Plant kingdom the Quantum Dual Compliment of the Animal kingdom thenwhat about bacteria?
 

I keep building this pretty theory that the animal kingdom is the dual
of the plant kingdom and that when life was first created on Earth that
almost simultaneously the animals and plants were created at once, or
perhaps days apart and near by one another to start to affect and help
grow one another. Life created on Earth was from a energetic cosmic ray
that was stopped, say in the primeval oceans and a batch of plants and a
few animal microorganisms were created there.

But I have some trouble with the question of whether there are only 2
kingdoms to compose life or whether there are 4 or more where plants and
animals are just one set of duals. Are the bacteria a different kingdom
and is there a dual compliment to the bacteria? So this question has
been troubling me for some time. It is not tidy and neat.

The idea that springs to my mind is that one kingdom-- the plants seek
energy from the outside in that of the Sun whereas animals seek energy
from other living creatures-- the plants. So can I say that there is one
set of duals of only plants to animals and base that set on their source
of energy? Can I say that each bacteria is either a plant bacteria or a
animal bacteria depending on what supplies them with energy?

I kind of think I can. I kind of think that there is just one set of
quantum duals.

Some may say that viruses would be in this picture somewhere. I tend to
look at viruses as part of a existing genome or species. So that the
Homo sapiens species is not just the human DNA but also all the viruses
that affect human DNA. I consider viruses as transposons or mobile DNA.

I suspect that if all humans were eliminated in the world save for the
viruses that affected humans, that the human genome can thence be
reconstructed in large part, but perhaps not all, from those viruses.

I am the author of this Compounding theory that replaces Darwin
Evolution.

So the question arises as to whether bacteria evince compounding. Can
viruses compound into forming bacteria? Can bacteria compound into
forming viruses?

Compounding would then say that you need only one set of Duals of plants
to animals and then everything else is a compound of the initial plant
and animal that started life on Earth.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

"Archimedes Plutonium" wrote in message
...

I suspect that if all humans were eliminated in the world save for the
viruses that affected humans, that the human genome can thence be
reconstructed in large part, but perhaps not all, from those viruses.


Perhaps, but only after another 4 billion years.
Reconstruction here, is via evolution in time.


I am the author of this Compounding theory that replaces Darwin
Evolution.


You need to read the work of Lynn Margulis whose
theory of endosymbiosis already replaces Darwin's
evolution. She deals with Five Kingdoms.




Pete Brown
Falls Creek
z
www.mountainman.com.au

And I am also troubled by how to fit the rock-eating microbes into a
PlantKingdom dual to an AnimalKingdom.

This is a challenge because the Plant kingdom is one that lives off the Sun
energy whereas RockEaters live off the chemical energy of rocks and do not
need the Sun.

I prefer to think that Biology is just 2 Kingdoms where one is the dual
compliment of the other and I prefer these two to be just the PlantKingdom
and AnimalKingdom and to fit every species in one or the other.

So RockEaters pose a huge challenge.

Bacteria do not pose a challenge because they are easily classified as
photosynthethic or living off of other biological units as animals, unless
the bacteria are rockeaters.

Viruses do not pose a challenge because they are thought of as transposons
or mobile genes and belong to the same genome which they parasitize.

I suppose the answer to my problem would be to find some way of finding out
which came first on Earth, the Rockeaters or Photosynthetic plants. Which
preceded the other?

Quantum Duality in contrast to Darwin Evolution can create both the
Rockeaters and photosynthetic algae simultaneously and independently as
well as animals. But Darwin Evolution would tend to imply that one came
first and the others were evolved from that one stock.

Perhaps it is just a matter of precisely defining what it means for an
animal to live on other biology already in existence and what it means for
a plant to extract energy from its environment. For both photosynthetic
algae and rockeaters extract energy from their nonliving environment. So
maybe it is just a puzzle because precise definition of extraction of
energy from nonliving environment is not well understood.

Perhaps RockEaters came first and that it is precisely in rocks that
neutrinos are stopped and where their energy content transforms into a
biological living unit of a microbe. And that via Compounding of these
Rockeaters that they gradually became mutated enough that they started to
live not on rock chemistry but on light from the Sun.

Has anyone researched RockEaters to see if they could be compounded to form
a blue-green algae?

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 16:21:23 -0500, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:

And I am also troubled by how to fit the rock-eating microbes into a
PlantKingdom dual to an AnimalKingdom.

This is a challenge because the Plant kingdom is one that lives off the Sun
energy whereas RockEaters live off the chemical energy of rocks and do not
need the Sun.

I prefer to think that Biology is just 2 Kingdoms where one is the dual
compliment of the other and I prefer these two to be just the PlantKingdom
and AnimalKingdom and to fit every species in one or the other.

