( like galaxies) and not opened systems, like the biological ones. There is something else, beyond ordinary matter, which propensity is not the thermodynamic equilibrium, and this force has been the victorious force in this Universe, since that we see “evolution”. The advantages for any living being, and not only for dragon fish, could be soft bones if he stands in water or strong bones if standing at land, It is not a propensity of dragon fish, it is a propensity of any opened system. In another words – any living creature.

There is a propensity for strong bones coming from something beyond life, beyond this planet.  Such force is so strong that it can select land animals and discarding water animals for continuing evolution, because land is more adequate for strong bones. This propensity is coming from the creator of life here – this astronomical systems to which Earth belongs. This systems has a structure like a skeleton composed by magnetic lines. This structure is pictured as Matrix/DNA model for astronomical systems and it reflects entirely in the shape of a nucleotide. After that, the same shape is mimicked by each vertebra of the vertebral column, because DNA also is a kind of column.  ( don’t believe? Put a vertebra at the side of a nucleotide and see the same shape). The key here is that ours antique ancestors systems – from atoms to galaxies – has its systemic structure – or skeleton – composed by electromagnetic fields and with evolution at Earth surface this same structure tries to reproduce itself, into a solid state.

3) “It is not Lamarckism”

The teleological view of Lamarck is what we are in needs for closing the gaps of Darwinian and Modern Synthesis evolutionary theory. Lamarck believed in a teleological force driven the evolution of living beings, from simple to more complex, but as  said Charles Coulston Gillispie,  a historian of science, “life is a purely physical phenomenon in Lamarck” and “his views should not be confused with the vitalist school of thought”. Since matter alone has no tendency from simple to complex, Lamarck was contradictory, and died with this big unsolved dilemma At Matrix/DNA Theory this dilemma is solved. Vitalists were almost closer to the solution, believing that a external force drives origins and evolution, but their mistake is that this force does not come from vital ancestry – if we think that atoms and galactic systems are not living systems.

Tradução da resposta:

1) Eu não estou convencido por esta teoria. Ela supõe as origens da vida nas profundidades do oceano e depois imigrando para os continentes, enquanto a teoria que mais me convence, a Matrix/DNA, apresenta mais argumentos convincentes de que a vida teria se originado na praia, onde se encontram oceanos e continentes, e daí se dividido, indo algumas espécies para a água e outras para o continente. A Matrix/DNA lembra que todas as fôrças da galáxia,ou do Universo, convergem para a praia, inclusive trazendo seus aspectos dualísticos, ou seja, a tendencia negativa e a positiva de cada força. E tudo o que tenho visto sendo criado aqui depende do encontro e fusão do dualismo, o qual gera uma nova criatura. Tem que ter a luz do dia e a escuridão da noite para um processo de geração da vida ter sucesso. tem que ter o liquido, o sólido e o gasoso. Se não houvesse aparecido a Lua da Terra, não teria havido origens da Vida, pois el move as águas do oceano para se chocarem com as rochas do continente, criando uma sopa para o melhor trabalho da luz do Sol, a qual trazia o template certo para organizar átomos terrestres em moléculas orgânicas. No oceano faltam forças e elementos contidos no continente, e vice-versa. Assim o ultimo ancestral biológico deve ter sido anfíbio, daí os vivos se dividiram em aquáticos e terrestres. Porque um peixe teria pulmões, se na água não existe a a necessidade e nem o meio ambiente forçando cria-los? O dragon fish tinha pulmões porque seus ancestrais eram terrestres, e não ao contrario.


Outro tipo de resposta:

Esta sua proposta parece a mim tão teleológica quanto o Lamarckismo. A chave do problema esta em: o que significa que o peixe tinha “propensidade” para desenvolver ossos fortes? O que é propensidade, o que explica propensidade para “criar” algo que nunca se necessitou, algo nunca existente antes? Ossos mais fortes eras um absurdo no meio aquatico, como é absurdo narizes com 3 ou 4 buracos, não existe propensidade para que no futuro existam narizes com 4 buracos. É mais racional pensar que ossos mais fortes apareceram neste peixe por um novo e nunca existido antes esforço para sobreviver. E a causa do aparecimento deste novo esforço foi a mudança ambiental, portanto, uma causa teleológica ( tenho que ver o que significa teologia)

Porque um peixe teria pulmões?! Senão que em epocas passadas ele se esforçou para mudar seu tipo de respiração, e esse esforço só se explica se ele viveu antes na terra? Este peixe era terrestre e foi para a agua. Qunado o retiram da agua o estao devolvendo para seu antigo habitat. A capacidade de desenvolver ossos fortes ja havia sido adquirida na terra, apenas foi atrofiada na agua. Mais uma vez a causa é imposta pela mudança ambiental.

O darwinismo tambem é teleologico quando indioca a seleção natural segundo os mecanismos por ele apresentados. Pois a evolução fixa o mais adaptado e reprodutor, porem o estado do mundo por traz desta seleção no momento que ela acontece é um ambiente que encontra uma espécie adaptada e em maior numero que outras espécies, ou seja, antes deste momento, houve a mudança do ambiente, e de um estado mais caótico para um estado mais ordeiro, ou seja,  de um estado mais simples para um estado mais complexo. A seleção natural apenas acontece depois que a mutação ocorreu, mas a causa da mutação não foi a seleçao natural biológica, e sim, as forças do sistema astronomico ao qual a Terra pertence. Intrinsecamente teleológico.

Mas isto tudo se esclarece quando se descobre que a evolução biológica é mero continuar da evolução cosmológica. A qual não existe mais, ou está inativa, pois ela agora é carregada pelo sistema cosmológico mais complexo que existe, que é a galaxia ( mais complexa que o sistema estelar porque a galaxia contem componentes que o sistema estelar não contem ( pulsar, quasar, black holes, etc).  Se a evolução astronomica dirigiu as  origens da vida e dirigiu a evolução biológica, e estando ela parada ou imperceptivel devido sua lentidão medidas em escalas de tempo astronomico, o que é que continua a fomentar a evolução biológica? Isto nos leva a entender que existe outra força evolutiva no Universo alem da astronomica. E na busca desta outra força é que chegamos à Matrix/DNA, ou seja, o DNA não é apenas atributo dos seres vivos, mas sim é apenas uma forma biológica de uma matrix universal, esta sim, é o “DNA” comum a todos os sistemas naturais, desde atomos a galaxias a seres humanos. A Matrix tambem está sob as regras da evolução, ela tambem surgiu simples e se complexificou, mas então descobrimos que sua forma mais simples é no estado de uma onda de luz original. Enfim, dentro deste Universo, a maneira mais racional de pensar é ver a causa da evolução teleologica, pois não existe mais evolução do Universo, este é o fossil de um ancestral, e existe sim, uma evolução de um unico sistema natural que surgiu dentro deste Universo. Em outras palavras, o Universo é palco de um processo de reprodução genetica, reprodução do sistema ex-machine que o gerou. Assim a teleologia se torna tão reduzida ao naturalismo quanto pensar que o corpo da màe gravida seria teleologico em rfelação ao feto que nele se desenvolve. Lamarck teve erros e acertos, mas  o darwinismo e a “Moderna Sintese” tambem tem seus erros e acertos.



1) Teleologia: ( Teleology)

Lamarck defendia a geração espontânea contínua das espécies, com os organismos mais simples a serem depois transmutados com o tempo (pelo seu mecanismo) tornando-se mais complexos e próximos da perfeição ideal. Acreditava portanto num processo teleológico, com um fim determinado em que os organismos se tornam mais perfeitos à medida que evoluem.

 Wikipedia: A teleology is any philosophical account that holds that final causes exist in nature, meaning that — analogous to purpose found in human actions — nature inherently tends toward definite ends.

Teleology was explored by Plato and Aristotle, by Saint Anselm during the 11th century AD, in the late 18th century by Immanuel Kant as a regulative principle in his Critique of Judgment and by Carl Jung. It was fundamental to the speculative philosophy of Hegel.

A thing, process, or action is teleological when it is for the sake of an end, i.e., a telos or final cause. In general, it may be said that there are two types of final causes, which may be called intrinsic finality and extrinsic finality.[1]

  • A thing or action has an extrinsic finality when it is for the sake of something external to itself. In a way, people exhibit extrinsic finality when they seek the happiness of a child. If the external thing had not existed that action would not display finality.
  • A thing or action has an intrinsic finality when it is for none other than its own sake. For example, one might try to be happy simply for the sake of being happy, and not for the sake of anything outside of that.

Since the Novum Organum of Francis Bacon, teleological explanations in science tend to be deliberately avoided because whether they are true or false is argued to be beyond the ability of human perception and understanding to judge.[2] Some disciplines, in particular within evolutionary biology, continue to use language that appears teleological when they describe natural tendencies towards certain end conditions. While some argue that these arguments can be rephrased in non-teleological forms, others hold that teleological language is inexpungeable from descriptions in the life sciences.

2) Lamarck:

Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck

A teoria da evolução de Lamarck é fundamentada em três aspectos:

  1. A tendência dos seres para um melhoramento constante rumo à perfeição, um aumento da complexidade dos seres menos desenvolvidos aos mais desenvolvidos; esta tendência seria uma força externa, semelhante a atração gravitacional, que se agisse isoladamente geraria um linha contínua e progressiva.
  2. Porém, esta tendência não atua sozinha na evolução, há a lei do uso e desuso que conjugada com a transmissão dos caracteres adquiridos provoca desvios na linha evolutiva.
  3. O naturalismo depende dos seres vivos para uma base científica e democrática cientificamente por espécies de seres incompreensíveis por natureza.


Acupuntura: O que é? É verdade ou não? Funciona ou não? – Sugestão da Matrix/DNA

sábado, agosto 23rd, 2014


Obs: Para esta pesquisa, ler as pesquisas em PDF sobre energias no corpo humano e campos eletro-magneticos do coração, sua relação com acupuntura, etc., no website:

ver o item :

  • Energetics Research:

    The heart produces the body’s most powerful rhythmic electromagnetic field, which carries emotional information and mediates bioelectromagnetic communication, within and outside the body. This field affects one’s environment in fascinating ways not previously understood.



Acupuntura: Realidade ou Mistica?


Ainda na selva, minha investigação me levava a deparar com varios indicios sugerindo que dentro dos nossos corpos, existiria uma rede de conexões produzida por fótons estelares dentro de nossos atomos e eletrons, numa dimensão que nem nossos olhos e nem nossos atuais instrumentos cientificos podem captar ainda, pois trata-se de luz pura original. Esta rede de conexões estaria configurada baseada na fórmula da Matrix, o que significaria que nosso corpo consiste de bilhões de cópias de DNA materializadas, prestando culto a um enorme DNA de luz que vai dos quadrís ao topo do cérebro. Depois da selva tenho me deparado com muitos fatos que parecem serem evidencias da real existencia desta oculta dimensão, por isso continuo considerando esta teoria como possivel e continuo testando-a e buscando seus efeitos no corpo, e mais evidencias, ou então, algum fato real que desminta a teoria. Nessa busca me deparei com uma existente antiga crença, ou filosofia, que apresenta um desenho de “aura humana”, e até uma pratica medicinal, chamada acupuntura. Devido aos muitos pontos que coincidem com esta teoria, mantenho tambem o estudo e acompanhamento dos avanços desta crença. Aqui abro um capitulo dedicado então a este estudo da acupuntura, assim como um registro das criticas dos grupos contrarios a esta crença.


Artigos Relacionados

Richard Dawkins Foundation – Old website

Acupuncture for Macular Degeneration: Why I Reject the Evidence

Meu comentario postado no artigo: 

Yours article does not shows a real fact  as evidence  for rejecting acupuncture here. The real fact most be yours data about each patient, before the treatment and after it. Real Science is focusing on the object, here you are talking about theories. Then, there is a rational theory suggesting that acupuncture can works, and the human experience also suggests it, because there are 5 thousands years and people from all countries believing and/or practicing it.  The rational theory is “The Universal Matrix/DNA for Natural Systems and Life’s Cycles Theory”. Applying unusual methods ( comparative anatomy between living and non-living natural systems, reverse calculations of cosmological evolution, starting at human beings and going back to the Big Bang, etc), this theory found that a horizontal base-pair of nucleotides has the same configuration and functioning as have a model of original astronomical systems. Same configuration and functioning of systemic “pieces” were found at cell’s systems, atoms systems, brain as a system, etc. If really there is  this phenomenon, it means that not only biological systems have a common essence, called DNA, and so, all natural systems have its shape of “DNA”, so, DNA must be merely a biological shape of a universal “Matrix”. Which is shown as a formula, at Matrix/DNA website.

But… why this theory found something real in the “acupuncture world view”? Searching how an astronomical system that created here biological systems, could do that “creation”, I found that the genetic transmission process could do it, if the genes-bits-information from a decaying astronomical system due entropy, are transmitted, spreaded into space, in shape of photons by stellar radiation. These photons could penetrate terrestrial atoms, penetrating their particles as electrons, assuming the control of the atoms’ machinery and then, driving these atoms to perform a new kind of connections, which should reproduce the astronomical system microscopically and with new materials/ environment. The final result should be the first complete cell’s system, the first real living being.

If this theory will be proved the right one for explaining life’s origins here, it means that the whole human body is based over the Matrix formula, composed by photons connecting all electrons of all atoms pertaining to a human body. So, it it is correctly, must have a kind of light field/circuit which can not be grasped by our modern scientific instruments, yet, but as ever happened in Science evolution, we can grasp its side’s effects. There are evidences, theoretical evidences yet, and I am alone carrying this enterprise for searching more evidences. It is not merely human imaginations, faith ( Matrix/DNA was made by the most extremely materialistic view point) that must have something like the maps suggested by acupuncture apologists: it is a rational imperative. By another hand, the theory of abiogenesis and biological evolution that has been the foundation of yours “western modern temporary scientific world view”, seems to me not all rational.  Bring on real facts, go after the patients, the statements of doctors before and after the acupuncture treatment, then, maybe you will have real reason for rejecting it… or not. This kind of criticism is prejudice for Science, since that till today “yours” method have not solved the causes of the big millenar diseases.

Diferenças entre cérebro masculino e feminino causa repercussão e debate. Mas o resultado fôra previsto há 30 anos pela Matrix/DNA

quinta-feira, dezembro 12th, 2013

O documento cientifico que alega ter encontrado fundamental diferenças nas conexões internas dos cérebros entre homens e mulheres teve grande repercussão e levantou criticas de muitos outros especialistas em neurologia, psicologia, etc. Para quem fala Português e quer ver o artigo, aconselho ir no link abaixo da Folha de São Paulo. Por meu lado, digo que as explicações para as diferenças dos cérebros não estão dentro dos cérebros, mas fora deles, na longa historia das origens e desenvolvimento evolucionista. Ao re-escrever a Historia Natural Universal nos seus 13, 7 bilhões de anos, baseando-me na interpretação dos modelos teóricos da Matrix/DNA, vi esta diferença em todos os momentos desta Historia, e como elas chegaram às atuais formas destas diferenças. Aqui mostro como estava diferença na era das galaxias, com a formula a seguir:

Explicação: Este diagrama retrata a forma em que se encontra o Sistema Natural Universal no estagio evolutivo de building blocks de galaxias. Aí percebemos que o circuito do fluxo de energia/informação funciona exatamente igual a como viria funcionar 3 bilhões de anos mais tarde os cromossomas sexuais masculino e feminino. O circuito divide o sistema em duas partes, e isto viria a ser mantido quando o Sistema natural Universal chegou a forma de cérebro humano, dividido em duas partes. O cromossoma feminino herdou esta característica de retratar o fluxo inteiro esférico, integrando as duas partes, apesar de que sempre expressa como dominante a parte direita. Enquanto isso, o cromossoma masculino, apesar de também conter as informações da totalidade do fluxo, sempre apresenta como dominante o fluxo da parte esquerda. A parte direita não é anulada, continua no registro, porem, não se expressava. O quadro desta formula se assemelha com o quadro obtido por fMRI dos cérebros masculino e feminino, e isto significa o obvio:  continua a mesma logica evolutiva, das galaxias à especie humana, apenas mudando os materiais segundo os diferentes ambientes em que a formula esteja operando e aumenta sempre a complexidade.

