Archive for maio 20th, 2013

Grande Definicao para a Formula da Matrix – Sugestao para Revitalizar Cansaco

segunda-feira, maio 20th, 2013

A Formula da Matrix nos ajuda em situacoes novas porque ela torna mais facil identificar funcoes de objetos, ajunta-los como partes de seus sistemas, conectar as partes num todo e visualizar o quadro completo.

Se sinto a mesma falta de energia, cansaco, de Reilly, devo recorrer a meditacao ou procurar a pilula Nuvigil?

“It’s made me feel awake for the first time,” he says. “I’m much more creative and much more productive. If I’m project- managing, it’s like seeing the matrix. It makes it easier to put the pieces together to come up with a complete picture.”

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/05/16/nootropics-can-these-smart-drugs-super-charge-your-career/#ixzz2TrGqhdTR

For years, Jonathan Reilly, a 41-year-old biomedical engineer based in Los Angeles, would start his workday in a fog.

“I’d come into my office feeling like I had woken up at four to take someone to the airport,” he says. “It took me twice as long to accomplish anything important.” But now he walks into his regular 8 a.m. meetings with crystal-clear focus and enough energy to drive through an intense 12-hour day at the office. 

Plus, he’s always in a good mood.

Reilly isn’t high or wired on caffeine—he’s taking a pill called Nuvigil. 

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/05/16/nootropics-can-these-smart-drugs-super-charge-your-career/#ixzz2TrHXDzNG

In lieu of Adderall and eight-balls, hard-charging professionals are turning to a new class of nootropics (a type of smart drug) to score an edge at work. It’s a category of substances that includes prescription analeptics like Nuvigil and Provigil, as well as less-potent supplements like New Mood and Alpha Brain (both are sold on Amazon.com for around $30 a jar) that are made of vitamins, amino acids, and antioxidants, which purportedly stimulate your brain receptors. Devotees say nootropics are a wholly different experience from energy drinks, as they give you a mental edge, increasing memory, intelligence, motivation, and concentration—without the jitters or crashes that can come with stimulants.

So have these guys actually found a magic pill? Emily Deans, a psychiatrist in private practice outside Boston, cautions that, in high enough doses, smart drugs may affect your temperature, heart rate, and blood pressure and advises seeking a prescription. Supplements, unlike prescription- or pharmaceutical-grade drugs, can be prepared with varying amounts of active ingredients—meaning two pills from one jar may be three times the strength of two of the same pills from a different jar. Deans says to be especially careful of the plant-derived supplements that contain Huperzine A (as Alpha Brain does). “This ingredient can make you more alert or sharpen thinking,” she says, “but if you take too much at once, you can make yourself psychotic.”

For four months, when he couldn’t get a prescription, Reilly missed Nuvigil’s effects. 

“I was getting up later in the day and getting less done,” he says. He recently started taking it again. “I enjoyed the person I was more when I was taking it, so I decided this is something that should be part of my life.”

 

Descricao Mistica da Matrix – Como Holograma

segunda-feira, maio 20th, 2013

Inner truth: The Akashic Records

Wednesday, May 15, 2013, 8:33 IST | Agency: DNA
Earth, and all living beings have two distinct bodies. The physical body, and the sheath around it, the energy body — a matrix comprising of four strands: emotional, mental, Higher Soul, and Eternal Consciousness. Visualise the matrix as an energetic hologram, the emotional and mental energy strands overlaid by the Higher Soul energy, which is overlaid by the strand of Eternal Consciousness often called the Akashic Records. This matrix is dynamic, changing with each thought and emotion.
– Ler o artigo, visitar website e iniciar pesquisa:
Strand = cordao, margem…

Bacterias Criam Biofilms Similar a Fotons de LUCA nas Origens da Vida

segunda-feira, maio 20th, 2013

Bacteria organize according to ‘rich-get-richer’ principle

http://www.domain-b.com/technology/biotech_pharma/20130520_principle.html

Bacterias se movem deixando um rastro de sugar para que outras ai se localizem criando um biofilm. Isto ev similar a imagem de fotons de LUCA dirigindo atomos para as novas combinacoes. Estariam as bacterias simplesmente sendo guiadas por instinto seguindo o registro de LUCA em sua memoria? Pesquisar isto.

1) Bacteria on a surface wander around and often organise into highly resilient communities known as biofilms. It turns out that they organise in a rich-get-richer pattern similar to the distribution of wealth in the economy,

”Some of the bacteria remained fixed in position,” Parsek said. ”But some moved around on the surface, apparently randomly, but leaving a trail that influenced the surface behavior of other bacteria that encountered it.”