So RockEaters pose a huge challenge.

"RockEaters" are not the only serious challenge to your notion of
quantum-type complementarity of Plant/Animal. Unfortunately for you,
Biology doesn't care that you prefer to think of just two Kingdoms.
The living world has never paid any attention to humankind's many
diverse attempts to classify and sort it out -- it just goes on living
and evolving. However, humans have paid some attention. There are
very good reasons why we have moved from two to five to six Kingdoms
and probably will move upwards from that. There are very good reasons
why we have moved to the notion of two Domains, neither of which fits
your Plant/Animal duality. No doubt in the future there will be other
very good reasons to reorganize things around different ideas. But
Plant/Animal duality is extremely unlikely to be the new organizing
principle.

"mountain man" wrote in message ...
"Archimedes Plutonium" wrote in message
...
[...]
I am the author of this Compounding theory that replaces Darwin
Evolution.


You need to read the work of Lynn Margulis whose
theory of endosymbiosis already replaces Darwin's
evolution. She deals with Five Kingdoms.

Lynn Margulis replaces natural selection?

Mike.

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

And I am also troubled by how to fit the rock-eating microbes into a
PlantKingdom dual to an AnimalKingdom.

This is a challenge because the Plant kingdom is one that lives off the Sun
energy whereas RockEaters live off the chemical energy of rocks and do not
need the Sun.

I prefer to think that Biology is just 2 Kingdoms where one is the dual
compliment of the other and I prefer these two to be just the PlantKingdom
and AnimalKingdom and to fit every species in one or the other.

So RockEaters pose a huge challenge.

Only if you insist on clinging on to a frankly very silly theory.

Bacteria do not pose a challenge because they are easily classified as
photosynthethic or living off of other biological units as animals, unless
the bacteria are rockeaters.

Viruses do not pose a challenge because they are thought of as transposons
or mobile genes and belong to the same genome which they parasitize.

I suppose the answer to my problem would be to find some way of finding out
which came first on Earth, the Rockeaters or Photosynthetic plants. Which
preceded the other?

If you think of life as a consequence of the presence of energy being
present along with the correct conditions for life, then the supposed
duality disappears. Life simply uses energy; doesn't matter how it gets it.

Has anyone researched RockEaters to see if they could be compounded to form
a blue-green algae?

Photosynthesis works by splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen. An
earlier photosynthesis mechanism split hydrogen sulphide into hydrogen
and sulphur; this effectively was both one of your "rockeaters" and
"photosynthetic" bacteria.

I shall be interested to hear how you resolve this unity into a dichotomy.

--
Dr Dan Holdsworth
Remedy ARS Administrator, Manchester Computing

someone wrote:

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

And I am also troubled by how to fit the rock-eating microbes into a
PlantKingdom dual to an AnimalKingdom.

This is a challenge because the Plant kingdom is one that lives off the Sun
energy whereas RockEaters live off the chemical energy of rocks and do not
need the Sun.

I prefer to think that Biology is just 2 Kingdoms where one is the dual
compliment of the other and I prefer these two to be just the PlantKingdom
and AnimalKingdom and to fit every species in one or the other.

So RockEaters pose a huge challenge.

Only if you insist on clinging on to a frankly very silly theory.

I would not call the Bohr-Einstein debates to EPR to Bell Inequality to Aspect
Experiments to Superdeterminisn any whole or part thereof as "frankly very silly
theory". The Bohr-Einstein debates ended with John Bell's Superdeterminism. That
implies that Quantum Physics applies to cosmic distances and life itself.



Bacteria do not pose a challenge because they are easily classified as
photosynthethic or living off of other biological units as animals, unless
the bacteria are rockeaters.

Viruses do not pose a challenge because they are thought of as transposons
or mobile genes and belong to the same genome which they parasitize.

I suppose the answer to my problem would be to find some way of finding out
which came first on Earth, the Rockeaters or Photosynthetic plants. Which
preceded the other?

If you think of life as a consequence of the presence of energy being
present along with the correct conditions for life, then the supposed
duality disappears. Life simply uses energy; doesn't matter how it gets it.


Apparently you have not given much thought here. Because a planet with plant
kingdom alone cannot utilize the chemistry available on Earth as efficiently.
The most efficient use of chemistry on any planet ready for life is to have both
animal kingdom and plant kingdom created virtually simultaneously to one
another.

So you flunked on your own logic when you say "life simply uses energy" because
plant kingdom alone cannot efficiently use energy.


Has anyone researched RockEaters to see if they could be compounded to form
a blue-green algae?