Minha Conclusão: “A fisionomia e anatomia dos cérebros humanos é uma projeção evolucionaria fiel da fisionomia e anatomia contida nos seus cromossomas sexuais. Enquanto que a fisionomia e anatomia do conteúdo dos cromossomas sexuais é uma projeção evolucionaria da fisionomia e anatomia dos building blocks das galaxias desde a 10 bilhões de anos atras.”

Existe apenas uma pequena diferença entre a previsão auferida da observação desta formula com o resultado apresentado agora pela equipe cientifica: enquanto a Matrix/DNA esta sugerindo que o elemento masculino tem operação cerebral muito forte no hemisfério esquerdo e muito fraca no hemisfério direito, pelo que estou entendendo da interpretação cientifica do fMRI, ela sugere que que as duas intensidades são iguais ( ao menos é o que estou deduzindo das figuras abaixo). Mas eu suspeito que, ou os cientistas não deram importância e não mencionaram esta diferença, ou estão interpretando o resultado errado. Pois acho que é sobejamente conhecido que usamos muito mais o hemisfério esquerdo que o direito, ao menos, os homens). Outro detalhe que vamos agora estudar é as diferenças relacionadas ao cerebelo. Mas desde já adianto que a 30 anos atras eu escrevia o resultado das minhas interpretações onde os dois sexos apresentavam anatomicamente detalhes físicos que expressam as metades não dominantes dos dois cromossomas, ou seja também, dos dois fluxos na formula. Isto explicava as origens dos seios nas mulheres e dos “dois “ovos” nos homens. Agora me parece que vou dar um grande salto no conhecimento do cérebro graças à informação desta equipe cientifica, pois estou prevendo que o cerebelo representa aquela metade não expressada porem registrada. Eu nunca havia notado isto antes, devido estar ainda muito atrasado no levantamento da anatomia cerebral devido minha falta de tempo.  

Portanto, a Matrix/DNA é a unica que entra no debate trazendo esta perspectiva evolucionaria e sua universal explicação. Vejamos figuras publicadas como resultado do fMRI:



Cérebros masculino e feminino | Foto: PA

Creio que nesta figura, os dois cérebros superiores com linhas azuis sejam masculino e os dois inferiores sejam femininos.


Mas vamos agora expor na Historia Natural Universal esta particularidade da evolução que se iniciou com o Big Bang e chegou aqui e agora como diferenças anatômicas e funcionais entre cérebros masculino e feminino.

Em primeiro lugar, um observador racional que consegue pensar como não-humano, ou seja situando-se fora do objeto estudado, vai inquirir como a matéria natural e não inteligente deste pequeno planeta perdido na imensidão cósmica, ou quiçá, da totalidade deste Universo observável,  conseguiu fazer com que dois corpos separados no espaço sejam tão perfeitamente simétricos e complementares em relação a forma física e tão assimétricos e não-complementares em relação as tendencias do caráter. E ao se fazer esta pergunta, se o observador tiver seu conhecimento no nível do atual conhecimento cosmológico humano (principalmente o modelo da cola nuclear do Físico e Prêmio Nobel, Hideki Yukawa), vai imediatamente se lembrar que a mesma situação, em todos os seus detalhes, ocorreram em outro tempo e lugar muitos distantes e com elementos muito diferentes. Refiro-me aos eventos das origens do Universo. Quando um segundo após o Big Bang, pipocavam neste espaço, vórtices fantasmagóricos ( a Física chegou a conclusão que ao se dividir a matéria em suas partes cada vez mais minusculas, chega-se ao ponto em que tudo se parece com vórtices abstratos, que podem surgir de vibrações no vácuo),  os quais, alem de serem todos diferentes entre si em algum minimo detalhe, tal como os 7 bilhões de humanos hoje diferem entre si em algum minimo detalhe, os vórtices eram divididos em dois grupos, um girando para a direita (spin right) e o outro girando para a esquerda (spin left).  A outra diferença fundamental dentre os dois grupos eram serem simétricos entre si na forma ( os dois grupos tinham a mesma forma de vórtices), porem assimétricos nas tendencias ( vórtices apresentam todas as sete forças brutas naturais, mas os de spin left apresentam-nas negativas e os spin right apresenta-as positivas, em linguagem da Física) . O que quero dizer é que o quadro geral do Universo nos instantes das suas origens é exatamente igual ao quadro geral da ultima arquitetura resultante aqui e agora, ou seja, a especie humana!  – depois de uma historia evolutiva de 13, 7 bilhões de anos! Incrível mera coincidência?! Nada tem a ver uma coisa com a outra? Isto é mera ocorrência ao acaso?! Ora… ilógico seria se fossem diferentes os dois quadros. Se fosse mera coincidência, se fosse produto do acaso, ou se uma coisa ocorreu totalmente independente da outra, is to significaria terminantemente que houve alguma interferência sobrenatural na longa cadeia de causas e efeitos em que se constitui a Historia Natural Universal. E para quem recusa-se a aceitar tal possibilidade, sô existe uma resposta racional: tinha que ser assim. O masculino é a forma atual do vórtice girando num sentido, e o feminino é a forma atual do vórtice girando no outro sentido. É claro então que tem de existirem diferenças fundamentais, poucas simétricas (como tamanho, complementaridade dualística sexual, etc.), e muitas assimétricas (como as conexões internas), entre o cérebro do homem e da mulher, pois suas naturezas são diferentes, elas se apresentaram diferentes e separadas mo momento da origem do Universo ( apesar de que, como explico abaixo, a Matrix/DNA sugere que estavam juntas num só corpo, num só sistema, antes do Universo).

A questão da complementaridade é um tema de fundamental importância para se entender a existência do Universo e mesmo a nossa, porem ela é muito complexa, pois sua explicação final jaz alem deste Universo, no sistema desconhecido que o gerou. Ela se relaciona ao fenômeno da dualidade presente em todos os sistemas e que produz os conflitos e equilíbrios entre forças naturais. Ao se tentar entende-la, inevitavelmente caímos na metafisica, pois emerge a visão do sistema criador como tendo um conflito interno e que a razão da existência do Universo e da alma humana nele é justamente resolver, aniquilar este conflito, pois do embate quase eterno entre as duas facções, termina resultante num equilíbrio que se denomina “sabedoria”, a qual esta acima das duas diferenças. Ao se tentar entende-la descobrimos mais um mecanismo fluindo na natureza de extrema importância, que resumidamente seria assim: “no inicio, os dois eram opostos entre si, contrários em tudo, todos os gostos, preferencias, tendencias. Se um dizia que o melhor caminho é para o sul, o outro imediatamente discordava dizendo que o melhor caminho é para o norte. Com isso se entrechocavam, se combatiam, mas o combate produzia o caos a sua volta, ambiental. O caos enfraquecia os dois, que caiam lado a lado desfalecidos, e assim, pela primeira vez, começavam a perceber que sua guerra não fazia sentido, já que seriam ambos sempre os perdedores.  Terminavam por entrar num acordo onde seus caráteres duros amoleciam e um cedia 50% de sua verdade ao outro e assimilava os outros 50% da verdade do outro e assim finalmente se complementavam. Desta união surgia uma terceira figura, como filha dos dois, nem positiva, nem negativa. Emergia a paz e harmonia, trazendo a ordem ao ambiente. Porem com o passar do tempo os caracteres da terceira figura voltam-se a se dividirem, tem inicio os conflitos, o caos, o ciclo se repete, ate que finalmente emerge a nova figura transcendental. Esta tem sido a historia das partículas que transcenderam quando compuseram o sistema atômico, dos astros quando compuseram a galaxia, dos animais quando chegaram a forma humana. Assim caminha a evolução.

Assim como aconteceu com as religiões, intuitivamente aclamando uma luta entre o bem e o mal, ou entre Deus e Lúcifer, etc., assim também nos vemos sendo levados nesse raciocínio, por isso tenho evitado avançar neste estudo, pois, não será o meu pequenino cérebro que irá encontrar soluções para alem do Universo. A proposito vem a calhar a frase seguinte: “O pesquisador Ruben Gur, que integrou o grupo responsável pelo estudo, afirmou: “É surpreendente como os cérebros das mulheres e dos homens podem ser complementares”.

Claro, para tal observador hermafrodita e alienígena pensar nisto tudo ao ver pela primeira vez um corpo hermafrodita separado em dois corpos fisicamente auto-complementares ele precisaria conhecer a formula e visão de mundo da Matrix/DNA e alguns aspectos teóricos fundamentais da Física.

Mas antes de expor os detalhes e conclusões da Matrix/DNA, pretendo levantar os artigos e debates relacionados, estuda-los. registrando links e comentários aqui:

1) Paper Original: PNAS – December 2, 2013,

Sex differences in the structural connectome of the human brain

2) Pharyngula – Pz Myers

A cautionary note about fMRI studies

3) Wired Magazine

Getting in a Tangle Over Men’s and Women’s Brain Wiring

4) Folha de São Paulo – Folha Ciências

Homens e mulheres têm conexões diferentes no cérebro, diz estudo


Cérebros de homens e mulheres têm ‘conexões diferentes’

(Obs.: continuar vendo a lista no Google e ver onde posso inserir comentarios)


Inicio da Pesquisa da Matrix/DNA sobre o Método, Denominações e Atuais Conhecimentos da Ciência Humana:

Primeiro vamos conhecer o método pelo qual os cientistas chegaram as conclusões em seu “paper”:  fMRI


Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) –

Researcher checking fMRI imagesResearcher checking fMRI images

Functional magnetic resonance imaging or functional MRI (fMRI) is a functional neuroimaging procedure using MRI technology that measures brain activity by detecting associated changes in blood flowThis technique relies on the fact that cerebral blood flow and neuronal activation are coupled. When an area of the brain is in use, blood flow to that region also increases.

The primary form of fMRI uses the Blood-oxygen-level dependent (BOLD) contrast,[2] discovered by Seiji Ogawa. This is a type of specialized brain and body scan used to map neural activity in the brain or spinal cord of humans or other animals by imaging the change in blood flow (hemodynamic response) related to energy use by brain cells. Since the early 1990s, fMRI has come to dominate brain mapping research because it does not require people to undergo shots, surgery, or to ingest substances, or be exposed to radiation. Other methods of obtaining contrast are arterial spin labeling and diffusion MRI.

The procedure is similar to MRI but uses the change in magnetization between oxygen-rich and oxygen-poor blood as its basic measure. This measure is frequently corrupted by noise from various sources and hence statistical procedures are used to extract the underlying signal. The resulting brain activation can be presented graphically by color-coding the strength of activation across the brain or the specific region studied. The technique can localize activity to within millimeters but, using standard techniques, no better than within a window of a few seconds.

FMRI is used both in the research world, and to a lesser extent, in the clinical world. It can also be combined and complemented with other measures of brain physiology such as EEG and NIRS. Newer methods which improve both spatial and time resolution are being researched, and these largely use biomarkers other than the BOLD signal. Some companies have developed commercial products such as lie detectors based on fMRI techniques, but the research is not believed to be ripe enough for widespread commercialization.

(Continuar a ler o extenso artigo da Wikipedia)


Haemodynamic response :

In response to performing physical activities, the body must adjust its blood flow in order to deliver nutrients such as oxygen and glucose to stressed tissues and allow them to function. Haemodynamic response (HR) in the context of neurobiology consists of the rapid delivery of blood to active neuronal tissues. Since higher processes in the brain occur almost constantly, cerebral blood flow is essential for the maintenance of neuronsastrocytes, and other cells of the brain. ( continuar a ler esta definição)

Intervenção da Matrix/DNA:

O melhor “biomaker” a ser usado para entendimento da funcionalidade e operações do cérebro é a formula para sistemas naturais perfeitos, pois o cérebro é uma nova forma evolutiva de sistema natural e sua forma se projeta como forma das suas regiões internas, incluindo os grupos diferenciados de neurônios e as sinapses resultantes de suas conexões, tudo funciona pelo mesmo tipo de circuito universal. Tendo-se fixado a formula para sistema perfeito, torna-se mais fácil identificar dentre as operações internas os sub-sistemas, suas conexões e assim, pela anatomia comparada, identificar o detalhe especifico que torna o sub-sistema diferente de todos os demais, assim como o ponto no circuito do sub-sistema que seja diferente do circuito padrão da formula, identificando-se assim as anomalias e causas das doenças ou disfunções mentais. Esta técnica seria aplicada criando-se um software com o diagrama da formula em estado de funcionamento animado, inserindo-a no computador e dirigindo o computador a identificar no emaranhado de sinapses e fluxos sanguíneos, etc, que ocorrem no cérebro, os sub-circuitos sistêmicos internos iguais ao circuito da formula. No inicio a produtividade do computador deve ser pequena ou quase nula devido a quantidade de milhões ou bilhões de indivíduos-exemplares a serem identificados, por isso pesquisadores ao lado dessa operação tentariam faze-lo manualmente, também. Infelizmente eu ainda não possuo os equipamentos para realizar pesquisas por fMRY, não tenho acesso a tais equipamentos nas instituições e não tenho poder de comunicação para alcançar e convencer os pesquisadores sobre este novo método de abordagem deste fenômeno natural.     


Sobre as dificuldades desta tecnologia, PzMyers nos alerta (os grifos e cores são meus para posterior pesquisa):

” First, let’s all be really careful about the overselling of fMRI, ‘k? It’s a powerful tool, but it’s got serious spatial and temporal resolution limitations, and it is not, as many in the public seem to think, visualizing directly the electrical signaling of neurons. It’s imaging the broader physiological activity — respiration, oxygen flux, vascular changes — in small chunks of the brain. If you’re ever going to talk about fMRI, I recommend that you read Nick Logothetis’s paper that cooly assesses the state of affairs with fMRI.