NASA > Astrobiology > Roadmap > Forum

segunda-feira, maio 20th, 2013

1) Home / Forum / Astrobiology for Solar Systems Exploration / Ideas / #261 – If organics were found on Mars, to what extent would one consider such a discovery as a 1) indicator of life, 2) indicator for the presence of life, 3) should such a detection be a major endeavor of Astrobiology? 

George Cody   –  In other words. Are we being to Mars focused. Perhaps we should be satisfied that Life exists on Earth. The question of life on Earth may well hinge on understanding our entire solar system. Focusing on Mars for a second example of life does not follow from any scientific hypothesis. I say focus the question of life on Earth with a broader understanding of our entire solar system. Now- ready, aim, fire… please!

Louis Charles Morelli  

I am a layman but doing a rude research about natural phenomena in general and I am asking if my questions and suggestions will be accepted here. If so, it will be necessary an initial patience from readers.

Why searching for life – as biological systems – and not also any other pathway of evolution at Mars? The elements and forces inside Milk Way can only produces biological systems as new universal species and shapes? My suggestion is that we need paying attention to occurrence and compounds of Boron and Nitrogen also, and others liquid states of matter.

I think that organic compounds indicates an evolutionary advanced step in relation to the evolutionary state of its precursor system – the system that generates the organic compound  There are three known systems that are not composed by organics: atomic system, stellar system and galactic system.  These systems were formed by three states of matter (electromagnetic, solid and gaseous .  When entropy attacked the closed galactic system, it produced a new state – the liquid. It brought a novelty – organic chemistry or chemistry at all. Chemistry is the evolutionary product from physics forces and its elements. So, we have a novelty – biological systems – which includes those three states of matter plus liquid state. We know that biological systems are carbon-based. But… why chemistry could not produces any other evolutionary system more advanced in complexity than the existent systems, from another element-based? And using natural forces not detected by Physics?

The Matrix/DNA models is clear and rational when explaining why carbon was selected here. It is the unique atom that copies perfectly and entirely the building blocks of astronomical systems. So, for to increasing complexity to a given system (Milky Way) Nature   first needs to reproduce the existing top system, and then, trowing it at a more complex environment than the cosmological environment where Milky Way was formed. And the unique place of the world where there was a more complex environment was the internal environment of galaxies. Carbon, number atomic 6, is the fidel copy of astronomic building blocks, functions number 6.

But, by my calculations, Boron (5), Nitrogen (7) are strong candidates also, for generating new evolutionary systems, not as good as carbon-based.

As a layman in Chemistry, I need know if water is the one liquid that Nature has used for organic chemistry? How we understand what is liquid state and which are the others liquid states existing at prebiotic life?

There are two possibilities for evolution in Mars and any other habitable-zone planets: 1) Carbon at another liquid state than water, going to pathways different from biological systems; 2)  More evolved systems than the top ancestor, but less evolved than carbon-based systems, composed by Boron and/or Nitrogen. Any help will be welcome…

– – – – – – – – – – – – –

2) You are here: Home / Forum / Astrobiology for Solar Systems Exploration / Ideas / #227 – Planetary evolution –

Bob Hazen  

When thinking about the origins and evolution of life, it’s critical to think about the origins and evolution of planets. Terrestrial planets progress through several stages of their own geochemical, mineralogical, and tectonic evolution, each with distinctive physical and chemical “niches” for prebiotic processes. Thus, the near-surface environment where life emerges (and the related concept of “habitability”) is a constantly changing context. Earth, for example, has progressed through at least 10 distinct “stages,” each of which displayed wide global variations. As we learn more about extrasolar planets, it’s important to think about each of those objects as a dynamic, evolving system (in ways analogous to what is now understood about stellar evolution).

MatriX/DNA:

Not published (too much long)

I am a layman and if my questions/suggests are off topic, please, fell free for delecting it.

Why to limit us for thinking and doing experiments about life’s origins only based in ” what is now understood about stellar evolution”? Our culture exists about 15.000 years and any astronomical movement of stars and planet formation must takes millions or billions years, so, never nobody saw the birth of planets and stars. Our theoretical model is a temptative of connecting the dots, based in different stages of stars and planets seen now. It is too much little! And… if the model is not complete or is wrong… all others related models will be wrong. And we will not see signals in Nature about what we are looking for. Am I wrong?