Photosynthesis works by splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen. An
earlier photosynthesis mechanism split hydrogen sulphide into hydrogen
and sulphur; this effectively was both one of your "rockeaters" and
"photosynthetic" bacteria.

I shall be interested to hear how you resolve this unity into a dichotomy.

As I replied to Elie in a different post. The deciding-experiments involve the
greatest use of the periodic chart of chemical elements. If you have a planet
that has life, can it be only plant life? Can it be only rockeaters?

If it can be proven that a planet that has life must be able to make the
*greatest use* of the Periodic Chart of Chemical Elements wherein the Plant
kingdom uses 34% of the chemical elements from hydrogen to bismuth and the
Animal Kingdom uses 33% of the chemical elements for a combined total of 67% of
the chemical elements. That is the Dual Complimentarity of the kingdoms of
biology-- the maximal use of chemistry.

You mistake unity for commonality. Plants and animals have DNA common to both
but that is not unity. Duality implies a Maximum Use of a resource such as
energy.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Viruses do not pose a challenge because they are thought of as transposons
or mobile genes and belong to the same genome which they parasitize.


So is West Nile virus a bird, a horse, a human, or...?

M. Reed

Archimedes Plutonium wrote in
:

someone wrote:

If you think of life as a consequence of the presence of energy
being present along with the correct conditions for life, then
the supposed duality disappears. Life simply uses energy; doesn't
matter how it gets it.


Apparently you have not given much thought here. Because a planet
with plant kingdom alone cannot utilize the chemistry available on
Earth as efficiently. The most efficient use of chemistry on any
planet ready for life is to have both animal kingdom and plant
kingdom created virtually simultaneously to one another.

So you flunked on your own logic when you say "life simply uses
energy" because plant kingdom alone cannot efficiently use energy.


I suspect that you may be assuming that conditions were the same at
the creation of life as they are today. An Oxygen atmosphere on a
young planet is unlikely, as there are too many mineral elements
that tend to react to free O2. There are very few cosmic sources of
O2 as well, there is a considerable quantity of water, carbon
dioxide, and other combined sources that may be used as a source for
an Oxygen atmosphere, but only after some action that would tend to
produce it. Animal life needs a sufficient excess of O2 that nothing
that you would call an "animal" would have appeared until a long
time after things that you might call "plants" had been around and
photosynthesizing. There are anaerobic bacteria that don't need
Oxygen, but on a basic level, they are poisoned by O2, and wouldn't
do well in the company of some plant-thing that was busy making it.
In other words, photosynthesizers, and anaerobes just don't get
along.

Sean

Monique Reed wrote in
:



Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Viruses do not pose a challenge because they are thought of as
transposons or mobile genes and belong to the same genome which
they parasitize.


So is West Nile virus a bird, a horse, a human, or...?


It is the biological equivalent of eBay.

Sean

Mon, 01 Nov 2004 22:27:47 GMT Sean Houtman wrote:
(snip what I wrote)


I suspect that you may be assuming that conditions were the same at
the creation of life as they are today. An Oxygen atmosphere on a
young planet is unlikely, as there are too many mineral elements
that tend to react to free O2. There are very few cosmic sources of
O2 as well, there is a considerable quantity of water, carbon
dioxide, and other combined sources that may be used as a source for
an Oxygen atmosphere, but only after some action that would tend to
produce it. Animal life needs a sufficient excess of O2 that nothing
that you would call an "animal" would have appeared until a long
time after things that you might call "plants" had been around and
photosynthesizing. There are anaerobic bacteria that don't need
Oxygen, but on a basic level, they are poisoned by O2, and wouldn't
do well in the company of some plant-thing that was busy making it.
In other words, photosynthesizers, and anaerobes just don't get
along.

I realize the primeval Earth when life began had a far different
environment especially in gases and temperature.

So what I am looking for if we say the blue green algae were the first
plants is some organism that lives off of the blue green algae and
interacts in some manner with blue green algae whether it is alive or
after it dies.

The relationship of plants to animals today is that animals depend on
plants for food but plants depend on animals for fertilizer.

So I need a relationship between blue green algae and some other
organism.

Same thing for RockEaters although they maybe more difficult to analyze.
Are these RockEaters able to live solo and never need the intervention
of any other organism? If they need another organism then that is the
duality.

And it maybe that the blue green algae needs another plant species and
not a species that we would call an animal.

So what I need is merely another species that the bluegreen algae must
have in order to survive and that would prove duality.

If there is a plant that can survive solo without any other lifeform
would disprove this Quantum Duality of Biology. The Rockeaters have the
best chance of disproving it.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Monique Reed wrote:

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Viruses do not pose a challenge because they are thought of as transposons
or mobile genes and belong to the same genome which they parasitize.