The limitations of fMRI are not related to physics or poor engineering, and are unlikely to be resolved by increasing the sophistication and power of the scanners; they are instead due to the circuitry and functional organization of the brain, as well as to inappropriate experimental protocols that ignore this organization. The fMRI signal cannot easily differentiate between function-specific processing and neuromodulation, between bottom-up and top-down signals, and it may potentially confuse excitation and inhibition. The magnitude of the fMRI signal cannot be quantified to reflect accurately differences between brain regions, or between tasks within the same region. The origin of the latter problem is not due to our current inability to estimate accurately cerebral metabolic rate of oxygen (CMRO2) from the BOLD signal, but to the fact that haemodynamic responses are sensitive to the size of the activated population, which may change as the sparsity of neural representations varies spatially and temporally. In cortical regions in which stimulus- or task-related perceptual or cognitive capacities are sparsely represented (for example, instantiated in the activity of a very small number of neurons), volume transmission— which probably underlies the altered states of motivation, attention, learning and memory—may dominate haemodynamic responses and make it impossible to deduce the exact role of the area in the task at hand. Neuromodulation is also likely to affect the ultimate spatiotemporal resolution of the signal.




Cérebro: Sensacional Tema para Entender Nosso Cérebro e Grande Oportunidade para a Matrix/DNA Theory

segunda-feira, novembro 11th, 2013

Desde que Teilhard du Chardin escreveu sua tese sobre “uma camada de inconsciente coletivo que paira sobre o planeta Terra” (creio que o nome do livro era ” O Fenômeno Humano”, e Carl Gustav Jung publicou suas teses na mesma linha de pensamento, e desde que encontramos a formula da Matrix/DNA, tenho suspeitado e desenvolvido na medida do possível a tese de que o cérebro é um sistema também estruturado pela formula, mas não apenas o cérebro carnal. Manifestações elétricas na forma de sinapses que se formam e desaparecem a cada novo pensamento, me parecem que estão forçando se fixarem permanentemente e também na forma de sistema, o mesmo sistema da Matrix/DNA. Isto significaria que o que entendemos por mente será mais uma nova forma evolucionaria de um sistema universal que começou com o Big Bang e vem evoluindo. Mas a suspeita não para ai. Os cérebros individuais de 7 bilhões de humanos estão se comunicando a nível mental estruturando uma espécie de mente social, e…. tornando-se um novo sistema nos mesmos moldes da Matrix. Esta mente social seria a camada mental de Chardin, as nourees de outro grande pensador que me esqueço o nome agora, o inconsciente coletivo de Jung, agora se tornando algo inteligível, um sistema perceptível, com uma figura visível. nesta linha de pesquisa me deparo agora com uma volumosa pesquisa de outro autor, por duas décadas estudando os efeitos de suas aplicações de MRI, descrito no artigo com link abaixo, o qual fica aqui copiado para eu pesquisar cada detalhe, ler o livro, etc.

O autor mostra que problemas sociais produzem ativação das mesmas regiões do cérebro que são ativadas quando ocorrem dores físicas. Por exemplo a perda de um ente familiar. Isto para mim é evidência de que a mente individual esta ampliada como mente social e a mente social esta se estruturando no mesmo modelo da mente individual, a qual esta estruturada na configuração do cérebro como sistema operacional, o qual esta estruturado em cima da formula da Matrix/DNA. Então, conhecendo a formula da Matrix, podemos começar a delinear e entender essa camada do inconsciente coletivo, ou mente social. Trechos como este a seguir são verdadeiras joias para a Matrix/DNA:

The neural basis for our personal beliefs overlaps significantly with one of the regions of the brain primarily responsible for allowing other people’s beliefs to influence our own. The self is more of a superhighway for social influence than it is the impenetrable private fortress we believe it to be.

Isto vem afrontar as modernas correntes cientificas baseadas na crença de que a psicologia e comportamentos são causados pela genética e química, que o individual tem a tendência inata para adotar uma religião, uma ideologia, etc., pois isto sugere que o individual nasce limpo como as paginas em branco de um livro e é a cultura social vinda do exterior que preenche estas paginas. na logica da Matrix/DNA, tanto a genética quando a cultura social entram com 50% cada.

The Science of Why Our Brains Are Wired to Connect


“The self is more of a superhighway for social influence than it is the impenetrable private fortress we believe it to be.”

Pela visão da Matrix/DNA, isto sugere que o ^Eu^ é uma peça na formula de sistemas com seus dois terminais abertos, um se comunicando com a peça anterior e outro com a peça posterior para formar um circuito, e não que o cérebro individual, o ^Eu^,  seja um sistema completo e fechado em si mesmo.

“Without the sense of fellowship with men of like mind,” Einstein wrote, “life would have seemed to me empty.” It is perhaps unsurprising that the iconic physicist, celebrated as “the quintessential modern genius,” intuited something fundamental about the inner workings of the human mind and soul long before science itself had attempted to concretize it with empirical evidence. Now, it has: In Social: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Connect (public library), neuroscientist Matthew D. Lieberman, director of UCLA’s Social Cognitive Neuroscience lab, sets out to “get clear about ‘who we are’ as social creatures and to reveal how a more accurate understanding of our social nature can improve our lives and our society. Lieberman, who has spent the past two decades using tools like fMRI to study how the human brain responds to its social context, has found over and over again that our brains aren’t merely simplistic mechanisms that only respond to pain and pleasure, as philosopher Jeremy Bentham famously claimed, but are instead wired to connect. At the heart of his inquiry is a simple question: Why do we feel such intense agony when we lose a loved one? He argues that, far from being a design flaw in our neural architecture, our capacity for such overwhelming grief is a vital feature of our evolutionary constitution:

The research my wife and I have done over the past decade shows that this response, far from being an accident, is actually profoundly important to our survival. Our brains evolved to experience threats to our social connections in much the same way they experience physical pain. By activating the same neural circuitry that causes us to feel physical pain, our experience of social pain helps ensure the survival of our children by helping to keep them close to their parents. The neural link between social and physical pain also ensures that staying socially connected will be a lifelong need, like food and warmth. Given the fact that our brains treat social and physical pain similarly, should we as a society treat social pain differently than we do? We don’t expect someone with a broken leg to “just get over it.” And yet when it comes to the pain of social loss, this is a common response. The research that I and others have done using fMRI shows that how we experience social pain is at odds with our perception of ourselves. We intuitively believe social and physical pain are radically different kinds of experiences, yet the way our brains treat them suggests that they are more similar than we imagine.

Citing his research, Lieberman affirms the notion that there is no such thing as a nonconformist, pointing out the social construction of what we call our individual “selves” — empirical evidence for what the novelist William Gibson so eloquently termed one’s “personal micro-culture” — and observes “our socially malleable sense of self”:

The neural basis for our personal beliefs overlaps significantly with one of the regions of the brain primarily responsible for allowing other people’s beliefs to influence our own. The self is more of a superhighway for social influence than it is the impenetrable private fortress we believe it to be.

Contextualizing it in a brief evolutionary history, he argues that this osmosis of sociality and individuality is an essential aid in our evolutionary development rather than an aberrant defect in it:

Our sociality is woven into a series of bets that evolution has laid down again and again throughout mammalian history. These bets come in the form of adaptations that are selected because they promote survival and reproduction. These adaptations intensify the bonds we feel with those around us and increase our capacity to predict what is going on in the minds of others so that we can better coordinate and cooperate with them. The pain of social loss and the ways that an audience’s laughter can influence us are no accidents. To the extent that we can characterize evolution as designing our modern brains, this is what our brains were wired for: reaching out to and interacting with others. These are design features, not flaws. These social adaptations are central to making us the most successful species on earth.


The implications of this span across everything from the intimacy of our personal relationships to the intricacy of organizational management and teamwork. But rather than entrusting a single cognitive “social network” with these vital functions, our brains turn out to host many. Lieberman explains:

Just as there are multiple social networks on the Internet such as Facebook and Twitter, each with its own strengths, there are also multiple social networks in our brains, sets of brain regions that work together to promote our social well-being.

These networks each have their own strengths, and they have emerged at different points in our evolutionary history moving from vertebrates to mammals to primates to us, Homo sapiens. Additionally, these same evolutionary steps are recapitulated in the same order during childhood.

He goes on to explore three major adaptations that have made us so inextricably responsive to the social world:

  • Connection: Long before there were any primates with a neocortex, mammals split off from other vertebrates and evolved the capacity to feel social pains and pleasures, forever linking our well-being to our social connectedness. Infants embody this deep need to stay connected, but it is present through our entire lives.
  • Mindreading: Primates have developed an unparalleled ability to understand the actions and thoughts of those around them, enhancing their ability to stay connected and interact strategically. In the toddler years, forms of social thinking develop that outstrip those seen in the adults of any other species. This capacity allows humans to create groups that can implement nearly any idea and to anticipate the needs and wants of those around us, keeping our groups moving smoothly.
  • Harmonizing: The sense of self is one of the most recent evolutionary gifts we have received. Although the self may appear to be a mechanism for distinguishing us from others and perhaps accentuating our selfishness, the self actually operates as a powerful force for social cohesiveness. During the preteen and teenage years, adolescent refers to the neural adaptations that allow group beliefs and values to influence our own

The rest of Social: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Connect, which dives deeper into this trifecta of adaptations and their everyday implications, is absolutely fascinating — necessary, even. Get a teaser-taste with Liberman’s TEDxStLouis talk based on his research and the resulting book:

Indícios de que a Terra recebe Matéria/Energia/Informações Cósmicas como Previu a Matrix/DNA Theory em sua “Embriogênese Cosmológica”

sábado, outubro 26th, 2013

“Nunca existiu “abiogênese” (ou biogênese) na Terra, mas sim embriogênese cosmológica”. Os meus modelos feitos na selva a 30 anos atras me levou a escrever e registrar isso numa nova teoria e quando repito isso nos debates internacionais pela Internet, pessoas fogem rápido de mim como se eu fosse um lunático. Não precisa fugir, não sou louco nem algum mistico fundamentalista, pois não acredito em nenhuma teoria, apenas em fatos reais comprovados. Quem sugere isso são gráficos, cálculos, desenhos, resultados de uma investigação particular por um método nunca tentado antes e em ambientes nunca experimentados antes. E teorias existem para serem testadas ou sugerirem novos experimentos científicos.

A biosfera terrestre vista pela perspectiva da selva amazônica e interpretada por um filosofo naturalista sugeriu que ela começou aqui quando se formaram copias moleculares muito simples na aparência, mas que na verdade imitavam os building blocks desta galaxia. Nossos corpos foram formados por copias dos building blocks dos nossos pais também. Mas quando relatamos as origens dos nossos corpos, desde o momento da fecundação, damos o nome ao processo todo de 9 meses de “embriogênese”.  Se ( segundo resultou dos meus calculos) os processos das origens do primeiro ser vivo (um sistema celular biológico realmente completo e funcionando) que durou talvez alguns bilhões de anos, e das origens de todos os seres vivos subsequentes são iguais, porque então nomes diferentes? Os conceitos teóricos e interpretativos por trás da palavra “abiogênese” tem afastado a Humanidade do entendimento correto desta Natureza que nos criou.

Para produzir a Vida aqui na Terra, não apenas este sistema solar, mas a galaxia inteira se transportou e se projetou aqui, com todas suas forcas, todos seus elementos, sintetizados em seus building blocks nano-tecnologizados, assim como os corpos dos nossos pais se “transportaram”, se projetaram dentro da barriga de nossas mães para produzir os nossos corpos, a nossa Vida. Outras frases que meus resultados me levam a repetir sempre e que deixam os céticos e religiosos fulos da vida é que ” a Natureza não joga dados com suas criaturas“, e que ” o Universo não é magico, ele não pode criar novas informações do Nada, todas as informações dentro dele ele as recebeu do sistema que o criou“… assim como todas as informações dentro do nosso corpo as recebemos de nossos pais. Portanto, o processo pelo qual a Vida, (ou seja, os sistemas biológicos), foi criada é a imagem e semelhança do processo pelo qual o Universo foi criado que é a imagem e semelhança do processo pelo qual nosso corpo foi criado. A Natureza não inventou aqui nenhum jeito novo de criar sistemas materiais para esconder como ela faz as coisas longe de nos, nos conduzindo a perigos nas armadilhas devido entender errado o mundo que nos sustenta.

Em vista disso tudo, meus modelos indicam que todas as propriedades constantes nos corpos dos vivos, de bactérias a humanos, já existiam, expressadas ou não, no corpo da Via Láctea, como sistema natural que ela é, e como nossa ancestral que ela é. O modelo dos building blocks da Via Láctea contem estruturas como a do vórtice nuclear ( que as Ciências Acadêmicas e o Senhor Stephen Hawking estão erroneamente teorizando com o nome de “buraco negro”), e outras estruturas para as quais peguei emprestado os nomes de pulsar, quasar, etc., as quais não existem neste sistema solar. Por isso tive que calcular como as funções sistemas ( que se tornaram propriedades vitais nos sistemas biológicos) destas estruturas longínquas chegaram aqui. O processo da degradação de sistemas fechados medidos pela entropia, a nano-tecnologização dos sistemas naturais, o processo da reprodução genética, etc., me levaram a calcular um processo final e único que bem explicaria isso. Mas se o resultado teórico corresponder a realidade, a teoria prevê que muitas informações do Cosmos, ou melhor, do inteiro espaço dentro desta gigantesca galaxia, chegaram a superfície da Terra, seja na forma de fótons ou na forma de elementos atômicos inclusive compostos moleculares. Estou agora perseguindo com afinco novos dados da Ciência Oficial para testar essa teoria e quando surgem noticias/teorias como a indicada no link abaixo, registro-as aqui e as acompanho com atenção. Então vamos la:

A bactéria que se alimentou de uma supernova

Enviado por Cesar Baima – 16.4.2013

E como o Cesar não esta postando regularmente em seu blog, tenho receio que a qualquer momento ele mude ou apague tudo, ele vai me desculpar mas vou deixar aqui copiado este material porque é muito valioso para minhas pesquisas.

No início, o Universo tinha apenas átomos de hidrogênio, um tanto de hélio e um pouquinho de lítio, os três primeiros elementos da tabela periódica. Todos os outros elementos mais pesados, como o carbono do qual somos feitos e o oxigênio que respiramos, foram fabricados na gigantesca fornalha fusão nuclear das estrelas, sendo que, a partir do ferro, apenas pelas poderosas explosões de supernovas. Agora, cientistas acreditam terem encontrado isótopos de ferro criados por uma supernova específica no registro de fósseis de bactérias no leito do Oceano Pacífico.

Em apresentação durante reunião da Sociedade Americana de Física, que acontece esta semana no Colorado, Shawn Bishop, físico da Universidade Técnica de Munique, relatou que os isótopos de ferro-60, que não se forma na Terra, foram recolhidos do ambiente pelas bactérias para formar cristais magnéticos que elas usavam para se orientarem dentro do campo magnético da Terra na sua busca pelas condições ideais de vida. Bishop e sua equipe obtiveram amostras de sedimentos coletadas no fundo do oceano e datadas entre 1,7 milhão e 3,3 milhões de anos atrás. Por meio de uma técnica especial, eles conseguiram extrair das amostras apenas o ferro contido em fontes biológicas. Análise do material revelou a presença de ferro-60 em camadas datadas em 2,2 milhões de anos.

Os cientistas ainda não sabem que estrela em particular explodiu naquela época, mas uma das suspeitas estaria em um aglomerado de estrelas gigantes na região entre as constelações do Escorpião e do Centauro, a uma distância de aproximadamente 424 anos-luz. O ferro produzido pela supernova teria sido lançado para o espaço a velocidades próximas da luz, caindo na Terra naquela época. Caso a descoberta seja confirmada, será a primeira assinatura biológica da explosão de uma determinada estrela já encontrada em nosso planeta.