I have applied a primitive method of investigation which final results is suggesting a different model for stellar evolution. Of, course, I am not able for finding the ultimate model, but my experience could help us, showing several another possibilities for building astronomical models. It was made in reverse way – taking biological systems as final product and searching the producer. The old method of comparative anatomy among living and non-living systems was applied.

Where, at stellar evolution theory was the force that developed to “self-reproduction”, verified at RNA-world? Where was at the current astronomical theoretical model, at the state of the world when life emerged here, the basis for genetic memory and code? Why left-handed molecules were selected? What bridge is missing for transforming the Urey-Miller aminoacids into peptides? And I have tens of similar questions… which the advocates of current Nebular Theory, Standard Theory and Modern Synthesis never answered to me, but the Matrix/DNA model answered all of then in a rational way. For instance, the process of biological reproduction is an evolutionary product coming from stellar systems self-recycling.

My immediate goal is learning, searching the Truth, because only Nature teach us the mechanisms and processes that composes our Science and leads us to technological power, which is the tool for my supreme goal: dignity, victory, for Humanity. And I am sure this is the supreme goal of NASA team and all of us studying these issues. So, I see no intelligence at competitive behavior among theories and worldvisions. We need joining more brains for thinking together.

I need an answer for an obvious question: We observe here a human body changing shapes due a process called life’s cycle. Now, you, Sir, is pointing out that… ” Terrestrial planets progress through several stages of their own geochemical, mineralogical, and tectonic evolution, each with distinctive physical and chemical “niches” for prebiotic processes.” My question is: Is it not clear, obvious, that the process of life’s cycle, that emerged here at this planet surface, is an evolutionary step based – and from – planetary evolution? And:   Since that life’s cycle process applies over an entire body, as a system, and since that planets belongs to a larger system called stellar system, which will be the right explanation? The evolution and decay of living systems is an evolutionary product from planetary evolution or stellar evolution?

The Matrix/DNA Theory has its answers for such questions, but this is not the issue here. The issue is: the search for extra-terrestrial life must be amplified beyond our current theoretical models.

– – – – – – – – – –

3) You are here: Home / Forum / Astrobiology for Solar Systems Exploration / Ideas / #208 – What relevance does the study of extraterrestrial organic molecules have to the origins of life or NASA’s broader objectives?

George Cody  

Many of us study and are funded to study extraterrestrial organic matter in meteorites (and rarely comets). What is the best argument we can make that better understanding of the inventory of organic molecules in primitive bodies is worthy as an Astrobiology goal, that is… primitive bodies contain lots of inorganic and organic phases- what is our best argument that study of these is of paramount importance to National Science interests

Louis Charles Morelli:

The most important product from any extraterrestrial research will be the jump from scientific reductionist method to scientific systemic method. Every big problem we have just now is not solved because we don’t have a Science of Natural Systems. From cancer disease to climate change to social and economic regulations we need apply the natural mechanisms that Nature knows and applies till building such perfect system like our solar system. The Genome Project proved that is not reducing to individual genes that we will found the roots of big diseases but known DNA as a system. Our study of natural systems had as precursors Margullis, Capra and the giant effort of Bertalanffy creating the General Theory of Systems. But at Earth we have no systems with known boundaries  all systems here are opened systems which turns out difficult to identification and isolation of any system. The atomic systems has its problems related to quantum and electromagnetic aspects. So, these problems made that the study of natural systems was stopped and continuing through artificial and cybernetic systems, which put Bertalanffy lost and stopping his efforts. So, for returning to natural systems we have only the astronomical systems, stellar, and galactics. Since that we approaches the study of organic molecules detecting its properties   and mechanisms, and projecting these findings for building the models of the astronomical system that produced them, we will contribute to these most necessary and spectacular jump towards a Super-Science.

David Eric Smith  
It would be nice to understand why syntheses as different as Miller-Urey, meteorite, laboratory mineral-water organosynthesis, and perhaps some cometary or cold dust ISM synthesis as inferred spectroscopically, have any significant overlap with each other or with biochemistry. The dominant activation energy sources and channels are different, the quenching conditions and temperatures that lead to most complexity are different, and yet to varying degrees there are some common products. To the extent that mineral-water syntheses are meant as models of early earth, and by extension some asteroid conditions, the overlap is less surprising, but the overlap of these with gas-phase free radical syntheses, albeit less, is still interesting. To again harp on thinking at the network level, does this indicate that there are paths of least resistance that tend to take dissimilar starting conditions and render them more similar? If so, and if we could understand what the rules are that lead to convergence, perhaps this would be a starting point in thinking about what outcomes are robust or necessary.