So is West Nile virus a bird, a horse, a human, or...?

M. Reed

The nice and awful thing about biology is that there are never any absolutes.
There is always fuzziness and haze at the edges. In physics we talk of
probability density that a particle is 90% in this region. In biology as soon
as you give a definition there are things that crop up that call the definition
into question.

In answer to your question, a virus that attacks humans is part of the human
genome. A virus is a highly ordered transposon. A virus that attacks humans and
placed into a petri dish is no more a living entity than cutting off a piece of
human skin and placed in a petri dish is a living entity.

So the West Nile virus is not a living organism but a debris particle of birds,
of horses and of humans. Bacteria is a living organism. Viruses are not.

So a complete genome of humans would include the viral transposon of West Nile.
The complete genome of birds would include the West Nile viral transposon.

Viruses are biological hazards and they are not living organisms.

What this Quantum Duality of Biology theory wants to show is that if a entity
is living means it has a dual species. All bacteria have dual species and thus
are living. Viruses do not have dual species and thus are not alive.
###
On second thought I may have the above all turned around. Perhaps retroviruses
live on other viruses.

In this view viruses have dual partners. If that is the case then the first
life on Earth from a stopped neutrino was viruses of all kinds and they just
floated around until they found something to "eat". Once they ate something
they multiplied and changed into other forms.

Thanks, for maybe the first life on Earth were viruses and that stopped
neutrinos even today could transform into brand new viruses that Earth has
never before seen.

So the question I have is whether those Rockeaters have viruses that attack
them?

Anyone know that answer?

P.S. I thought the wine I drank tonight in celebration would affect my thinking
adversely and obviously it has done the opposite in facilitating.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 02:09:08 -0600, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:



Monique Reed wrote:

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Viruses do not pose a challenge because they are thought of as transposons
or mobile genes and belong to the same genome which they parasitize.


So is West Nile virus a bird, a horse, a human, or...?

M. Reed

The nice and awful thing about biology is that there are never any absolutes.
There is always fuzziness and haze at the edges. In physics we talk of
probability density that a particle is 90% in this region. In biology as soon
as you give a definition there are things that crop up that call the definition
into question.

In answer to your question, a virus that attacks humans is part of the human
genome. A virus is a highly ordered transposon. A virus that attacks humans and
placed into a petri dish is no more a living entity than cutting off a piece of
human skin and placed in a petri dish is a living entity.

So the West Nile virus is not a living organism but a debris particle of birds,
of horses and of humans. Bacteria is a living organism. Viruses are not.

So a complete genome of humans would include the viral transposon of West Nile.
The complete genome of birds would include the West Nile viral transposon.

Viruses are biological hazards and they are not living organisms.

What this Quantum Duality of Biology theory wants to show is that if a entity
is living means it has a dual species. All bacteria have dual species and thus
are living. Viruses do not have dual species and thus are not alive.
###
On second thought I may have the above all turned around. Perhaps retroviruses
live on other viruses.

In this view viruses have dual partners. If that is the case then the first
life on Earth from a stopped neutrino was viruses of all kinds and they just
floated around until they found something to "eat". Once they ate something
they multiplied and changed into other forms.

Thanks, for maybe the first life on Earth were viruses and that stopped
neutrinos even today could transform into brand new viruses that Earth has
never before seen.

So the question I have is whether those Rockeaters have viruses that attack
them?

Anyone know that answer?

P.S. I thought the wine I drank tonight in celebration would affect my thinking
adversely and obviously it has done the opposite in facilitating.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Sorry, I don't buy it. Your theory is just a bunch of hand waving.
You have to keep rationalizing that viruses are this and bacteria are
that just to try to keep your theory together.
There is no experiment that you can do to test your theory, and you
cannot make any predictions based on the theory, so it is useless and
it is not even reallly a scientific theory, since it is untestable.
Darwinism has always been consistent with experimental data, and all
of the millions of tests of Darwinism have supported the theory.
Darwinism can be used to predict what the results of an experiment
will be, so it is useful. It also is logical and is the simplest
solution given the data at hand (i.e., it satisfies Occom's razor).

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

I realize the primeval Earth when life began had a far different
environment especially in gases and temperature.

So what I am looking for if we say the blue green algae were the first
plants is some organism that lives off of the blue green algae and
interacts in some manner with blue green algae whether it is alive or
after it dies.

This still verging on the ridiculous.

As far can be told, the first bacteria did not use light in their
reactions, and were effectively entirely "rockeaters". Then at some
point a strain evolved that could combine elemental sulphur and hydrogen
from the atmosphere to produce energy, albeit inefficiently.

