Spinal cord of DNA-molecule

[Mokele]

::bangs head againsts the desk::

 

OK, I'm going to reduce this to one simple question:

 

Where is the empirical evidence that your hypothesis even works, or occurs in living cells? EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, not math.

 

Mokele

[donkey]

I'm a bit confused about this "spinal cord". Is that also referring to this consciousness or is it to do with structure?

[Mokele]

Vlamir evidently thinks that "consciousness" is a product of resonant frequencies of the sugar backbone of RNA, something he has yet to provide any empirical support for, in spite of my repeated requests for such.

 

For that matter, his theoretical support is pretty crappy too.

 

Mokele

[vlamir]

The microscopic doze of potassium cyanide kills a huge animal. The atom of carbon in molecule KCN has other set of resonant frequencies, than atom of carbon in sugar. With ingress of toxin on receptors, this "signal" will reprogram a set of frequencies of sugars. Reprogrammed sugar ingress on membranes of respiratory neurons and paralyses their work.

But, Mokele, I am not going to read for you lecture.

Learn to analyze the well-known facts deeply.

[zyncod]

Right - so none of this means anything. It's like taking 2 or 3 tabs of acid and grooving on the resonance of a benzene ring ("Everything's connected - and they all, like, share electrons, man..."). It's the way the universe works.

 

Since you can't define consciousness, you can quite logically say that a rock has consciousness (common sense, however, tells you something else entirely). If you want to give inanimate objects/molecules/whatever consciousness, just do it. You don't need these complicated "proofs."

[Skye]

The microscopic doze of potassium cyanide kills a huge animal. The atom of carbon in molecule KCN has other set of resonant frequencies' date=' than atom of carbon in sugar. With ingress of toxin on receptors, this "signal" will reprogram a set of frequencies of sugars. Reprogrammed sugar ingress on membranes of respiratory neurons and paralyses their work.

But, Mokele, I am not going to read for you lecture.

Learn to analyze the well-known facts deeply.[/quote']

Ok, here's the thing, cyanide works by inhibiting cytochrome oxidase in the electron transport chain. This prevents the binding of oxygen to cytochrome oxidase, so it can't be used as an electron acceptor, the electron transport chain then stops functioning and no ATP is produced. This results in rapid cell death.

[Mokele]

The microscopic doze of potassium cyanide kills a huge animal. The atom of carbon in molecule KCN has other set of resonant frequencies, than atom of carbon in sugar. With ingress of toxin on receptors, this "signal" will reprogram a set of frequencies of sugars. Reprogrammed sugar ingress on membranes of respiratory neurons and paralyses their work.

 

Skye has fortunately provided you with *correct* mechanism for how CN compounds work.

 

The fact that you don't know how cyanide works (which, by the way, we know from empirical observation, which is, after all, the basis for all science) nor could you even be bothered to learn not only gives us credible reason to doubt any of your biomolecular speculations, but also showcases your total isolation from the world of empirical results (a world that includes *all* science).

 

But, Mokele, I am not going to read for you lecture.

Learn to analyze the well-known facts deeply.

 

By which you mean "Speculate without any basis in reality, and then offer flimsy justifications when confronted with real-world data that proves you wrong."

 

---------

 

You know, from the start of this thread, it was obvious that English wasn't your first language, so I assumed that many of your statements were possibly just being mis-translated. However, as this thread has continued, it has become more and more evident that such is not the case. Even the language barrier cannot conceal your incompetence.

 

You offer hypotheses as if they were conclusions, then get angry when people ask you to support your 'conclusions' or challenge your findings. Since experimental support and inquiry are the cornerstones of science, your crackpot ideas are psuedoscience at best, and dogmatic assertion at worst.

 

I'm no stranger to theory. My current "Big" project is one that's purely theoretical in nature. But you know what I'm going to do as soon as the equations are done? I'm going to *test* them, empirically, both on models and on the living system they were designed to provide insight into.

 

Actual data is the core of science. Without it, science becomes nothing but speculation and dogma. Like your post.

 

Mokele

[vlamir]

To zyncod

The concept of life is conditional. Generally, the life is movement. Therefore, each object in the universe is not absolutely dead, including a stone.

We can speak only about levels of the organization of movement.

The most reliable and effective level of the organized movement is a vibration in elements of subatomic size.

The most complex and fragile level of the organized movement is, that we name consciousness.

The majority of people deeply are mistaken, when consider, that their consciousness is capable to give rise to absolutely new intellectual substance. The human consciousness is capable to give rise only new combinations from stereotypes of last time, which are written down into their subconsciousness.

 

To Skye

I have not told any word, that the information in riboses is transferred and served with help of electrons. The information is transferred by an exchange of sets of resonant frequencies through direct contact between atoms.

 

To Mokele

"Actual data is the core of science".

There is no one of "EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE", which would show, that atoms contain the same electrons, which we can investigate in vacuum.

Nevertheless, you, not reflecting, use this dogma.