Meu comentario postado no artigo do Cesar: (Seu comentário foi enviado com sucesso! Aguarde a aprovação.)

Louis Morelli

Cesar, apenas a titulo de curiosidade, existe uma teoria registrada no Brasil e USA que a 30 anos atras sugeriu um modelo gráfico em que o ferro-60  participou na formação dos primeiros sistemas biologicos na Terra. Obrigado por este artigo que vai colaborar com nossos estudos, inclusive fui obrigado a registra-lo em meu website, e se tens interesse nisso veja


Cientistas Descobrindo o Que a Matrix/DNA Descobriu a 30 Anos: Não Abiogêneses e Sim a Fabrica Cósmica!

sábado, outubro 5th, 2013

Scientists Discover Cosmic Factory for Making Building Blocks of Life

(Por falta de tempo agora, artigo fica registrado para analise posterior)

Sep. 15, 2013 — Scientists have discovered a ‘cosmic factory’ for producing the building blocks of life, amino acids, in research published today in the journal Nature Geoscience.

Comet Hartley 2. Scientists have discovered that when icy comets collide into a planet, amino acids can be produced. These essential building blocks are also produced if a rocky meteorite crashes into a planet with an icy surface. (Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/UMD)

The researchers suggest that this process provides another piece to the puzzle of how life was kick-started on Earth, after a period of time between 4.5 and 3.8 billion years ago when the planet had been bombarded by comets and meteorites.

Experimento Sugere Interação entre Cometas e Planetas Gerando Aminoácidos e Confirmando Previsão da Matrix/DNA Theory

terça-feira, setembro 17th, 2013
Ice-blasting test proves that comet impacts can spark life’s ingredients

Meus comentarios postados aqui:

  • comment author avatar Louis Charles Morelli

30 years ago was copyrighted a theory just saying: ” half of informations for new systems comes from F5 (comets) and the another half comes from the host (Earth). Nobody else published something connecting comets and origins of life at that time. The Theory, called “The Universal Matrix/DNA for Natural Systems and Life’s Cycles” shows the formula at its website. You can see at my avatar here how the formula works: look the internal circuit where, from the nude man is emited the spermatozoon towards the woman by the same process that from pulsars’s volcanoes at the right side emits comets towards the yellow colord vortex at the left side. And every day each new scientific discovery is proving the models of that theory. But its suggestions are totally different. For instance, there was no origins of life since that the ancestor and creator (building blocks of astronomical systems) of biological systems shows all biological properties. There are no division among natural systems as living systems and non-living systems. Pulsars and comets were ancestors of Y chromossome. And so on…

raymond-392453 commented 

Life is ubiquitously universal ! This proves it.

Louis Morelli replied 

IN REPLY TO: raymond-392453 #1  — If you understand life as biological system it is not universal. Universal is a natural system that began at the Big Bang in shape of quantum vortexes and evolved to atoms systems, stellar systems, galactic systems and here, into biological systems. Any atom heavier than carbon has hidden in it the seven properties of life, in shape of electromagnetic layers. When there are electrons occupying a layer, the atom expresses one property, while the other six are hidden. So, these atoms could be called “life”? Astronomical systems are described by Newtonian mechanics, we think they are mechanical systems, but, the resulted processes from internal interactions are equal the biological processes of life. (Ok, I am based in Matrix/DNA Theory models), and I could be wrong.

Danny McNeal commented 

Chemical mechanisms for the fusing of simple amino acids into long-chain nucleotides have classically been hard to hypothesize.

Louis Morelli replied 

IN REPLY TO: Danny McNeal #2 You said: fusing of simple amino acids into long-chain nucleotides have classically been hard to hypothesize.)

Amino acids into nucleotides?! I need some help here about chemistry. Amino acids are not fused into chain of proteins? And nucleotides fused into chain of RNA/DNA? I think they are two different things. By the way, the Matrix/DNA formula is suggesting that proteins are the biological representative of flows of energy/information running inside the systemic circuit, while nucleotides are biological representatives of bodies composing the system. The formula for natural system is composed of energy/information in shape of waves (which are related to time and processes) = proteins. And particles (the bodies), which are related to space/inertia. That’s the explanation for proteins and RNA having different formations.

Danny McNeal – replied 

El Profe:

So. spontaneous evolution could form the 3 billion units of specifically ordered biological information on the human DNA molocule? Get real… not even in the time span of a million universes.

Well that’s a hefty claim, which is fine provided you can actually back it up, and the burden of proof for your statement is on you. On what do you base this? (Most of us know better than to claim a negative, which cannot be proven. You can no more prove that human DNA could not possibly have evolved in 4.65 billion years of earth’s history than you could prove that pink polka-dotted unicorns don’t exist.) Meanwhile, scientists are making no claims of certainty, as you have just done, only honestly reporting that they see absolutely no evidence thus far that rules out the possibility of life spontaneously evolving, while hypothesizing and testing possibilities for how parts of that process may have occurred.

In terms of what is realistic, the vast majority of all evolutionary biologists, geophysicists, and other scientists whose areas of expertise touch upon these concepts identify absolutely nothing in the known laws of physics or statistics that lead them to believe that billions of years is an insufficient time period for human DNA to have evolved. And indeed, with each salient scientific discovery on these subjects, it seems ever less unlikely. It would be foolish and unscientific to categorically ignore that statistical trend.

Louis Morellireplied 

comment author avatar

  • YOU

IN REPLY TO: Danny McNeal #2.3

You are almost right. Human DNA can be a result of 4 billion years of biological evolution which can be a result of variation, adaptation, natural selection and reproduction. But… if is there a hidden agent driven this evolution? And maybe it exists, as suggested in Matrix/DNA Theory. Who is the invisible agent? Merely the creator and host of organic matter and biological systems, inclusive the DNA. This hidden agent is this astronomical system and its Cosmological Evolution. Nucleotides are merely biological copies of building blocks of galaxies, which are half-mechanical/half biological. At my website you can see the pictures, side by side of a nucleotide and the astronomical building block. This invisible agent is driven this whole biosphere, created by him, for to be its copy, like at any process of reproduction. Human beings are going to be merely a piece of this mechanical/biological system, that’s is the explanation for we are going towards the Brave New World under the Big Queen, as already went the social systems of ants and bees. And the scientists are not seeing this visible agent that is surrounding us from all sides due Astronomy and Physics making the wrong cosmological model.

Flame77_7 commented 

comment author avatar

There is a lot of “Ifs” and “possible” with there experiments….. but hey will see where the experiment lead… The problem is the same  “debris” also “should” have struck Mars, Moon and other planets (as they mentioned in the article) but the crux is the “conditions” for life not the chemistry.   You can find the “essence” of base nucleatides “everywhere” but to “coax life” even impacts with the right ingredients would not be enough.

Louis Morellireplied 

comment author avatar

  • YOU

IN REPLY TO: Flame77_7 #5

but the crux is the “conditions” for life not the chemistry.   You can find the “essence” of base nucleatides “everywhere” but to “coax life” even impacts with the right ingredients would not be enough.

There are bits-information for formation of natural systems that resembles the galaxy everywhere inside this galaxy. This galaxy is a system attacked by entropy, so, any star (which has bits-information of the entire system) is radiating fragments of this system in shape of photons, which are bits-information and can work like genes if they meet at the surface of bodies that has conditions for them to join and trying to reproduce the galaxy. But these conditions are dependable of lots of circumstances. Matrix/DNA Theory models are suggesting that the ideal planet must be located in a solar region corresponding to a specific frequency of solar magnetosphere. The weird thing here is that there are possibilities for formation of systems that does not resemble ” life” as we know it, but this system could become intelligent also. Then, we must take the picture of the building block of astronomical systems (the picture is in Matrix/DNA website) and calculate all possibles shapes that they can evolve into. Maybe there are “living beings” made off iron, rubber, plastic, etc.

Moe Szyslak commented 

comment author avatar

One question :  Did the Ice cristals Have some form of Life from the Begining or was it totally without life of any kind , including adam , proton , neutron movement , which is a life in it self ?

Louis Morellireplied 

comment author avatar

  • YOU

IN REPLY TO:Moe Szyslak#6

” Did the Ice cristals Have some form of Life from the Begining?”

Yes Moe, they did. Dry ice is the solid form of carbon dioxide (chemical formula CO2), comprising two oxygen atoms bonded to a single carbon atom. It happens that carbon atom is the unique atom that mimics the building block of astronomical systems, which are the ancestors of the building blocks of RNA/DNA and aminoacids. The problem is that we understand as “life” the biological shape of that astronomical system. Biology is result of increasing a new state of matter – the liquid state (water) and then, emerging the organic chemistry. The ancestor in the sky was made with only two states of matter – solid and gaseous. Then, biological shape is a big mutation due different environment ( at Earth surface we have gravitational force) and different materials. There is no problem for Nature reducing a system of astronomical dimensions into a system of microscopic dimension, since Nature applies nanotechnology, like when it resumes an adult human being inside a microscopic genome. Carbon atom reproduces at atomic dimension the astronomical building block because both, have six elements that works as systemic functions. That’s why carbon was selected for being the foundation of organisms. But… everything I said is based in the models of Matrix/DNA Theory and it could be wrong… take care.

Here we are again commented 

comment author avatar

The problem is not going to be finding life. I think life is abundant, Every fifth star system will have a Goldilocks planets. The problem is Distance. Time. Space is too cast, the distance will stop us unless some great breakthrough comes along showing us how to warp space-time. We are doomed to be a one planet species until such time comes along. Oh how I wish it could be in my lifetime. Sigh. Is the next Einstein here currently?

Louis Morellireplied 

comment author avatar

  • YOU

IN REPLY TO:Here we are again#7

The problem is Distance

Maybe we will solve the problem of distance while you still being alive. The key is a better understanding about natural light. Our ship must be rocketed by something that mimics the sources of natural light. Any light wave expands forming at least seven different frequencies. But… it expands into space, there is no time in light wave expansion,, or at least, it is dispresible . At Matrix/DNA Theory I have discovered that any light wave  has the code that imprints life into inertial mass as the one that fits the space. Because the sequence of different vibrations, or frequencies, is the same sequence of a life cycle that transform our body into at least seven different shapes (blastula, fetus, baby, kid, teenager, etc.). So, if a star is at 200 light years from here, we need to calibrate the source/rocket that reduces a light year into one day and multiply it by 200… and our ship will be there inside 24 hours. How will be the source/rocket? We need to reproduce mechanically any natural source of light, like, for instance, stars. It will not be that difficult since that we are almost creating black holes inside those synchrotrons…and Matrix/DNA has the formula for doing it. (but, maybe the theory is wrong… take care.

a—rand commented 

comment author avatar

Amazing to what extent some people will go, to disapprove the existence of a higher power or intelligence.  No, I don’t think the earth was created in 6 days, but something somewhere was created from nothing.  NOTHING!  When something is made from nothing, it is called Creation.  Meditate on that concept for a while.

Louis Morellireplied 

comment author avatar

  • YOU

When something is made from nothing, it is called Creation

Something from nothing, accordingly L. Krauss, does not violates any laws of Physics, but Nature is not limited into matter organized by Physics laws. There are matter organized by biological laws also, which is one level more complex. At Matrix/DNA Theory the models are suggesting that this galaxy is covered by a layer of primitive biological organization that Physics can not grasp it. And must have the laws related to consciousness, also. I think that “something from nothing” violates the laws of rationality, which is related to coinsciousness.

You need to define what you understand by “creation”. Yours own body was made throughout an initial Big Bang ( if the observer was inside the egg when exploded the spermatozoon’s membrane). Nature does not play dice with us, so, the method it uses for creation here it must use everywhere. That’s why Nature makes you by triggering an initial “explosion/expansion” – Nature was made by the same process. So, if you understand the formation of your body as “creation”, no problem with that.

We know that before and beyond the egg that gave birth to you there were the parents ( the observer inside the system can not see them, because nobody inside a system can knows the truth about the system – a Godel’s theorem) like we can not know what was before this cosmological egg called Universe. But… the conclusion is clear: some kind of parents.

Yours parents did not used intelligence for doing you. It is all about natural, genetic process. At Matrix/DNA Theory we re-wrote the History of Universe and the final conclusion is that inside this Universe is occurring a process of genetic reproduction… of… the unknown natural system that was before the Big Bang. No problem if you want call it “God”. But…everything I said is based in a theory, which can be wrong…


comment author avatar

IN REPLY TO: danangel #9

Doesn’t say that this proves comets DID create the ingredients for life.  Only proves that they could have.  A common argument is that random physical events could not have created complex organic molecules.

Louis Morellireplied 

comment author avatar

  • YOU

IN REPLY TO: Brisaber #9.3

It is a random physic event that Marie meet John, but it is not a random physic event that they created a new life. It is enough that the “program” for creating life was, half inside John and half inside Marie. At Matrix/DNA Theory you can see the suggestion about how the program for doing amino acids was half inside the comet and half inside Earth’s matter.

Chuck-3538322 commented 

comment author avatar

The problems of primodial soups are big, but bigger yet is the infeasability of generating without supernatural input an enormous increase in complexity. A wide gulf separtes an aqueous solution containing a few amino acids from the simlest living cell.

Years ago, molecular biophysist Harold Morowitz calculated the size of this gulf. If one were to take the simplest living cell and break every chemical bond within it, the odds that the cell would reassemble under ideal natural coditions ( the best possible chemical environment) would be one chance in 10 to the 100 billionth power. Most of us cannot even begin to picture a speck of chance so remote. With ods so remote as 1 in 10 to the 100billionth power, the time scale issue becomes irrelevant. What does it matter if Earth has been around for ten seconds, ten thousand years or ten billion years?  If all the matter in the universe were converted into the building blocks of life, and if assembly of these building blocks were attempted once a microsecond for the entire age of the universe, then instead of the odds being one in 10 to the billionth power, they would be one in 10 to the 99,999,999,916 power… Some people will believe in anything as long as it is not the hand of God in creating all that surrounds you. Sad.

Louis Morelli replied 

comment author avatar

  • YOU

 The problems of primodial soups are big, but bigger yet is the infeasability of generating without supernatural input an enormous increase in complexity. A wide gulf separtes an aqueous solution containing a few amino acids from the simlest living cell

Chuck, there is the possibility that God is more intelligent, as such that He does not need going to each planet touching its matter with supernatural input for starting life. Cell system is the exactly copy of this astronomical system surrounding us. The primordial soup was being bombarded by sun’s light. But… before the formation of any astronomical system, the inertial mass of this space was bombarded by waves of light emitted by the Big Bang. Should be enough if God created light waves containing something like computational program under evolution. Then, the program was inserted into the whole space, creating atoms, systems, galactic systems, and emitted by stars like our Sun, creating biological systems, till, conscious systems. But… such God even did not need using intelligence for doing that, if such program was inside Him, like the genetic program that made you was inside your father. Nothing supernatural, everything natural. It is enough that such God is made off a substance: light. If you want to know how a cell system is the exactly copy of an astronomical system – like son and father – see both pictures at Matrix/DNA website. It is a theory, but it solves this problem, rationally.