The big breakthrough came when a variant on this strain started to use
light to push the reaction in the other direction: it took the then
fairly abundant hydrogen sulphide and produced elemental sulphur and
hydrogen.

Neither of these bacterial types altered the atmosphere much, however.
That came with a small mutation in the genes that coded for the H2S
splitting enzyme.

The mutant form split water instead of hydrogen sulphide. This produces
oxygen, which was then rather troublesome for the bacteria since
everything alive then was poisoned by oxygen. Gradually a more tolerant
strain evolved, and true plant-like behaviour took over. The oxygen
levels at first stayed low through weathering of rocks and iron
minerals, then eventually took off exponentially.

The relevent point here is, where do you draw the line? What IS a plant?
The hydrogen sulphide reducers are acting like plants, but the compounds
they're reducing are rock-derived.

The relationship of plants to animals today is that animals depend on
plants for food but plants depend on animals for fertilizer.

So I need a relationship between blue green algae and some other
organism.

How's about a relation between photosynthetic predatory protozoa and
other photosynthetic predatory protozoa?

Down at the microscopic level, with bacteria and protozoa, the
plant/animal dividing line is extremely blurred. An organism might one
day be wholly photosynthetic; it might the next be 50/50
photosynthetic/predatory; it might then become a predator for a brief while.

Why bother with the line?



--
Dr Dan Holdsworth
Remedy ARS Administrator, Manchester Computing

0161 275 0606

Wed, 03 Nov 2004 16:50:07 +0000 Dan Holdsworth wrote:



As far can be told, the first bacteria did not use light in their
reactions, and were effectively entirely "rockeaters". Then at some
point a strain evolved that could combine elemental sulphur and hydrogen
from the atmosphere to produce energy, albeit inefficiently.


So tell me, do the Rockeaters and the Strain-Rockeaters mentioned need each
other in order to live, survive and thrive?



The big breakthrough came when a variant on this strain started to use
light to push the reaction in the other direction: it took the then
fairly abundant hydrogen sulphide and produced elemental sulphur and
hydrogen.

Same question, do the light-variant H2, S need the reverse strain co-existing
in the environment?



Neither of these bacterial types altered the atmosphere much, however.
That came with a small mutation in the genes that coded for the H2S
splitting enzyme.

The mutant form split water instead of hydrogen sulphide. This produces

That poses a question as to how much of a interrelation is water to hydrogen
sulphide for the Rockeaters and strains as they produce energy. I guess I am
asking whether you can have Rockeaters in dry rock conditions. So could you
have Rockeaters on the Moon where there is little to no water.

So how much water does any Rockeater need to have interfacing in order to use
hydrogen sulfur?


oxygen, which was then rather troublesome for the bacteria since
everything alive then was poisoned by oxygen. Gradually a more tolerant
strain evolved, and true plant-like behaviour took over. The oxygen

So the question here becomes as a mirror image of the above only instead of
revolving around hydrogen sulphur it revolves around CO2 and O2.

If the Rockeaters of hydrogen-sulfur have variants that go reverse, implies
then that animals to plants is the reverse for carbon-oxygen gas


levels at first stayed low through weathering of rocks and iron
minerals, then eventually took off exponentially.

The relevent point here is, where do you draw the line? What IS a plant?
The hydrogen sulphide reducers are acting like plants, but the compounds
they're reducing are rock-derived.

I was focused on Plant Kingdom to Animal Kingdom but perhaps that should not
have been my focus but rather instead a focus on energy pathways of gases or
elemental compounds and that these special pathways have dual reverses where
one creature species will emerge to use one direction of hydrogen and sulfur
and another creature species will emerge to use the reverse pathway.

And that somehow both creature species needs the other in order to live and
thrive but how they "necessarily need" one another is unclear.



The relationship of plants to animals today is that animals depend on
plants for food but plants depend on animals for fertilizer.

So I need a relationship between blue green algae and some other
organism.

How's about a relation between photosynthetic predatory protozoa and
other photosynthetic predatory protozoa?

Down at the microscopic level, with bacteria and protozoa, the
plant/animal dividing line is extremely blurred. An organism might one
day be wholly photosynthetic; it might the next be 50/50
photosynthetic/predatory; it might then become a predator for a brief while.


Maybe I need to focus more on energy pathways such as hydrogen-sulfur or
carbon-oxygen and see if there are two creature species always present when
such an energy pathway exists and whether both species are vital to one another
for each to live and thrive.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

someone wrote:


Sorry, I don't buy it. Your theory is just a bunch of hand waving.
You have to keep rationalizing that viruses are this and bacteria are
that just to try to keep your theory together.

No, I am exploring, initial exploring but you seem too dense to see that.


