Posts Tagged ‘Sara Seager’ elege a descoberta dos exo-planetas dentre as 10 mais importantes realizações da Ciência em 2011. Mas o comentário da Matrix…

quinta-feira, dezembro 29th, 2011


365 days: Nature’s 10

Dentre os dez mais, destacamos o artigo abaixo:

Sara Seager: Planet seeker

Sara Seager a Planet seeker


E na tentativa de iniciar um debate nos comentários, postamos o seguinte:


Meu Comentário postado na, abaixo do artigo:

2011-12-29 04:05 AM

Report this comment | #35255

Why the diming of a star means an orbiting “planet”? I think should be more scientifically accurate saying that “it means an astronomic body, we don’t know which kind”. “The Matrix/DNA cosmological theory”: ), is becoming strong with evidences coming from these investigators every day. And the theory has a question: “If mom and daddy are surrounded by individuals with masks, who could affirm that those individuals are sons and even, children? They could not be the sons and could be adults, teenagers, etc. Take care about the same mistake when studying invisible bodies orbiting stars.

We are watching the few data coming and maybe, the astronomic community will be very surprised with a change of paradigm. The antiques saw a static sky and we acknowledged that it is wrong; Galileo discovered that the sky is not static. But, now the scientific community believes that astronomical bodies are static. The Matrix/DNA says “no” and explains:

“Life at Earth was produced by these astronomical systems and bodies. Then, the life’s properties needs in any way to be existent at the creators. We must calculate the evolutionary digression, from biological to mechanical, which we did for doing our models. So, life has a property: the life’s cycles. It transforms a unique body into seven principal shapes, from embryos to children to seniors, etc. Ok, let’s go to the sky now. We know today seven kind of astronomical bodies, as planets, moons, pulsars, black holes, etc. If astronomical bodies has the properties of life’s/mechanical cycles, these different shapes could be transformations of a unique body. We tried to calculate the sky supposing this idea and we got models were previsions and evidences are becoming strong. But, then, if the models are right, we need to change the way NASA is searching extraterrestrial life, because our models suggests that the seeds of life can produce from bacteria to intelligent iron forms. I would appreciate any comments (sorry English errors).
Segundo Comentário na
2011-12-29 01:01 AM – # 35277

What hells happened with my text above? Why quotation marks becomes “ ? No problem, what matters is that we apply the technical resources of NASA at low cost and for doing it we need to think in the best theories that works as our guides.
Same way a human person changes his/her shape every moment a new cell is replicated due the life’s cycle process, we must find thousands, millions of astronomical bodies in different shapes, states. Same way we can not determine the moment a teenage becomes an adult, we can’t have a frontier in an astronomical body for saying it is a planet or it is a pulsar, they are under the life’s cycle process also.
Another mistake prejudicing our investigation could be the current theory about astronomical bodies formation. Earlier, those Greek rationalists believed that life’s arises by spontaneous generation and chance alone. We discovered that the spontaneous took 3, 5 billion years, and was a methodic process. Now Matrix/DNA theory is showing a model suggesting that the process was purely genetic. Instead biogenesis we had mechanical embryogenesis. The same is happening with the Cosmos now. Today the few data has lead people to believe that astronomical bodies appear by spontaneously and by chance. But Matrix/DNA is showing a model where the bodies formation obeys a methodic process, exactly as our sexual reproduction. It seems to me that we are entering in a living sky, where the best method for describing it should not be Physics and Mathematics, but Biology, electromagnetism, etc. Physics did a great work describing the mechanics of the structural skeleton of Cosmos, but, this skeleton, as our human body, is covered by a soft and more complex structure…if my models has something right in it. We need to debate, thinking, for getting better and quickly results.