JoeAllen commented 

comment author avatar

SCIENCE is, by definition, a body of knowledge that has been established by the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

The following TWO BASIC HYPOTHESES of Darwinian Evolution have NOT yet been established by precise, repeatable experiments as demanded by the SCIENTIFIC METHOD:

HYPOTHESIS #1: Life-less matter with NO Genome, was somehow TRANSFORMED into a living single-cell organism with a Genome.*

HYPOTHESIS #2: Single-cell organisms somehow EVOLVED into a multi-celled organism.**

When these two Basic Hypotheses are established by means of the SCIENTIFIC METHOD, I will 100% accept Darwinian Evolution as SCIENCE.



* Nobel Laureate FRANCIS CRICK, the co-discoverer of DNA, after spending more than 40 years trying to prove this Hypothesis, eventually rejected it as … UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE … !!!


** Nobel Laureate WERNER ARBER, a Swiss micro-biologist, has spent more than 50 years of his life, documenting the cumulative effects of MUTATIONS on thousands upon thousands of generations of single-cell organisms. Thus far, Werner Arber reports that he has found … NO MECHANISM … that would enable a single-cell organism to evolve into a multi-cell organism.

Louis Morelli replied 

comment author avatar

  • YOU

The following TWO BASIC HYPOTHESES of Darwinian Evolution have NOT yet been established by precise, repeatable experiments as demanded by the SCIENTIFIC METHOD:

It happens that Darwinian Evolution is not about universal evolution (it is biological evolution, a micro-cycle of universal evolution), and interactions between comets and planets is about cosmological evolution. Darwinian evolution has found only three variables (VSI = Variation,selection, inheritance), but, universal evolution has these three variables and more four variables – which has influenced biological evolution also.

” Life-less matter with NO Genome, was somehow TRANSFORMED into a living single-cell organism with a Genome.”

If you say that a single cell is life, you must say that the building block of this galaxy is life also, because all properties here are there also. And about genome, it is merely a pile of derived shapes of a unique system – encrypted into a base-pair of nucleotides. It happens that this same system exists at astronomical scales. So, portions of matter does not have “genome” but, astronomical system have it.

The evolution from a single-cell organism into a multi-celled organism happens by the mechanism of quorum sensing. A large population of single-cells attached as the marine corals has the tendency to self-organize by the same template that was organized one individual. It happened when the primordial nebulae composed solely by atoms became stellar systems. See Matrix/DNA models and you have more information.

comment author avatar

Michael (Astronomy.FM) replied 

And the scientists are not seeing this visible agent that is surrounding us from all sides due Astronomy and Physics making the wrong cosmological model.

Translation:  “Hey, lookee here!  With this magic wand I can see things that are invisible to science!”

Reaction:  “Poppycock and balderdash.”

Louis Morellireplied 

comment author avatar

  • YOU

Michael, magical wand is being applied by you, as astronomer, through mechanical sensors connected to a electromechanical brain, elaborating cosmological theories from computer simulations. The final conclusion of yours is that randomness is magical, able to create things like the genetic code, and the Nothing is magical, able to create something. What is the difference from the magical gods of creationists?

I have no magical wand, I have a real human scientific method, which is keeping a biological brain when analysing the data got by mechanical sensors, putting them under the scrutiny of human reasoning. My method is simple: comparative anatomy between living and non-living systems, the ancient method that began this enterprise called Human Science. But… human consciousness still is a baby (it can not open its own eyes for to see its own body, yet) and every baby translates the real phenomena that they are seeing into fantasies, maybe because they does not have a rational method. So, I am aware that my theoretical astronomical models must have some kind of fantasy, although I am trying to clean them when applying a rational method. Yours model has as the best representative a man that lost his natural sensors, they does not works anymore, he is connected to a computer, which sensors are mechanics, the data are analysed by computational simulations, so, the electromechanical brain is modelling the biological brain for to be a mechanical brain also, when interpreting the invisible dimensions at micro and macro scales. The final result is that yours theoretical Universal History is the same history of man made machines, beginning with the motor explosion in a big, big bang! Wake up man, while you have time. We need a universal history, the meaning of life and our existence, from a humanistic view point, narrated by our Reason.  Astronomers today are getting the Stephen Hawking disease. By the way, it is theory against theory, and since one can not debunks the other, only time wil be the final judge.


“Attacked by entropy”  What does that mean?”

Louis Morellireplied 

comment author avatar

  • YOU

IN REPLY TO: Ferrosynthesis-3490482 #5.4

What means “attacked by entropy”? First of all, you need remember that all of us here are talking about theories, each one trying to reach the final correct interpretation from the results of this experiment. But… thermodynamics is a theory also, since that it relates to natural systems, and nobody knows a real closed and complete natural system. My method has suggested a theoretical model of natural closed system, I am based upon it, because it has made right predictions and is rational, accordingly to my still infant and non-complete reasoning. I got this model of closed system when trying comparative anatomy between the data we have about this galactic system and the data we have about the nowadays results of its evolution, which is the cell system. This method draw a picture of an intermediary system between Milk Way and cells, which should be the missing evolutionary link. It happens that the picture reveals a complete working closed system, at astronomical level. My conclusion is that it in fact exists and is a kind of building block of astronomical systems. Then, calculating how this astronomical system was transformed into a cell system, the explanation is entropy. But… entropy of closed system is not like the third thermodynamic law, which is based into opened systems. Entropy of closed systems is internalized, something like when yours own body reach the final energy grow at 16 years old and begins to decrease. Informations from the periphery of yours body are driven into a small, microscope, copy of yours, called spermatozoon. The configuration of a astronomical building block is the same configuration of a DNA building block. Then, biological systems that emerged here are results from entropy acting over this galactic system. Also, pieces of comets falling over Earth surface means events of chaos, not order, which means the presence of entropy. The risen of amino acids means that from chaos is emerging a flow of order. But… still it is a theory, 30 years under testing against every new scientific discovery, and it could be wrong.


comment author avatar

My post was more directed at danangel, who was not satisifed with the title of the article.  I merely pointed out that the title was appropriate.  In my mind there is no doubt that comets were involved in biogensis of life on earth, both as a means of delivering materials and delivering energy.

As for some metaphysical matrix mumbo-jumbo, it’s not needed.  There is plenty of opportunity within the normal physical universe for things to happen randomly with astonishing results.  There is no need to rely on “hidden agents” or “unknown natural systems” that predate the big bang.  You can look all you want for some deeper meaning, but science is the study of the observable physical universe, not the metaphysical.

Louis Morellireplied 

comment author avatar

  • YOU

IN REPLY TO: Brisaber #9.6  –  You made a good point remembering to danangel that the title refers to proving the existence of a natural mechanism, does not prove that this mechanism was applied with comets. And I merely pointed out that yours saying “a  common argument is that random physical events could not have created complex organic molecules” suggests that this experiment proves that this argument is wrong. Nope. From these amino acids to the very complexes molecules of life there is an astronomical distance. If you want to fulfill this astronomical distance with your mumbo-jumbo magical randomness producing events that reaches the complex molecules as DNA, feel free for doing it. We will talk when you finally will prove it in the next 3,5 billion years. The program inside John and Marie are not metaphysical mumbo jumbo and they are not unknown natural system, so, it is rational that one use them trying to explain the origins of life. But, yours  sequence of random events as the creator of DNA, this is purely metaphysical, since that it is.not falsiable and never will be. But… I don’t worry about, it is theory against theory, nothing else…

Danny McNealreplied 

comment author avatar

Atom Balm:

In reply to: Danny McNeal #1.5also, isn’t there a difference between evolution and abiogenesis?

Well, it depends on how you define your scope. The comment left by jock59801 immediately below yours is correct in that “BIOLOGICAL evolution and abiogenesis are two completely different things”—that the evolution of living organisms, which are already arbitrarily defined by us to be “living,” is distinct from the question of how PRE-biotic building blocks actually assembled into self-replicating living systems. Abiogenesis is just one hypothesis for how this may have taken place. The term “evolution” can, however, and often is in the scientific literature and professional journals defined with a wider scope, which encompasses not only biological evolution but the evolution of pre-biotic building blocks across the arbitrary threshold of inanimate/animate, as well as the evolution of the physical conditions in which the laws of chemistry and physics play out among these building blocks. When evolution is defined this expansively, it is better thought of as the study of the principles of self-organization on all levels of matter and energy.

To define the term “evolution” expansively is necessary when scientists probe questions such as, “What is the range of conditions which a planet, a planet’s host solar system, and even a solar system’s host galaxy must evolve to in order to allow for pre-biotic building blocks to cross the arbitrary threshold into what we call life, not to mention the range of conditions which must be evolved for BIOLOGICAL evolution to take place.” Doing so takes account of the fact that, in the strictist terms, the earth gave birth to us, but only with the help of key characteristics of the solar system, such as the stabilizing influence of the moon on the precession of Earth’s axis of rotation and the gravitational influence of Jupiter that reduced the rate of cometary/asteroidal bombardment of the earth dramatically, as well as the help of key characteristics of our host galaxy, such as the organization of regions of low radiation flux, stable solar system orbit around the galactic core, etc.

Ultimately, my comment to BannedForLife above was in response to his/her use of the term “evolution” to encompass the process of pre-biotic precursors self-organizing through the laws of chemistry and physics over time. Since I had no way of knowing how expansively s/he was defining the term “evolution,” I just ran with it…

Louis Morellireplied 

comment author avatar

  • YOU

IN REPLY TO: Danny McNeal #1.20

Very well said. You have the ability to put the right words at right place. Sometimes I think that the relation between this galaxy and us is equal the relation between us and the 80 or 90% of cells that inhabit our body but does not belong to us. These tiny bacterias are totally dependable of the internal conditions and structure of human bodies, so, we are dependable of the right equilibrium of this galaxy and its structure. Do you think a billion year ahead these bacterias inside our body will evolve to insects, reptiles, mammalians, monkeys and microscope humans? Certainly no, because our body is different from galaxies and should drive their evolution to another shapes. What matter here is that we have a situation where it is clear that an invisible agent (to bacterias as observer in their little world) also drives evolution. Then, evolution is not a blind force, neither natural selection is merely a logistic that results from random events. It suggests that there is an agent behind natural selection. For our intern bacterias the agent is the human body, for us in this planet (as observer at our little planet) it is the galaxy… It is the Matrix/DNA and when I talk about it some people says that the Matrix is metaphysical… Only food for thought… Am I wrong? Where?!


comment author avatar

IN REPLY TO: Brisaber #2.5  Guys like that like to twist words and facts and concepts to their own side of an argument, even when they KNOW they’re being disingenuous. Even if they truly believe their position, they’ll lie to promote it. It’s the same in politics, conservative and liberal.

Louis Morellireplied 

comment author avatar

  • YOU

IN REPLY TO: dbarak #2.11  You are right. Steeling balls into blocks of ice with a glorified BB gun is news to be explored at exhaustion by believers in the theory that from nothing comes something and believers that the existence of life is a marvellous trick of Nature, since that if not collisions between comets and planets never would be life. These guys are not able to rationalize anymore that something from nothing is a metaphysical idea, and are not able to ask themselves why, hells, just happened that comets have ammonium hydroxide and methanol and planets have pristine water and carbon dioxide ice for such perfect marriage generating building blocks of life. I thought about, I made this question to myself 35 years ago when my hobby was calculating cosmological models that could produce life as it is here and the best model is designed here at my avatar. See there which are the mechanisms that give origins to comets,the mechanisms that drives comets towards planets and the composition of comets containing half information for creating biological systems. If you want understanding it, you need go to the Matrix/DNA website, which was copyrighted long time ago. There are several holes in the theory and yours contribution or yours prove against it will be welcome.


Post For Los Angeles Times:,0,4729019.story

At my avatar here you can see this mechanisms discovered now, how and why it works (comets emitted by pulsars towards the nucleus in analogy  of a spermatosoon emitted by a human male towards the pregnant woman. This mechanism is part of Matrix/DNA Theory copyrighted about 30 years ago, when nobody was thinking about such possibility. This news is more evidence and right prevision of this theory.

It is not  a random event that ammonium hydroxide and methanol from comets are complementary with pristine water and carbon dioxide ice from planets for producing building blocks of life. Like it is not merely coincidense that planets have the shape of eggs and comets the shape of spermatozoons: the offspring repeat the shapes of their creator. Then, the mechanisms that produces life at planets are ancestors of the mechanisms that produces human babies. Biological systems (aka “life”) are merely effects of reproduction of astronomical systems.  So, it is not a weird idea that comets hitting planets could produce amino acids, it is result of an unique universal evolutionary lineage of a unique natural system that began at the Big Bang.


Posts nos Artigos em Portugues:

Louis Charles Morelli ·  Quem mais comentou · Queens

De onde a Natureza ou este inseto obteve recursos para construir esta engenharia se ambos são considerados não inteligentes?! No meu avatar ao lado está a explicação. Foi pela observação de milhares de fenômenos assim curiosos na selva amazônica que me levou a elaborar a Teoria da Matrix/DNA a qual sugere sempre explicações jamais pensadas antes. Todas as partes desta engrenagem e os mecanismos de impulso já existiam na Natureza antes das origens da vida, em qualquer dos antigos sistemas naturais, como átomos e galaxias. Por exemplo, a engrenagem com rodas dentadas. No núcleo galático existe um turbilhão espiralado na forma de cone e sua existência vem dos primórdios do Universo quando vórtices quânticos com sentidos contrários se ligavam formando partículas cônicas. Separando-se o cone verticalmente obtém-se duas metades cada qual contendo a meia parte de cada linha magnética, assim como duas partes de um zipper. Esta operação foi imitada ao surgir o DNA, formado por duas partes “dentadas”,porque tendo sido esta galaxia que produziu os sistemas biológicos aqui, suas características foram transmitidas aos nossos corpos. Tal criatura, tal criador. Depois repetiu-se no flagelo bacteriano. E os insetos nada mais fizeram que expressar os seus genes que tinham informação em potencial para essa maquinaria, devido alguma necessidade de sobrevivência. Também o impulso espontâneo já existia, basta lembrar dos vulcões emitindo magma, ou prótons emitindo píon. Esse inteiro fenômeno é visível na formula da Matrix/DNA e, a formula que a Natureza tem usado quando produz uma nova forma do sistema universal que vem desde o Big Bang, a qual está no meu website. Toda essa engrenagem foi descrita a 30 anos atras quando entrei com o registro para copyright. Mais uma vez nossas previsões se confirmam. Veja mais explicações no debate que se segue ao artigo na NBC NEWS, “Ice-blasting test proves that comet impacts can spark life’s ingredients”

Sérgio Pereira · Auxiliar Administrativo na empresa Prefeitura de São Vicente

A ciência cada vez mais mostrando evidências de projeto (Design Inteligente) nas plantas e animais. Isso não surgiu do acaso ou de um processo não-direcionado (seleção natural) de milhões e milhões de anos. Porém, alguma mentes obtusas não querem ver. O pior cego é aquele que não quer ver.