There is no experiment that you can do to test your theory, and you

No, there is a great experiment of that of taking a 100% sterile life free flask or
drum and have a cosmic ray of 10^14 MeV transit the flask and if there is life
where previously there was none would prove the theory. Another route to proof
would be if Moon rocks or Mars rocks or Mercury rocks contained fossil life but
never had evolved-life.

But I brought up the poison thread because I want a new route to proving the
Quantum Dual theory


cannot make any predictions based on the theory, so it is useless and
it is not even reallly a scientific theory, since it is untestable.
Darwinism has always been consistent with experimental data, and all
of the millions of tests of Darwinism have supported the theory.
Darwinism can be used to predict what the results of an experiment
will be, so it is useful. It also is logical and is the simplest
solution given the data at hand (i.e., it satisfies Occom's razor).

But you seem too dense and opinionated to understand. No reply needed.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Tue, 02 Nov 2004 02:09:08 -0600 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

On second thought I may have the above all turned around. Perhaps retroviruses
live on other viruses.

In this view viruses have dual partners. If that is the case then the first
life on Earth from a stopped neutrino was viruses of all kinds and they just
floated around until they found something to "eat". Once they ate something
they multiplied and changed into other forms.

Thanks, for maybe the first life on Earth were viruses and that stopped
neutrinos even today could transform into brand new viruses that Earth has
never before seen.

So the question I have is whether those Rockeaters have viruses that attack
them?

Anyone know that answer?


So I wonder that if we set up flasks or containers that were 100% free of living
matter, including viruses and bacteria and the smallest microorganisms and if we
watched and waited as cosmic-rays traversed this container such as the Utah
experiment observatory that catches cosmic rays and analyzed the container, I have
the hunch that life will be found where none had been before.

I also suspect that viruses can be fossilized. And that if our lifeless Moon or
any other lifeless astro body were analyzed for virus fossils that many will be
found because life originates from stopped or halted cosmic rays.

Everyone remember the Mars rock some years back that was said to have fossils of
life and then retracted. I wonder if our best microscopes can detect a virus
fossil. I believe so. And I believe that if Moon rocks and other astro materials
where cosmic rays can be stopped will contain viral and bacterial fossils.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

someone wrote:


Sorry, I don't buy it. Your theory is just a bunch of hand waving.
You have to keep rationalizing that viruses are this and bacteria are
that just to try to keep your theory together.

No, I am exploring, initial exploring but you seem too dense to see that.


There is no experiment that you can do to test your theory, and you

No, there is a great experiment of that of taking a 100% sterile life free flask or
drum and have a cosmic ray of 10^14 MeV transit the flask and if there is life
where previously there was none would prove the theory. Another route to proof
would be if Moon rocks or Mars rocks or Mercury rocks contained fossil life but
never had evolved-life.


In fact, the news today has quite a bit of information concerning cosmic rays. And I
am going to quote it in full in order to point out some missing information which will
discovered in the future.

There are too many cosmic rays to be accountable by supernova alone and these
overabundant cosmic rays, I am confident will be attributed as originating from the
Nucleus of the AtomTotality.

The below article also fails to address the twin facts of that cosmic rays are so
uniformily fluxed over the night sky and that there energies seem unlimited in that
they can pack a 10^14 MeV or even go up to a recordholding 10^21 MeV as was reported
sometime not long ago. If a cosmic ray of 10^21 MeV or higher ever was stopped near
our solar system it could extinct life of Earth.

I am not questioning that cosmic rays are produced from Supernova, for that to me is a
given. What I am questioning from this report is that cosmic rays are so much more
abundant than this report wants to admit and so uniform density in the cosmos and that
many pack energies that supernova source is not the full picture. I contend that some
come from supernova but the majority come from the Nucleus of the AtomTotality of
231Pu.

And in context with this thread on Quantum Dual of Biology. An experiment such as the
Fly-Eye conducted in the desert of Utah should be extended to searching for a device
or equipment where a cosmic ray is captured in a container that is 100% absent of life
forms such as even viral DNA. Because I speculate that such a device will find a new
viral or bacterial DNA after a cosmic ray transits the device. I contend that when a
cosmic ray of 10^14 MeV is stopped in a device that a new virus or bacteria will be
found wherein the cosmic ray neutrino has internal parts of *perfect DNA* and by
stopping the ray will dress that internal DNA and become a viral entity or new
bacteria.

Another means of doing this experiment is to find out if viruses and bacteria can be
fossilized and the Moon is lifeless but it has cosmic ray bombardment. So that a
typical pile of Moon rock should contain many viral fossils that were created from
cosmic rays.