In a basis of my project the hypothesis of nonelectronic structure of atoms lays.

I search, and I shall search for new, more simple models, with the help of my polytronic hypothesis. Time will show, what model is more true.

And now look, what "Actual data" the nonpsuedoscience palms off for you:

http://vlamir.nsk.ru/WHAT_DIAMOND_SPEAKS_ABOUT_e.pdf

[Mokele]

To Mokele

"Actual data is the core of science".

There is no one of "EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE", which would show, that atoms contain the same electrons, which we can investigate in vacuum.

Nevertheless, you, not reflecting, use this dogma.

In a basis of my project the hypothesis of nonelectronic structure of atoms lays.

I search, and I shall search for new, more simple models, with the help of my polytronic hypothesis. Time will show, what model is more true.

And now look, what "Actual data" the nonpsuedoscience palms off for you:

http://vlamir.nsk.ru/WHAT_DIAMOND_SPEAKS_ABOUT_e.pdf

 

Are you even reading my posts?

 

So it can happen in atoms, molecules and crystals and such. Whoop-de-****in-do. That doesn't *prove* it happens in cells. *THAT* is what I am after, and have been since about my 2nd post in this thread. Chemicals can do lots of freaky things, but not all things happen in cells. You can have D and L chiralities of amino acids, but living things can/do only use one.

 

Just because it's possible in a test tube does not mean it's possible in a living cell. Furthermore, even if it is possible, that doesn't mean it exists. Lots of *possible* things don't happen.

 

------------

 

All I ask is that you actually provide evidence that this phenomenon occurs in living cells for the purpose you describe (not in test tubes or models, in living cells). Can you do that? If not, how can you even remotely claim that this process has *anything* to do with *anything* in life?

 

I repeat:

 

All I ask is that you actually provide evidence that this phenomenon occurs in living cells for the purpose you describe (not in test tubes or models, in living cells). Do so.

 

Mokele

[Skye]

To Skye

I have not told any word' date=' that the information in riboses is transferred and served with help of electrons. The information is transferred by an exchange of sets of resonant frequencies through direct contact between atoms.[/quote']

I was simply showing how cyanide poisoning is thought to occur. I don't think ribose is involved at all, and I have no idea why you think it would.

[vlamir]

To Mokele

I read yours posts very attentively. Simply I do not understand your impulsiveness.

How it is possible "actually provide evidence", if it occurs on scale of the atomic sizes.

Such microscopes do not exist. Therefore, I speak only about modelling.

Really, is it not clear from article?

Let's make so. In July I shall lead the discussion in Russian forum and I shall ask our chemists and biophysicists about ways – "how provide evidence".

Well?

[Mokele]

How it is possible "actually provide evidence", if it occurs on scale of the atomic sizes.

Such microscopes do not exist. Therefore, I speak only about modelling.

 

Modelling is nice, but you cannot claim that something *IS* the source of consciousness because of a model, only that it *might* have a role.

 

As for actual experiments, it's *easy*. You don't have to directly see a process to figure out it's going on.

 

For instance, figure out a wavelength of photons that can force the sugar into a particular conformation, and pass through flesh and bone. This will allow you to "push the reset button" on any information stored in the sugars. Teach a mouse something, like a maze or a trick or somesuch. Expose it to this wavelength. If the mouse displays no memory of the training, you have evidence for your model. If the mouse shows no loss of memory, your model has been disproven, or at least seriously weakened.

 

It should be easy, using computers, to figure out a wavelength to do that, and then the experiment is simple, straightforward, and easy.

 

Really, is it not clear from article?

 

No, it isn't. It sounds like you're asserting that you have the final answer, not just a model.

 

Mokele

[vlamir]

Dear Mokele,

I draw the conclusions differently.

With the help of polytronic model, I can calculate amplitude (and frequency) of mechanical oscillations in atom. This amplitude has a direct connection with electric amplitude of photons.

So, for example, at temperature of 2000 degrees the amplitude of mechanical fluctuations in atoms has the order of ~3*10^-15 meter (~3 femtometer). Accordingly, at temperature of an alive matter, this amplitude approximately in 100 times is less.

Atoms in water, sugar, protein, DNA, RNA, etc. are "tuned, similarly to a musical instrument" on concrete sets of resonant frequencies and amplitudes.

It is quantum mechanics in microcosm, and, somewhat, quantum electrodynamics, but without electrons.

I would like to repeat, that till now, the fact of existence of electrons inside atoms is disputable.

Yes, electrons exist outside of atoms. It is the fact. But electrons appear as result of strong electromagnetic influence (local temperature above 2000 degrees). Such conditions are unsuitable for an alive matter.

Photons – it's quite another matter. Photons transfer richer information through space, than electrons.

I agree, that the electric charge can carry out function of glue, but provide selectivity during a reproduction of an alive matter they cannot.

I want to thank you for remarks. I have understood, that it is necessary to add my article with more detailed information about resonant processes in atoms. I should accent, that I write about the symphony of life.