Louis Charles Morelli ·  Quem mais comentou · Queens

Mas também manter a mente no estado infantil quando se avança para a idade adulta não é aconselhável. Crianças fantasiam a realidade, falam com amigos invisíveis. Da mesma forma essa auto-consciência que surgiu na Terra ainda ontem em termos de tempo cosmológico ainda esta na sua infância por isto é natural que elabore construções fantasiosas como as religiões misticas e veja fantasmas inteligentes em fenômenos naturais facilmente explicados pela Natureza depois que o conhecimento racional observa e estuda o fenômeno. Veja a explicação de onde vem as origens desta maquinaria no meu post acima ou no meu website. No próprio avatar ao lado feito a 30 anos atras podes ver o mecanismo funcionando. A visão de mundo da Matrix/DNA não descarta a possibilidade de que antes e alem do Universo exista um sistema natural consciente e inteligente criador de universos e tudo que neles estão, porem como tudo aqui dentro foi explicado numa simples linha logica de causas e efeitos sem a necessidade de interferência de nenhuma inteligencia. A mamãe girafa produz uma girafinha, uma obra de extraordinária engenharia, sem usar nenhuma inteligencia. Assim tem sido tudo o que a Natureza tem feito. A auto-consciência de quem quer estudar pode agora dar o salto evolutivo e sair do estagio infantil. Concordo também que a ação de ateus no meio intelectual e cientifico revela imaturidade mental, ao criar acasos mágicos e absolutos que não estão presentes na linhagem evolucionaria descoberta pela Matrix/DNA. Temos nosso cérebro ainda muito pequenino, a imensidão e idade deste mundo é inimaginável,e isso aconselha a manter-mos a mente aberta a todas as possibilidades e continuar buscando respostas, amadurecendo. Não existem certezas para eliminar nossos deuses, porem devemos observar imensidão deste mundo para deixar de reduzir os deuses a nossas ínfimas dimensões, devemos restaurar os deuses a grandeza que eles merecem.
No Los Angeles Times
rRuhling at 7:56 PM September 16, 2013

Baloney! I have three degrees in science, including one in chemistry. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says the energy systems of the universe  run down unless acted upon by an outside force. To think that life “could” come as they hypothesize, is utter nonsense, “like a jumbo jet from an explosion in a junk yard, as one scientist put it in TIME magazine some years ago. For a really good website on the facts of life vs evolution, I recommend this website–

Louis Morelli at 6:17 PM September 20, 2013   Change your avatarThe 2nd law of thermodynamics is theory and is not complete since nobody never saw a closed system and does not know how it works. But, life couldn’t come as they hypothesize also, since that there is no knowledge about this galactic system that produced “life”. And the word “life” makes no sense if we don’t call the ancestors natural systems (atoms, galaxies) as life also. We have discovered that impacts into dry ice by bodies with carbon dioxide and methnol can creates some aminoacids, that’s it. Everything else is speculation and interpretations driven by privates world views. The Matrix/DNA Theory’s models suggested 30 years ago that comets are agents acting for biological systems formation and suggested other kind of mechanism, but, it is theoretical also. We have no other alternative than search more and more.


Tiras da noticia:

–  “This process demonstrates a very simple mechanism whereby we can go from a mix of simple molecules, such as water and carbon dioxide ice, to a more complicated molecule, such as an amino acid,” the University of Kent’s Mark Price, one of the leaders of the experiment, said in a news release. “This is the first step toward life. The next step is to work out how to go from an amino acid to even more complex molecules such as proteins.”

–  ammonium hydroxide and methanol, two key compounds found in comets.

 the team found several amino acids in the goop, including glycine, norvaline, alanine and isovaline. No amino acids were found in the control ice. That suggested that the cometary chemicals were key to the reaction

– Goldman and their colleagues mixed up a batch of pristine water and carbon dioxide ice 

Ok. Entao os materiais que foram misturados (do cometa mais da Terra) foram: pristine water, carbon dioxide ice, ammonium hydroxide, methanol.

– That suggested that the cometary chemicals were key to the reaction

 “the catch is that these building blocks need the right conditions in order for life to flourish.”

– “This increases the chances of life originating and being widespread throughout our solar system,”

 “As this new work shows, amino acids, once formed, are relatively stable to further degradation,” Benner told NBC News in an email. “This is unlike ribose, for example, which is part of a genetic molecule. Unfortunately, it is not clear that proteins built from amino acids can ‘do’ genetics.”





1) Pristine water: definition, having its original purity; uncorrupted or unsullied. = h2o

2) Carbon dioxide ice or Dry ice, (gelo seco) sometimes referred to as “cardice” or as “card ice” (chiefly British English), is the solid form of carbon dioxide. Dry ice is the solid form of carbon dioxide (chemical formula CO2), comprising two oxygen atoms bonded to a single carbon atom. It is colorless, with a sour zesty odor, non-flammable, and slightly acidic.

Carbon dioxide (chemical formula CO2) is a naturally occurring chemical compound composed of two oxygen atoms each covalently double bondedto a single carbon atom. It is a gas at standard temperature and pressure and exists in Earth’s atmosphere in this state,

As part of the carbon cycleplantsalgae, and cyanobacteria use light energy to photosynthesize carbohydrate from carbon dioxide and water, withoxygen produced as a waste product

carbohydrate is an organic compound comprising only carbonhydrogen, and oxygen, usually with a hydrogen:oxygen atom ratio of 2:1 (as in water); in other words, with the empirical formula Cm(H2O)n (where m could be different from n).[1] Some exceptions exist; for example, deoxyribose, a sugar component of DNA,[2] has the empirical formula C5H10O4.[3] Carbohydrates are technically hydrates of carbon;


3) Ammonia solution, also known as ammonium hydroxideammonia waterammonical liquorammonia liquoraqua ammoniaaqueous ammonia, or simply ammonia, is a solution of ammonia in water. It can be denoted by the symbols NH3(aq).

Like other gases, ammonia exhibits decreasing solubility in solvent liquids as the temperature of the solvent increases.

4) Methanol, also known as methyl alcohol, wood alcoholwood naphtha or wood spirits, is a chemical with the formula CH3OH (often abbreviated MeOH).  From synthesis gas:  Carbon monoxide and hydrogen react over a catalyst to produce methanol.

(Nao confundir methane CH4 com methanol CH3OH)  – O methane volta a ser noticia porque a Curiosity nao acha metahne em Marte (antes satelites e telescopios imformavam captarem metano la) e isso confrona a teoria de que o planeta tenha tido ou ainda tem vida, pois metano pe fundamental para iniciar a vida. Estou deduzindo pela formula do metano que ele ja tras sua morte rapida em si mesmo, pelo atomo de oxigenio. Entao seria um gaz que constantemente estaria trocando seus building blocks como na sopa primordial do Big Bang. Mas entao teria que ter uma fonte produzindo metano constantemente, ou algo qie recebe o gaz desfeito e o refaz. Mas esta curta vida do metano lataria a possibilidade das moleculas iniciais da vida, como aminoacido, se firmarem. No entanto, tem a informacao que na Terra, 95% do metano pe produzido por organismos vivos.. Isto levanta a hipotese de que nao apenas as moleculas de gaz metano desapareciam, mas sim a totalidade do gaz tambem, porem, logo apos se firmarem, os organismos contornaram o problema do desaparcimento do gaz aprendendo eles mesmos a produzi-lo. Se aprenderam a produzi-lo pe porque a fonte do metano esta no corpo deles. Isto quer dizer que a fonte misteriosa que supria metano para a atmosfera de Marte, e da Terra, foi transferida ou transmitida sua copia para o corpo do organismo. Agora pe preciso saber como o organismo produz o metano, para saber onde esta a fonte inorganica que sumiu da Terra e talvez de Marte.

Surge a hipotese que o metano respira, ou seja…, A formula do metano pe CH3OH. Suponha que exista uma molecula CH4. E nela entra um Oxigenio. Torna-se metano. O oxigenio desfaz a molecula. Mas imediatamente outro CH4, ou o mesmo que resultou da morte de um metano absorve novo O. O metano surge novo ou ressuscita, se veio de outro metano desfeito. Isto pode ter sido o principio da respiracao no mundo organico.


Intuicoes, conclusoes:

Anino acido formam proteinas e nao nucleotides, nao estao no RNA e DNA. Parece-me que aminoacidos representam a corrente de energia que curcula no circuit, o que chamo de ondas do tempo, enquanto nucleotideos representam os corpos no circuito, ou seja, as mesmas ondas tornadas particulas. Isto porque ja tenho descoberto que proteinas representam os trechos do circuito entre os corpos.

Amino acids (/əˈmn//əˈmn/, or /ˈæmɪn/) are biologically important organic compounds made from amine (-NH2) and carboxylic acid (-COOH)functional groups, along with a side-chain specific to each amino acid. The key elements of an amino acid are carbonhydrogenoxygen, and nitrogen, though other elements are found in the side-chains of certain amino acids. About 500 amino acids are known[1] and can be classified in many ways. Structurally they can be classified according to the functional groups’ locations as alpha- (α-), beta- (β-), gamma- (γ-) or delta- (δ-) amino acids; other categories relate to polaritypH level, and side chain group type (aliphatic, acyclic, aromatic, containing hydroxyl or sulfur, etc.) In the form of proteins, amino acids comprise the second largest component (after water) of human musclescells and other tissues.[2] Outside proteins, amino acids perform critical roles in processes such as neurotransmitter transport and biosynthesis.(Ver mais)

Comparison of the structures of alanine and beta alanine. In alanine, the side-chain is a methyl group; in beta alanine, the side-chain contains a methylene group connected to an amino group, and the alpha carbon lacks an amino group. The two amino acids, therefore, have the same formulae but different structures.

Ok. Entao aminoacidos sao formados de amine (-Nh2) mais Carboxylic acid (-COOH). Vejamos o que pe isto:

Amines are organic compounds and functional groups that contain a basic nitrogen atom with a lone pair. Amines are derivatives ofammonia, wherein one or more hydrogen atoms have been replaced by a substituent such as an alkyl or aryl group.[1] Important amines include amino acidsbiogenic aminestrimethylamine, and aniline; see Category:Amines for a list of amines. Inorganicderivatives of ammonia are also called amines, such as chloramine (NClH2); see Category:Inorganic amines.Compounds with the nitrogen atom attached to a carbonyl of the structure R–CO–NR′R″ are called amides and have different chemical properties from amines (Ver mais)

secondary amine

Ammonia or azane is a compound of nitrogen and hydrogen with the formula NH3. It is a colourless gas with a characteristic pungent smell. Ammonia contributes significantly to the nutritional needs of terrestrial organisms by serving as a precursor to food and fertilizers. Ammonia, either directly or indirectly, is also a building-block for the synthesis of many pharmaceuticals and is used in many commercial cleaning products. Although in wide use, ammonia is both caustic and hazardous. The global industrial production of ammonia for 2012 is anticipated to be 198 million tonnes,[7] a 35% increase over the estimated 2006 global output of 146.5 million tonnes (Ver mais)

carboxylic acid /ˌkɑrbɒkˈsɪlɪk/ is an organic acid characterized by the presence of at least one carboxyl group.[1] The general formula of a carboxylic acid is R-COOH, where R is some monovalent functional group. A carboxyl group (or carboxy) is a functional group consisting of a carbonyl (RR’C=O) and a hydroxyl (R-O-H), which has the formula -C(=O)OH, usually written as -COOH or -CO2H.[2]

Carboxylic acids are Brønsted-Lowry acids because they are proton (H+) donors. They are the most common type of organic acid. Among the simplest examples are formic acid H-COOH, which occurs in ants, and acetic acid CH3-COOH, which gives vinegar its sour taste. Acids with two or more carboxyl groups are calleddicarboxylictricarboxylic, etc. The simplest dicarboxylic example is oxalic acid (COOH)2, which is just two connected carboxyls. Mellitic acid is an example of a hexacarboxylic acid. Other important natural examples are citric acid (in lemons) and tartaric acid (in tamarinds).


Nucleotides are organic molecules that form the basic building blocks of nucleic acids, such as DNA and RNA. A nucleotide is composed of a nucleobase, a five-carbon sugar (ribose or deoxyribose) and at least one phosphate group.

Nucleotides serve to carry packets of energy within the cell (ATP). In the form of thenucleoside triphosphates (ATPGTPCTP and UTP), nucleotides play central roles inmetabolism.[1] In addition, nucleotides participate in cell signaling (cGMP and cAMP), and are incorporated into important cofactors of enzymatic reactions (e.g. coenzyme AFADFMNNAD, and NADP+).

Synthesis[edit source | editbeta]

Nucleotides can be synthesized by a variety of means both in vitro and in vivo.

In vivo, nucleotides can be synthesized de novo or recycled through salvage pathways.[3] The components used in de novo nucleotide synthesis are derived from biosynthetic precursors of carbohydrate and amino acid metabolism, and from ammonia and carbon dioxide. The liver is the major organ of de novo synthesis of all four nucleotides. De novo synthesis of pyrimidines and purines follows two different pathways. Pyrimidines are synthesized first from aspartate and carbamoyl-phosphate in the cytoplasm to the common precursor ring structure orotic acid, onto which a phosphorylated ribosyl unit is covalently linked. Purines, however, are first synthesized from the sugar template onto which the ring synthesis occurs. For reference, the syntheses of the purine and pyrimidine nucleotides are carried out by several enzymes in the cytoplasm of the cell, not within a specificorganelle. Nucleotides undergo breakdown such that useful parts can be reused in synthesis reactions to create new nucleotides.

In vitro, protecting groups may be used during laboratory production of nucleotides. A purified nucleoside is protected to create a phosphoramidite, which can then be used to obtain analogues not found in nature and/or to synthesize an oligonucleotide.


Estão Imitando A Natureza Quando Ela Aplicou Simbiose Entre Organelas para Construir a Primeira Célula Viva?

terça-feira, setembro 10th, 2013

Programmable glue made of DNA directs tiny gel bricks to self-assemble


Programmable glue made of DNA directs tiny gel bricks to self-assemble

Tijolos de gel menores que um grão de areia (acima a esquerda) podem serem programados para se auto-organizarem em estruturas complexas. A chave é unir um par de cubos conectores nos quais foram inseridos uma cola imitando o DNA. ( Gel bricks smaller than a grain of salt (top left) can be programmed to self-assemble into complex structures. The key is to attach a pair of connector cubes coated with matching DNA glue on the gel bricks that are meant to pair up. Credit: Peng Yin, Wyss Institute)
Read more at:

Segundo sugerem os modelos teóricos da Matrix/DNA, quando a ultima forma mais desenvolvida do sistema natural universal que vem evoluindo desde o Big Bang alcança seus últimos limites como hardware para absorver mais informações naturais, ele sai do tronco da arvore da evolução e se torna um galho que seca e se extingue. Mas antes de ser extinto, o sistema em sua meia-vida emite um ramo lateral para fora de si mesmo, contendo suas informações. Isto é observável no fenômeno sexual, quando um humano em sua meia-vida gera filhos, ou numa arvore, quando cai uma fruta madura de um galho carregando sua semente para se tornar nova planta. E assim foi com a galaxia Milk Way (segundo o que deduzi na minha investigação na selva amazônica e que forma o conjunto da Teoria da Matrix/DNA), quando, através de seus astros como as estrelas, começou a emitir suas informações na forma de luz ou energia estelar, para criar a nova forma dos sistemas biológicos na superfície de planetas que apresentem boas condições.