--- quoting Reuters on cosmic ray ---

Scientists Close in on Source of Cosmic
Rays

Wed Nov 3, 1:01 PM ET


Science - Reuters



LONDON (Reuters) - An international team of astronomers
believe they have solved a
mystery that has been perplexing scientists for 100 years
-- the origin of cosmic rays.

Scientists first discovered the
energetic particles that
bombard the Earth nearly a
century ago but where they
come from has been one of the
big questions in
astrophysics.

Using an array of four
telescopes in Africa, the
scientists produced the first
image showing that the
source of cosmic rays could be
the remnant of a
supernova, a powerful explosion
of a star at the end of
its life.

"This is the first time we were
able to take an image of
the source," David Berge, an
astrophysicist at the Max
Planck Institute in Heidelberg,
Germany, told Reuters.

Scientists had long thought
that supernova explosions
were indeed the source, but did
not have evidence to
support it, according to Berge,
who reported the
findings in the science journal
Nature.

He and colleagues from Britain, Armenia, France, Ireland,
Namibia, South Africa and the
Czech Republic studied the remnant of a supernova that
exploded about 1,000 years ago
and left a shell of debris.

"Because the energy density in cosmic rays is so large,
they play an important role in the
development of our galaxy," said Berge.

"We are now at a stage where we seem to be able to prove
cosmic rays come from
supernova remnants."

Professor Ian Halliday, head of the Particle Physics and
Astronomy Research Council
(PPARC) which funds research, welcomed the findings.

"These results provide the first unequivocal proof that
supernovae are capable of
producing large quantities of galactic cosmic rays --
something we have long suspected,
but never been able to confirm," he said in a statement.
--- end quoting ---

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Archimedes Plutonium wrote in
:

Wed, 03 Nov 2004 16:50:07 +0000 Dan Holdsworth wrote:

Down at the microscopic level, with bacteria and protozoa, the
plant/animal dividing line is extremely blurred. An organism
might one day be wholly photosynthetic; it might the next be
50/50 photosynthetic/predatory; it might then become a predator
for a brief while.


Maybe I need to focus more on energy pathways such as
hydrogen-sulfur or carbon-oxygen and see if there are two creature
species always present when such an energy pathway exists and
whether both species are vital to one another for each to live and
thrive.


I am sure that a little thought should show you that for the second
to survive, the first must be around long enough to produce enough
of the as you say, hydrogen-sulfur or carbon-oxygen to support the
life of the second. In the spring, plants start growing before
insects appear to eat them.

Sean

Yeah sure, Sean, you will always be queen of the obsessive compulsive monkey
spankers.


"Sean Houtman" wrote in message
news:1100152843.BSqYN6QkVjAuWP2of+WF3A@teranews...
"Cereus-validus." wrote in
om:



"nightbat" wrote in message
...
nightbat wrote

Acting Administrator Action Taken Caution:

This post from warned and negligent Cereus-validus poster has
six
documented net science posting violations. Acting Administration
action taken of loss of beautiful mind pen click, possible
relocation to posting author drop file and punitive abuse
censored poster name inclusion file opened. These six additional
violations in one post reply to honorable nightbat prevents any
net Nobel nomination for sure against Cereus-non-validus until
further notice. For particulars see below or just forget it.

"Cereus-validus." wrote:

"nightbat" wrote in message
...
nightbat wrote

Science Newsgroups Acting Administrator 1st warning to
Cereus-non validus
There shall be no spamming or trolling of respectable
scientists, researchers, professors, teachers, classroom
monitors, laboratory assistant posters, comic book action
hero's or repeated totally off topic non subject related
posting. Please control yourself and remain respectful of
newsgroup members. Please avoid using intoxicating or
mind
altering substances while posting to net science newsgroups
at all times.

"Cereus-validus." wrote:

Anything you say, Dingbatus Profoundus, is piffle, piffle,
piffle, piffle, piffle, piffle, piffle, piffle, piffle,
piffle, piffle, piffle, piffle, piffle, piffle, piffle,
piffle, piffle, piffle, piffle, piffle, piffle, piffle,
piffle, piffle, piffle, piffle, piffle, piffle, piffle,
piffle, piffle, piffle, piffle, piffle, piffle, piffle,
piffle, piffle, piffle, piffle, piffle, piffle, piffle,
piffle, piffle, piffle, piffle, piffle, piffle, piffle,
piffle, piffle, piffle, piffle, piffle, piffle, piffle,
piffle, piffle, piffle, piffle, piffle, piffle, piffle,
piffle, piffle, piffle, piffle, piffle, piffle, piffle,
piffle, piffle, piffle.

