new theory of life

[Sandra1]

Somebody just published a theory of life that looks meritorious. I'd love to hear what everyone here has to say about this:

 

Link removed by Moderator

Edited December 24, 2011 by Phi for All
Advertising link removed

[DrRocket]

Somebody just published a theory of life that looks meritorious. I'd love to hear what everyone here has to say about this:

Link removed by Moderator

 

 

Abstract: Life is an inordinately complex unsolved puzzle. Despite significant theoretical progress, experimental anomalies, paradoxes, and enigmas have revealed paradigmatic limitations. Thus, the advancement of scientific understanding requires new models that resolve fundamental problems. Here, I present a theoretical framework that economically fits evidence accumulated from examinations of life. This theory is based upon a straightforward and non-mathematical core model and proposes unique yet empirically consistent explanations for major phenomena including, but not limited to, quantum gravity, phase transitions of water, why living systems are predominantly CHNOPS (carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur), homochirality of sugars and amino acids, homeoviscous adaptation, triplet code, and DNA mutations. The theoretical framework unifies the macrocosmic and microcosmic realms, validates predicted laws of nature, and solves the puzzle of the origin and evolution of cellular life in the universe.

 

Bold added.

 

This has all the earmarks of total bullshit.

[Schrödinger's hat]

Not all of them, I couldn't even get a bingo

http://crackpotbingo.com/full?theme=crank&card_id=1191

But yes, it certainly does bear the hall-marks of a fine vintage of crackpottery.

[jimmydasaint]

It sounds like an attempt to combine hermeticism and science and to explain the origin of all life as a geometric form - the gyre. The article is probably self-funded and the part-time occupation of a profssional scientist. It really belongs in the Pseudoscience section.

[Phi for All]

Thanks for posting the abstract, DrRocket. That's what Sandra1 should have done.

 

!

Moderator Note

Sorry Sandra1, but we get too much spam to allow new joiners to link offsite. We are here to discuss, not to advertise your site.

[Ben Banana]

Although the link was removed, I'm betting it was written by Marko Rodin!

Yeah, I think I'm right. He's been a popular crackpot lately; I recognize some of his terms in the abstract.

 

In summary, Mark Rodin claims that:

 

x mod (radix-1) = Super Awesome.

 

 

And that is ... I think he should try being a politician instead. That would suit his idiocy better.

Edited December 24, 2011 by Ben Bowen

[Moontanman]

Although the link was removed, I'm betting it was written by Marko Rodin!

Yeah, I think I'm right. He's been a popular crackpot lately; I recognize some of his terms in the abstract.

 

In summary, Mark Rodin claims that:

 

x mod (radix-1) = Super Awesome.

 

 

And that is ... I think he should try being a politician instead. That would suit his idiocy better.

 

 

Better or more dangerous? oops, sorry I misread the post...

Edited December 24, 2011 by Moontanman

[Ben Banana]

Yeah, most politicians are dangerously stupid anyway.

Edited December 24, 2011 by Ben Bowen