Esta equipe de cientistas estão descobrindo a cola programável. Trata-se a grosso e rápido modo, de inserir numa peça uma substancia sintética que imita um pedaço do DNA, e noutra peça, numa determinada posição, inserir a substancia que imita o pedaço seguinte do DNA. Como estes dois pedaços tendem naturalmente a se atraírem e colarem, as duas peças ficam coladas!

Segundo a Teoria da Matrix/DNA eles nada mais estão fazendo que imitar o que a Natureza fez aqui nas origens da Vida. Existe uma diferença entre macro-evolução universal e a micro-evolução biológica: na micro, o pacote genético de informações é transmitido encerrado dentro de um involucro, como no caso humano, os genes masculinos vão dentro de uma capsula como o espermatozoide; mas no caso da macro-evolução os bits-informação não são contidos dentro de capsulas, portanto são emitidos espalhados para o espaço exterior. Quando bits se reencontram em alguma superfície de astro favorável, eles automaticamente se atraem mas apenas na mesma sequencia que estavam ao constituírem o sistema galáctico, quando se colam, dois a dois, depois se colam entre pacotes, pedaços, etc. As vezes o refazimento de um trecho do circuito sistêmico já reconstrói algumas estruturas funcionais que apresentam meia-vida, como no caso dos vírus. Mas a tendencia de todo pedaço é procurar seus antigos vizinhos e reconstruir o circuito sistêmico inteiro, mutado devido as diferentes circunstancias nas superfícies planetárias. Por isso surge a diversidade de especies de vida na Terra e suspeitamos que o macaco foi a ultima especie que finalmente absorveu todas as informações genéticas da galaxia. E assim a Natureza construiu a primeira célula viva, quando, inicialmente fez moléculas, depois as uniu formando organelas, e depois, como sugere a teoria simbiótica de Margullis, uniu organelas num sistema final.

Este processo astronômico de emissão de suas informações genéticas espalhadas no tempo e espaço esta inserido no fenômeno dos seres aquáticos que botam ovos ou emitem espermatozoides na água. Estou citando este detalhe para lembrar que na elaboração da teoria eu nunca dei um salto no escuro, nem mesmo levado pelo excesso do exercício na Matemática, pois cada passo dado teve antes que procurar na natureza um fato, um parâmetro real comprovado para embasar a conclusão do passo anterior. Se não vejo buracos negros aqui no sistema solar, não posso acreditar que dentro de nuvens de poeira em galaxias distantes existam tais fantasmas, só porque o Stephen Hawkins não controlou seu excesso matemático o qual sugeriu a existência de tais fantasmagóricas estruturas. PAGE preciso alternar o exercício intelectual com iguais intervalos de tempo dispendidos na pesquisa de campo, arregaçando as mangas e pondo as mãos na massa, inclusive indo la no meio da selva onde ainda jazem intocados os testemunhos das origens da Vida, senão nossa mente saindo voando sem controle. Mas entendendo que devido sua doença, Stephen não pode fazer isso. Na Matrix/DNA o que esta escondido naquelas regiões são vórtices rotativos, como os tornados que vejo se formarem aqui, uma vez que ao calcular botando-os la, se obtém todos os efeitos que vemos nas suas redondezas. Isto é logica formal estrutura em parâmetros naturais. Mas ainda assim tenho certeza que a Teoria da Matrix/DNA esta incompleta ou pode ate mesmo estar errada, pois continuo levantando o tapete da Natureza e descobrindo a cada dia que existem mais e mais importantes e decisivos detalhes por trás de todos estes fenômenos naturais, como foi a recente descoberta ” teórica” aqui que a Luz Natural é a força inicial que imprime o processo do ciclo vital na matéria inerte. O que me levou imediatamente a reconstruir meu modelo do Sistema Solar, acrescentando a ideia de que a magnetosfera do Sol imita a eletrosfera dos átomos, e então cada planeta em sua orbita esta situado numa especifica faixa de vibrações… A logica diz ser assim pois os sistemas estelares foram construídos pelos átomos, e devem te-los feito a sua imagem e semelhança, como todo pai faz seus filhos. Mas aqui estou fugindo do assunto e tornando a coisa mais complicada…

Alguns misticos religiosos insistem no argumento do “watchmaker”, ou fabricante de relógios, para justificarem sua crença de que um Deus teria estado aqui fabricando as organelas e depois juntado-as num sistema funcional. Enquanto isso a Teoria da Matrix/DNA sugere outra explicação para a origem da Vida, porem não descarta totalmente a possibilidade do argumento mistico quando ela aponta para o sistema que gerou o Universo com uma serie de dados sugerindo que tal sistema era ou ainda é auto-consciente. Afinal, uma entidade maior que este Universo não precisaria descer em cada planeta para fazer um trabalho que qualquer ser mais inteligente poderia ter programado desde sua posição alem deste Universo. Mas o que me interessa aqui nesta noticia é que alem de mais uma vez a logica racional da Matrix/DNA resistir e ser confirmada por mais uma informação cientifica, tal tecnologia pode alavancar nosso poder sobre as condições materiais da nossa existência. Imagine por exemplo, que você, dentro de um tanque cheio de água, ponha separadas todas as peças de um automóvel, e deixe la, como se fazem nas culturas dos laboratórios. Algum tempo depois as peças se juntarem nas posições desejadas e surgiu o automóvel pronto! Se a Natureza fez isto com algo mil vezes mais complexo que é a célula viva, porque não podemos fazer com nossas meras bugigangas tecnológicas?

Alguém ai poderia fazer o que estou tentando fazer aos trancos e barrancos apenas tendo gastos sem lucro material algum, ou seja, ajudar a divulgar uma noticia no Brasil que serve como estimulante ao marasmo cientifico e tecnológico em que o Brasil caiu porque os colonizadores botaram na cabeça dos brasileiros um complexo de inferioridade dizendo que não são capazes de criar nada útil tecnológico? Alguém que saiba traduzir esta noticia para o português? Meu tempo hoje não me permite faze-lo. Observe que estes cientistas estão descobrindo um novo produto, um novo tipo de cola, que vão patentear e amanha poderá estar nas prateleiras dos supermercados rendendo bilhões de dólares! A Teoria da Matrix/DNA esta sugerindo através de seus modelos que tem muito trabalho ainda por fazer nas áreas cientificas e tecnológicas, que não fizemos nem uma minima porcentagem ainda das imensas possibilidades que a Natureza oferece. Quem tivesse lido os originais desta teoria a 30 anos atras poderia ter tido a ideia de fazer essa cola, a teoria dava a formula de graça!


Paper publicado em

DNA-directed self-assembly of shape-controlled hydrogels


Using DNA as programmable, sequence-specific ‘glues’, shape-controlled hydrogel units are self-assembled into prescribed structures. Here we report that aggregates are produced using hydrogel cubes with edge lengths ranging from 30 μm to 1 mm, demonstrating assembly across scales. In a simple one-pot agitation reaction, 25 dimers are constructed in parallel from 50 distinct hydrogel cube species, demonstrating highly multiplexed assembly. Using hydrogel cuboids displaying face-specific DNA glues, diverse structures are achieved in aqueous and in interfacial agitation systems. These include dimers, extended chains and open network structures in an aqueous system, and dimers, chains of fixed length, T-junctions and square shapes in the interfacial system, demonstrating the versatility of the assembly system.


Meu Post no artigo da 

A Natureza aplicou este processo a 4 bilhões de anos atras. Isto é tele-transporte de sistemas naturais. Quem leu os originais da Matrix/DNA Theory a 30 anos atras poderia ter tido esta ideia de imediato. Ela explica como a Natureza aplica exatamente este processo, utilizando fótons, nas origens da matéria orgânica e moléculas, e depois na simbiose das organelas que formaram a primeira célula viva. Na macro-evolução universal, quando o mais evoluído sistema astronômico, como a Via Láctea atinge seu limite de evolução, emite suas informações através de radiações estelares que são espalhadas no tempo e espaço. Ao se re-encontrarem na superfície de planetas, cada bit-informação procura seu antigo vizinho no circuito sistêmico para juntar-se, formar pedaço, pacotes de pedaços, ate obterem um arquitetura que seja copia química/biológica do ancestral astronômico ( e no meu website mostro como a célula é copia exata do building block das galaxias. O mesmo processo foi aplicado quando organelas separadas foram unidas para formarem o primeiro sistema celular. Se estão usando um elemento químico, saibam que existe o próximo passo para a pesquisa usando luz natural, pois a cola por fótons deve ser muito mais eficiente, como sugere os modelos, Todos os sistemas naturais tem um circuito interno e quebrando-o em pedaços, levando-o para outro local, o sistema se auto-organiza novamente.

Em Ingles: 


Anyone who has read the original Matrix / DNA Theory 30 years ago could have had this idea immediately. Its models explains exactly how Nature applies this process using photons, at the origins of organic matter and molecules, and then the symbiosis of organelles that formed the first living cell. In macro-universal evolution, when the more evolved astronomical system, like the Milky Way reaches its limit of evolution, it sends its information through stellar radiation that are scattered in time and space. Upon re-encounter at the surface of planets, each bit-information seeks his former neighbor in that systemic circuit to join, form pieces, packs of pieces until obtaining an architecture that is the chemical/biological copy of the astronomical ancestor (and on my website is showed as the cell is an exact copy of the building blocks of galaxies. The same process was applied as separate organelles were united to form the first cellular system. If you are using a chemical element, know that there is a next step for research using natural light/photons as glue, which  should be much more efficient, as suggested by the master Nature.


Postado no :





Nature applied this process since the Big Bang: it is about reproduction and tele-transportation of light waves and natural systems. Anyone who has read the original Matrix / DNA Theory 30 years ago could have had this idea immediately. Its models explains exactly how Nature applies this process at the origins of organic matter and molecules, and then the symbiosis of organelles that formed the first living cell. In macro-universal evolution, when the more evolved astronomical system, like the Milky Way, reaches its limit of evolution, it sends its information through stellar radiation that are scattered in time and space. Upon re-encounter at any ” soup” at the surface of planets, each bit-information seeks his former neighbor in that  astronomical systemic circuit, for to join, forming  pieces, packs of pieces, until obtaining an architecture that is the chemical/biological copy of the astronomical ancestor (on my website is showed how  the cell is an exact copy of the building blocks of galaxies). If you are using a chemical element, you must know that there is a next step for research using natural light/photons as glue, which  should be much more efficient, as suggested by those models. All natural systems have an internal circulatory circuit, which, when breaking it into slices can be self-assembled at other place. Since that systemic circuits were created from action of light waves upon inertial mass, if we breaks light waves into slices of frequencues or smaller slices, they can self-assembly the whole wave at other place.



TheMatrixDNA  TheMatrixDNA

Nature has applied this process not from life’s origins but since the Big Bang! The circulatory internal circuit of natural systems were created by light waves emitted at the Big Bang. Any wave is shared into frequencies, the slices continues having its own dynamic force and when the slices are transported to other place they has the tendency to re-build the whole wave.The Matrix/DNA models are suggesting that any light wave is the first code that imprints dynamics, coordinated movements, to inertial mass like dark matter, ether or other thing that fits spaces.The different shapes of frequencies/vibrations are the original cause that produces bodies being transformed into several shapes during its life’s cycles. Congratulations to Peng Yin and his team at the Wyss Institute, this discovery is a great breakthrough that will open a vast new field in Science and technology


Light - The Electric-Magnetic Spectrum by Matrix/DNA

Na Busca de Entender o Universo, o Atual Método Acadêmico Foi Aqui Analisado de Maneira Brilhante

sexta-feira, setembro 6th, 2013

New groundbreaking research may expose new aspects of the universe

New groundbreaking research may expose new aspects of the universe

Matin Mojaza. Credit: Matin Mojaza/SDU

No one knows for sure, but it is not unlikely that the universe is constructed in a completely different way than the usual theories and models of today predict. The most widely used model today cannot explain everything in the universe, and therefore there is a need to explore the parts of nature which the model cannot explain. This research field is called new physics, and it turns our understanding of the universe upside down. New research now makes the search for new physics easier.

Read more at:


Apesar das importantes informações no artigo, o mais interessante são os comentários brilhantes de especialistas na área da Física criticando a própria disciplina. Copio partes mais relevantes dos comentários e mais abaixo tem o comentário que postei no artigo. 
FRANKLINS – Sep 04, 2013

Closing windows is a great opportunity in physics as it helps us narrow our search to what might be true

This is just another “diplomatic” (actually hypocritical) term for the lack of quantitative prediction of theory. Such a theory cannot be falsified with experiments, so it doesn’t belong into science. Try to imagine, how the acceptation of heliocentric model would happen, if the finding of parallax or order of Venus phases would just “close the window” to epicycles. With such approach I could say easily, that the negative result of M-M experiment didn’t disprove the aether model, it just closed one of windows to it – I think, many proponents of mainstream physics would heartily protested against such an interpretation.

The reality simply is, the SUSY/stringy theories have fed too many theorists in the past and now, when these theories are getting gradually disproved, nobody of them wants to admit, he dedicated whole life to fringe hypothesis.

Read more at:

I can feel no sorry for these guys, because they all got a pretty money for it already and they all were warned by the apparent lack of testable predictions of these models in advance. In general, when some theory doesn’t provide testable predictions – only “windows”, it should serve as a first indicia for us, that such a theory is untestable, i.e. nonscientific and as such unphysical. In addition, I explained before few years already, why these theories CAN NOT work in logical easy to follow way, so I did my very best in this matter already.

Read more at:


Teech2 –

Nesmysl… how about aether monsieur Franklin? Where can we test it?

How we could test the existence of water surface if we would life at it? From perspective of water surface ripples it’s fully transparent environment. We would rely to tiny density fluctuations of underwater, which don’t manifest directly, but with various composite effects: the Brownian noise, which is observable as a CMBR noise in vacuum, with virtual particle field, which manifest at proximity of massive bodies like so-called Cassimir force and of course with quantum uncertainty and quantum noise. For example the helium atoms never freeze at room pressure, because they’re in neverending motion like pollen grains at the surface of water. All these phenomena may serve as an evidence of dense aether model.

But the science tends to ignore the postdictions as an evidence of theories. The string theorists suffer this ignorance too, because all the above phenomena may serve as an evidence extradimensions as well.

We are facing the so-called professional blindness, during which the physicists tend to overlook the notoriously known phenomena, just because they’ve another explanation for it in context of former theories. This ignorance is often employment driven, as my well known example illustrates:

This story begins in dark ages. A group of theorists seeks for violation of gravitational law at short distances. They indeed find nothing, because their wooden experimental device is not sensitive enough. OK…

The sensitivity of devices improves gradually, until some experimentalist finds the solely unexpected electrostatic force, which no gravity theory considered so far…

Next generation of theorists already knows about it – so they arrange their experiments in such a way, the electrostatic force doesn’t interfere their gravitometric measurements. And again, they find no violation of gravitational law at short distances…

The sensitivity of devices improves gradually, until some experimentalist finds the solely unexpected Van DerWaals dipole force, which no gravity theory considered so far.