Also there shall be no feet worshiping, xss kissing, repeated
religious
oriented prayers, slogans, dogma, proofs of God, humming,
chanting,
deep
breathing, TOE model mentioning of designer, deity, God, the
big one, top man, main man, big banana, creator, to any
particular brilliant scientist or researcher, especially the
use of the term piffle or piffling in science only oriented
newsgroups. Remember, public
community
net posting is a privilege not a birth right. Learn to
control
yourself
at all times, and act dignified and mannerly and never try to
offend anyone or you can forget about ever thinking of
getting an peer acceptable, cleared, and recommended Nobel.

This first sanctioned Acting Administrator's net warning
shall remain
in
effect until next daylight savings time or non atomic clock
needing battery changing which ever comes first. Personally
no poster is
really
responsible, as apparently in your clear sticky keyboard
case, for net typographical repeated errors, all opinions
expressed are not that of the management's and not under oath
therefore defensible, excusable,
and
non admissible in any Court or net flaming science action
Tribunal.


respectfully,
the nightbat


"nightbat" wrote in message
...
nightbat wrote

"Cereus-validus." wrote:

It is now official.

You really are DINGBATUS with INTELLECTUAL mostus!!!!

nightbat

" Halo ", if you must quickzle hizzle line
spewus,
non-serious
Cereus, with that apparent mouthful of African mushrooms,
off the
blow
hook, bingless, clueless, hootless, dizzle with no
fizzle, ching
ching
your ding ding to net bling bling fellow self official
bat fan non muzzle hustle.

Later, hip hop, bee bop, no validus spinus impetus!

ponder, yonder, homie wanabe,
the nightbat


"nightbat" wrote in message
...

nightbat wrote

Uncle Al wrote:

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Snip normal Uncle Al's hard acid spewing reflex

Uncle Al
Mena is 134 IQ to join, plus annual dues.

"stooopid"

Uncle Al says, "Ignorance is educable, stupidity is
forever."

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

nightbat

One " stuupid " and one " stupidity " in your
whole
reply
post,
at least it shows you're trying. Only self
ingratiating fools
would
pay
to join a club that demands and recognizes their soon
parted
annual
dues
mutual paying stupidity. And stated only 134 IQ
needed to
join, I
take
it then you don't understand Mensa not Mena 200+ IQ
is
qualifying.
Only
of
course you didn't deduce someone with an actual 200+
IQ would
have
better things to apply that dues, like perhaps their
pocket.

" A fool and his money are soon parted, despite
their IQ. "

the nightbat

Your making fun of folks is easy, their making fun of
you is
not
hard,
why
waste your at times better then that net time. Split
the
difference,
get
a private room for the public displayed affection you
have for
Archie.

the nightbat

Uncle Al always sees himself like this:

http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=
9687

Original Cereus serious continued top posting violation corrected

Cereus-validus
Still more piffle from the Dingbatus Emeritus?

The warned against use of the word piffle and fellow science
group member name calling duly noted and second and third
violation

Cereus-validus
Get over yourself, lard head.

The use of negative term lard head is derogatory to profound
gifted, extremely high IQ and or profuse neuron capacity persons,
super brain powered, reference to size or head weight, anti
Federal discrimination law, demeaning, public ridiculing,
unmannerly, inappropriate, uncalled for, despicable, non
scientific, off topic, childish, group etiquette and protocol
violating, at fat headed people's fun expense, old and overdone,
immaturity indicating.

And documented serious and additional fourth violation

Cereus-validus
Keep it up and your mammy will give you a spanking.

The negative use of the discriminating color denoting tone
reference and pronounced demeaning despicable reckless referring
attributing racial used slang term " mammy " for respectable
proper term Mother or Mommy of any and all races is duly recorded
and noted. The term spanking in an adult science newsgroup with
pseudo masochist indications addressed or targeted to referenced
adult and all general science posting or listening persons and
advocating personal injury or pain against their will constitutes
intent to verbally advocate, aid and abet, or assist in assault
and intent to commit bodily, behind the barn, shed harm.

Most serious fifth and sixth net posting science group additional
violations but who is counting?

In other words you dug yourself in so deep you'll be lucky if you
can get a job picking up the garbage of the supper leftovers of
any Nobel Prize Honorary Committee celebration event. As a matter
of fact your abusive documented net posting history is now public
record so your no Union support Goose is cooked, unless you duly
manage changing your posting name into some other clueless
wonder. Yeah, you could do that and start all over if they don't
abusive net track you, ha, ha. ponder on hopeful world wide group
fan wanabe.


the nightbat



Dingbat is cited for numerous counts of abusing Roget's thesaurus
in attempt to become king of the pedantic bores.

Keep it up and you will never be allowed to touch my monkey.


(top posting corrected)

Yeah Nightbat, you will never replace Cereus as the king of the
pedantic bores!


Sean