Louis Charles Morelli:

David Eric Smith: “… and if we could understand what the rules are that lead to convergence…” 

At Matrix/DNA models we have a clear understanding about the rules that lead to convergence … the problem is that the models are not scientifically proved yet. The convergence of all physical forces and elements into a primordial soup is produced by entropy attacking closed systems – like the building blocks of original galaxies. Differently from a thermodynamic opened system – where entropy causes the external dispersion of energy/heat – when at closed systems the disintegration begins at the surface, the periphery, and advances internally towards the center. The entropic particles, which we call free radicals are driven internally towards a center and then, we have convergence. It happens that the area next to the center still are intact, not reached by entropy and when these free radicals arrives, they can be stopped at these areas. So, the disintegration of Milky Way, like the radiation from the Sun, produced free radicals that arrived at Earth, most exactly at the primordial soup. Since that each radical is a dynamic bit-information of the system itself, they has the tendency for re-building the same configuration of the system they are coming from. These radicals are photons and inside the terrestrial atoms they driven the atoms to new connections. That’s why the cell system is a copy of the building block of galaxies.

So, convergence and the opposite movement – let’s call it divergence – draws the same image pictured by Hideki Yukawa for explaining the nuclear glue between protons and electrons. The image is a vortex, appearing and disappearing. Divergence begins as a point, which amplifies spirally, building the vortex. Convergence is the opposite direction of this movement, when the final end of the spiral is contracted to a point, the vortex disappears. Here, all points of the spiral line converges to the same point. That’s why all points of this spiral galaxy converged to the primordial soup, the point, and lifted up as a new system. Welcome to the world of life!

= = = = = = = = =

4) You are here: Home / Forum / Astrobiology for Solar Systems Exploration / Ideas / #188 – How did the early Earth lead to the origins of life here?

George Cody  

In my humble view. We have have one world where life clearly emerged, as most scientists believe, as a consequence of natural processes. Yet, in spite of claims over the past 50 years, we have no idea how life emerged. I believe this is a solvable question, but I also acknowledge that it is obviously not trivial- we have no credible answer yet. What we have is the laws of physics, chemistry, and a real world (as well as we know it). These facts are all that can guide us. I encourage all to use these tools (which are very robust) and our improving understanding of the Early Solar System to be very philosophically/scientifically rigorous and work towards our best efforts at constraining the origins of life. It is not “chemistry in a bottle”.

Louis Charles Morelli:

Dr. George, I know that you don’t like loosing your time and you can’t accept that other method of investigation besides the university academy could have something useful. But, while you don’t delete and expulse me from here I will post what my Matrix/DNA Theory is suggesting. To me, asking how did the early Earth lead to origins of life is a wrong question.

Why are you trying to take off chemistry from the bottle, but, at same time  putting Earth and the origins of life inside the bottle?!  Three things for thought:

1) The first real and complete living being was not a piece, a part, but it was a working system – the cell system. Same way that life come from life, systems come from systems. Earth is not a complete system accordingly our definition of systems. Which are the parts, where are the interaction among parts, and, certainly, the parts does not perform the universal systemic functions. So, in search of the creator of the first cell system, we must jump to the solar system.

2) Scientifically we can’t know the  time that was necessary from the first aminoacids till the first cell system, but, rationally we bet that it was a lot of time. The duration of time for formation  is more likely formations at astronomical levels than the 9 months or less required for formation of biological bodies. Again, astronomical time leads us to beyond Earth.

3) Where were at Earth the Physics forces and elements that, worked by chemistry, evolved to life’s properties? For instance, the RNA-world self reproduction? What was self-reproducing at Earth? I don’t know, but, our astronomical models and I think that yours Nebular Theory models suggests the same thing: stellar systems are disintegrated  becoming nebular dust, and from here a new stellar system arises. This is self-recycling. What is the difference between self-recycling and self-reproduction? One need dying for born again and other makes a copy of itself. How Nature jumped from the simplest mechanism of self-recycling to the most complex mechanism of self-reproduction? The model of Matrix/DNA explains it very clear, with no problems. And so, we have genetic memory and code, metabolism. left handed molecules, etc. Where were the physics precursor forces or mechanisms at Earth? Nobody knows, but if we consider the stellar and galactic system, as the thing that leads to emergence of life, maybe will become ease for finding then. As the matrix/DNA models has found every precursor, theoretically  of course.

– – – – – – – – – –