Next generation of theorists already knows about it – so they arrange their experiments in such a way, neither electrostatic force, neither dipole forces interfere their sensitive gravitometric measurements. As usually, they find no violation of gravitational law at short distances…

The sensitivity of devices improves gradually, until some experimentalist finds the solely unexpected Casimir force, which no gravity theory considered so far.

Next generation of theorists already knows about it – so they arrange their experiments in such a way, neither electrostatic force, neither dipole force, neither Casimir force interferes their extra-sensitive gravitometric measurements. As usually, they find no violation of gravitational law at short distances…

The sensitivity of devices improves gradually, until some experimentalist finds the solely unexpected thermal Casimir force, which no gravity theory considered so far.

Next generation of theorists already knows about it – so they arrange their experiments with single neutrons in such a way, neither electrostatic force, neither dipole force, neither Casimir force, neither thermal Casimir force (..ffffuuuu…!) interferes their ultra-mega-sensitive gravitometric measurements. As usually, they find no violation of gravitational law at short distances…

This is a roughly described but still real history of search for extradimensions with gravitometric experiments. In each step the physicists looked for forces violating the gravity while carefully compensated all instances of these forces, which were revealed before. What physicists are doing is actually both a good joke, both school of life for those, who are paying their nonsensical activity from their taxes.
The professional blindness has its analogy in relativistic description of space-time around black holes, where the relativists insist on their assumption, that the space-time is curved, while the light is spreading along straight line even at the case, when they already revolve the black hole in tight circles together with all photons – thus effectively staying at place. Apparently the relativistic perspective is nonsensical from every extrinsic if not practical perspective – but from perspective of observer inside of gravity field around black hole everything vents normally according to general relativity. 

This happens because the physicists are indeed looking for violations of their theories, but they less or more consciously adjust the conditions of their observations in such a way, that these theories will actually remain unchanged. Which enables them to seek for violations of these theories for ever – until the tax payer’s money are going, indeed.

Read more at:

no fate

Hmmm. Was it my example?

I meant no knock on particle physics by it. Nuclear physicists, anyone who deals with science of the atom, are among the most intelligent people on earth and we wouldn’t know what we know today without these people. The fact that they can construct a working mathematical model to explain how DM can form the structure I alluded to indicates theoretical and mathematical abilities beyond anything I am capable of.

I used that example to illustrate that it just wasn’t necessary to explain the observation in this way. The Lagrangian for this system with magnetism as a conservative force is simpler than the Hamiltonian and is consistent with low density ion transport in a vector field.

If it was because used Tesla instead of Weber, I like him more.

Read more at:


nuclear physicists, anyone who deal with science of the atom, are among the most intelligent people on earth

It’s not about intelligence but about willingness to doubt about own model and to consider it from many dual perspectives. The overly excessive level of expertise harms this ability often from objective reasons, which were analyzed with many people already (123). 

That is to say, it’s difficult to be a good expert of wider comprehension – it sounds like an oxymoron. As Lucius Seneca has said “To be everywhere is nowhere. When a person spends all his time in foreign travel, he ends by having many acquaintances, but no actual friends.”

Read more at:


The inflationary standard models predicts 100 % of the universe content

Do you want to say, it’s fitted to 100% of the universe content. When the dark matter was confirmed, it was adjusted to deal with dark matter (23% of the universe), when the dark energy was confirmed, it was adjusted to remaining 70% of the universe. These “artifacts” weren’t predicted with standard cosmology model, they were added to it.

Read more at:

no fate

New physics isn’t required, just proper application of what we know. For example: Particle physics dictates that a filament of high temp hydrogen between 2 galaxies requires an equation to compute the amount of DM and the other effects present to explain how this filament exists. Experience says that a concentration of gravity as great as earth mass has no effect on ionized hydrogen but magnetic flux can accomplish the observations, based on a given tesla of flux over the distance travelled. Overthinking is just as detrimental to science as not thinking enough. The fact that we can’t measure the flux means we can’t confirm it is there, any more than we can confirm a concentration of DM particles is there. Experiments demonstrate how to make ions behave this way and gravity is never involved (at earth mass). If the road from problem to solution is straight there is no point in searching for an alternate route, until you see someone fly over you. That’s new physics.

Read more at:


The standard model is obviously insufficient to describe the universe, but that also obviously doesn’t make it useful.

“A model need not be what a philosopher would seek as the ‘Truth,’ so long as it makes good predictions.” – Rene Descartes (paraphrase).

The point is it all depends upon what you are trying to do with your model, and how much margin of error you can afford to have.

There are quite a few things which are at the very least odd, if not totally wrong about the standard model, such as how particle collisions produce other particles with masses higher than the original particle’s mass. Though this “mass” may come from the kinetic energy in an accelerator, it is still somewhat silly.

Techni-quarks are proposed to explain Dark Matter, but recent studies of MOND, even reported on this same site, show that Dark Matter is not necessary.

Additionally, Dark Matter is not actually scientific, because we cannot use the conjecture of Dark Matter to make predictions for testing.

Read more at:


“The most widely used model today cannot explain everything in the universe…..One of the Standard Model’s major problems is that it cannot explain gravity, and another is that it cannot explain the existence of dark matter, believed to make up app. 25 percent of all matter in the universe.”


Too many scientists still ‘assume’ that aether doesn’t exist. With only half the experimental set of data available, too many ‘assumptions’ are still being made today. That is not a true scientific method.

Just one simple experiment in our earth orbit, may solve this dilemma once and for all. And if the experimental results come back negative, then, we should start looking at the “Alternative” Science Models.

For more details on how the Standard Model ‘may’ actually explain gravity, dark energy, and dark matter, check out:


Read more at:


So they have a new method.

But that doesn’t merit the erroneous criticism of the SM, that it doesn’t incorporate all the physics we know exist. As an effective field theory it isn’t supposed to predict higher energies, such as dark matter or gravity.

If anything, it is likely doing its job too well, since people have started to question its naturalness on the grounds that it seems to be extendable to higher energies. Indeed, if it doesn’t build on naturalness it is instead of an effective field theory something of an isolated theory. Which means it not only isn’t expected to predict new phenomena at higher energies, it is _unable_ to.

Getting back to the method improvement, pity it is mostly on technicolor, which LHC has recently rejected AFAIU, and on colors, since recent LHC results seems to make the new physics if any all about the electroweak sector instead. (See the SEARCH 2013 workshop web material.)

Read more at:


@MB: Don’t feed the anti-science trolls.

Speaking of science, the blow to supersymmetry is against obvious ways it should be natural, and lend its naturalness to SM. It can still be valid despite all that, latest at the planck scale.

@DH: Philosophy is inherently anti-science, as it is unfactual story telling. The ones who barks loudest wins. Plato is among the worst.

Of those mentioned I would rate Popper though, since he gave some ideas on how to model how testability (hypothesis testing) plays out between models in competition, and could be part of what is needed to predict why bayesian methods are insufficient in practice. Mandelbroth made math FWIW.

Read more at:


Meu post

Agradeço a e aos comentadores aqui como Franklins, Teech2, no fate, Lurker2358, AntonKole, Torbjorn, etc., pois fiquei admirado com o surpreendente nível de inteligencia e honestidade nos comentários que não tenho visto em outros lugares. Sou  leigo em Física e estou aqui porque preciso da ajuda de mentes abertas como as destes comentadores para um grande problema existencial que estou enfrentando. Sou apenas filosofo naturalista e como tal tive que viver isolado na selva amazônica que me tornou obcecado na busca de respostas para nossa existência aqui e agora como humanos e a existência deste mundo que produziu aquela biosfera caótica e selvagem.  Tal caos me pareceu um efeito de degeneração da ordem mecanicista que sinto ao observar o sistema solar, mas esta ordem se desvanece outra vez quando observo o caos das estrelas espalhadas aleatoriamente na galaxia. No entanto, a própria existência dos humanos e suas civilizações com seus construídos ambientes se parecem com um novo fluxo de ordem que levantou da biosfera caótica. Isto me obrigou a buscar mais informações na Cosmologia Acadêmica e perceber que ela esta sendo estudada apenas pela Física e suas teorias desenvolvidas apenas pela logica Matemática.

Isto me conduz a supor que a Ciência esta seguindo um caminho que não pode ser o correto para uma Teoria do Tudo, porque o resultado da historia do mundo que vemos aqui, o ultimo produto da sua evolução, é o ser humano, um sistema que não pode ser limitado ao campo de estudo da Física e não pode ser traduzido pela linguagem Matemática. O corpo humano é composto pela sua estrutura óssea que pode ser explicada pela Física, mais sua estrutura “mole” que pode ser explicada pela Biologia, e mais agora sua super-estrutura mental que talvez sera explicada pela Neurologia. Ora, na minha humilde racionalidade de leigo acadêmico sinto que o Universo só poderá ser explicado pela soma, no minimo, destas três áreas de estudo. A vida e a auto-consciência de alguma maneira tem que ter tido seus princípios, manifestados ou não, já no Big Bang, e tais princípios devem ter interferido com a evolução do Universo, descendo ao nível de sua física e influenciando-a, assim como a parte mole do corpo humano, o DNA. etc. desceu ao nível dos esqueletos dos cretáceos para altera-los e produzir os esqueletos das formas posteriores.

A Matemática pode ser aplicada a sistemas biológicos como os cretáceos para desvendar seus exo-esqueletos porem nunca vai detectar e explicar seu interior mole. No entanto, um esforço do pensamento matemático sobre o que se obtêm dos exo-esqueletos pode dar um salto sobre o interior mole, ignorando-o e ressurgir na frente fazendo previsões corretas sobre os endo-esqueletos de mamíferos, nisso esta o valor da Matemática. Ademais, quando tentei calcular a Historia do Universo desde o Big Bang ate o cérebro humano num gráfico cartesiano tendo como coordenadas o tempo e o espaço, e no meio a rolar o primeiro sistema conhecido como átomo, a figura final mostrou que a evolução é curva e não linear. Como toda longa linha curva pode ser vista como soma de pequenas linhas retas mudando de direção, a Matemática pega os trechos em reta mas não pega a curva geral. De onde emergira uma Teoria do Tudo.

Tentei aplicar o que sei do atual conhecimento da Biologia e Neurologia sobre o que sei da Física no tocante a acadêmica Teoria Cosmológica. Como resultado final obtive um quadro que chamo de “teoria” segundo a definição grega da palavra e não segundo a definição cientifica desta palavra. O que este quadro esta sugerindo de mais evidente é que os sistemas naturais, como átomos, estelares, galácticos, apresentam todas as propriedades vitais que vemos nos corpos humanos, mas estas não estão constatando das teorias acadêmicas. Deduz-se portanto que os Físicos devem fazer o enorme esforço de desacelerar seu pensamento físico e matemático e voltar-se para os inícios da Biologia, Neurologia, aprendendo estas disciplinas, se querem realmente entender o Universo e chegarem a uma teoria do tudo. Se alguém tiver interessado, minha teoria chama-se ” The Universal Matrix/DNA of Natural Systems and Life Cycles”, basta googlar e ver o website com os modelos teóricos. Qualquer critica seria bem-vinda pois não estou vendendo uma visão de mundo, estou buscando a Verdade, simplesmente, e aqui eu voltaria para debater nossos diferentes modelos. Mais uma vez, gratos por suas valiosas informações e brilhantes pensamentos.


Thank and commentators here as Franklins , Teech2 in fate , Lurker2358 , AntonKole , Torbjorn , etc.  I was amazed with the surprising level of intelligence and honesty in the comments here that I have never seen elsewhere . I am a layman in Physics and I’m here because I need help from open minds as these commentators for a big existential problem I’m facing . I’m just a naturalist philosopher and as such had to live isolated in the Amazon jungle. I became obsessed in finding answers to our existence here and now as humans beings and answers to the existence of this world that produced this biosphere chaotic and wild. Such chaos seemed an effect of degeneration of the mechanistic order I feel when observing the solar system, but, this order vanishes again when I watch the chaos of stars scattered randomly in the galaxy.  However , the very existence of humans and their civilizations with their built environments resemble a new order flow that raised from this chaotic biosphere. This forced me to seek more information on Academic Cosmology and realize that it is just being studied by physics and theories developed only by logic Mathematics. These fields and me, as a human observer, can’t grasp that where it seems chaos, there are physical vital forces at action.

This leads me to suppose that Science are following a path that can not be correct for a Theory of Everything , because the outcome of world history we see here , the last product of its evolution , is the human being , a system that can not be limited to the field of study of Physics and can not be translated by the language of Mathematics . The human body was made by the Universe, so, the Universe itself must have the properties of life as its total configuration. The human body is made with a bone structure that can be explained by Physics , more the “soft” structure  that can be explained by Biology , and now, more its super – mental structure that will be perhaps explained by Neurology. Now, in my humble layman’s rationality, I think that the universe can only be explained by the sum, at least, of these three areas of study . The life and self – consciousness must have had its principles , manifested or not , since the Big Bang , and these principles must have interfered with the evolution of the universe , down to the level of their physical skeleton, and influencing it , as well as the soft part of the human body , the DNA . etc. . descended to the level of the skeletons of Cretaceous to alter them and produce skeletons of later forms.

Mathematics can be applied to biological systems like Cretaceous to unveil their exo-skeletons, however will never detect and explain its soft interior. However , an effort of mathematical thinking about what you get from exo-skeletons can leap over the soft interior , ignoring him, and resurface in front making correct predictions about the endo-skeletons of mammals. This is the value of Mathematics . Moreover , when I tried to calculate the History of the Universe from the Big Bang until the human brain as a Cartesian graph with time and space coordinates , and in the midst rolling the first system known as atom, the final figure showed that evolution is curved and non-linear. Like any long curved line can be seen as the sum of small straight lines changing direction , Mathematics takes in straight stretches but does not catch the general curve . From which must emerges a Theory of Everything .

I tried to apply what I know of the current knowledge of the biology and neurology on what I know of physics regarding academic Cosmological Theory . As a final result got a picture I call ” theory ” according to the Greek definition of the word and not according to the scientific definition of the word . What this picture suggests as more evident is that natural systems, such as atoms, stellar , galactic , have all  vital properties that we see in human bodies , but the academic models of these systems have not found these properties. It follows therefore that physicists should make great effort to slow down their Physicist thinking and mathematical jumps back to the beginnings of biology , neurology , learning these subjects , if they really want to understand the universe and arrive at a theory of everything . If anybody has interested , my theory is called “The Universal Matrix/DNA of Natural Systems and Life Cycles ” , just google it and see the website with the theoretical models . Any criticism would be welcome as I’m not selling a worldview, I am seeking the truth, simply, at my rough salvage conditions, and here I will return to discuss our different models . Again , grateful for yours valuable informations and brilliant thoughts.



” One of the Standard Model’s major problems is that it cannot explain gravity”

Gravity, is a natural phenomenon by which all physical bodies attract each other. It is most commonly experienced as the agent that gives weight to objects with mass and causes them to fall to the ground when dropped.

From a cosmological perspective, gravitation causes dispersed matter to coalesce, and coalesced matter to remain intact, thus accounting for the existence of planetsstarsgalaxies and most of the macroscopic objects in the universe

Vou parar por aqui porque isto, a Gravitacao Universal, precisa ser revista pela Matrix/DNA depois da sua interpretacao da Luz.