On The present Blissful Science Ignorance

[Dov]

Since the early 1900’s ALL “science” has been taken over by the Technology Culture of the religious Americans, represented by the trade-union-church AAAS. Plain and simple. There has not
been any science in the world since then except “religious-American-science”.

On the blissful religious science ignorance…:

USA-World Science Hegemony Is Science Blind

Since the early 2000s I have been posting many articles on science items surveyed and analyzed
by me, without religious background-concepts. I have been doing this because I was deeply disturbed by the religiosity of the 1848-founded AAAS trade-union and by the consequent religious background-tint of its extensive “scientific” publications and activities.

On my next birthday I’ll be 88-yrs old. I know that I’m deeply engaged in a Don Quixotic mission-war to extricate-free the USA and world Science from the clutches and consequences of the religious-trade-union-church AAAS, adopted strangely by the majority of scientifically ignorant religious god-trusting Americans and by their most other humanity following flocks…

But I am sincerely confident that only thus it is feasible and possible to embark on a new, rational, Human culture (Scientism) and on new more beneficial and effective technology courses for humanity…

Dov Henis (comments from 22^nd century)

link to external blog removed per SFN Rule 2.7

Edited January 25, 2013 by Phi for All
advertising link removed

[John Cuthber]

Well, for a start, I'm a trade Union Official, a scientist and a staunch atheist.

Can you explain why on earth you think there's a "religious-trade-union-church AAAS" to worry about?

[Bignose]

Since the early 1900’s ALL “science” has been taken over by the Technology Culture of the religious Americans, represented by the trade-union-church AAAS. Plain and simple.

evidence please

[rigney]

 

Since the early 1900’s ALL “science” has been taken over by the Technology Culture of the religious Americans, represented by the trade-union-church AAAS. Plain and simple. There has not

been any science in the world since then except “religious-American-science”.

 

On the blissful religious science ignorance…:

 

USA-World Science Hegemony Is Science Blind

 

Since the early 2000s I have been posting many articles on science items surveyed and analyzed

by me, without religious background-concepts. I have been doing this because I was deeply disturbed by the religiosity of the 1848-founded AAAS trade-union and by the consequent religious background-tint of its extensive “scientific” publications and activities.

 

On my next birthday I’ll be 88-yrs old. I know that I’m deeply engaged in a Don Quixotic mission-war to extricate-free the USA and world Science from the clutches and consequences of the religious-trade-union-church AAAS, adopted strangely by the majority of scientifically ignorant religious god-trusting Americans and by their most other humanity following flocks…

 

But I am sincerely confident that only thus it is feasible and possible to embark on a new, rational, Human culture (Scientism) and on new more beneficial and effective technology courses for humanity…

 

Dov Henis (comments from 22^nd century)

link to external blog removed per SFN Rule 2.7

 

 

 

Well bless your heart! Being 88 years of age and believing in "anything" today is risky business. Myself, I'm 80 and quite vulnerable to conjecture at every crook and turn. But as an Agnostic, (com ce com sa), my glass isn't half empt, but half full. At least give yourself a break before breathing your last.

Edited January 25, 2013 by rigney

[Dov]

Well, for a start, I'm a trade Union Official, a scientist and a staunch atheist.

Can you explain why on earth you think there's a "religious-trade-union-church AAAS" to worry about?

 

2012 science things to think about...

Starting with:

E energy is m mass in motion,

gravity is propensity of energy reconversion to mass.

 

Then:

Re some presently esteemed basic science concepts…:

 

Betrayal Of The Enlightenment Science Heritage

 

Three glaring examples of betrayal of the Enlightenment science heritage:

 

- The Higgs particle case: by plain common sense and data the origin of all mass in the universe is the minuscule pre-big-bang gravitons singularity…

 

- Life nature and genesis: by plain common sense and data life is just another mass format …a self-replicating format…

 

- The Genetics concepts: by plain common sense and data culture and natural selection are ubiquitous for ALL mass formats, and genetics are their evolving RNA nucleotide progenies…subject to Darwin and Pavlov processes…

 

PS:

1.Ponder why Mass = Energy at singularity…

2.Ponder that Culture is reaction-to-circumstances/drive-to-survival by ALL MASS FORMATS…

3.Ponder the implications of the various modes of Cooperation in nature…

4.Ponder that Intelligence = learning from experience…

5.Ponder that in an evolving two-pole system (m/E, singularity/max expanded) there cannot be randomness…

6. Ponder that in an evolving two-pole system m/E, gravitation is propensity of energy reconversion to mass…

7. Re “randomness” in nature: Change of mass format is not randomizing

Thus, for example, heating a material, a mass format, is not “randomizing” it. It is changing the mobilities of its constituents, their energetic characteristics. It is changing the mass format properties.

=============================

 

2012: Restructure Science Plans, Policies, Budgets

 

A. Higgs Particle YOK

Eppur Si Muove, Higgs Particle YOK

Regardless Of Whatever Whoever

Regardless Of Whatever Is Said By Whoever Says It - Higgs Particle YOK.

 

S Hawking is simply wrong in accepting it. Obviously wrong.

Everyone who accepts the story of the Higgs particle is simply wrong.

Plain commonsense.

 

Singularity and the Big Bang MUST have happened with the

smallest base universe particles, the gravitons, that MUST be both energy and

mass, even if they are inert mass just one smallest fraction of a second at

singularity. All mass formats evolve from gravitons that convert into energy i.e.

extricate from their gravitons clusters into mass formats in motion,

energy. And they all end up again as mass in a repeat singularity.

 

Universe expansion and re-contraction proceed simultaneously..

http://universe-life.com/

http://universe-life.com/2012/02/03/universe-energy-mass-life-compilation/

 

B. Refresh Present SCIENCE Comprehensions And Restructure Science Plans, Policies And Budgets

 

Who Suppresses Science Creativity? Does Academia Suppress Creativity?

Again and again, ad absurdum:

 

Since the 1920s SCIENCE is suppressed by a Technology Culture, tightly supervised by a religious old style trade union , the AAAS…

 

Liberate Your Mind From Concepts Dictated By The Religious Trade-Union AAAS:

 

USA Science? Re-Comprehend Origins And Essence

 

* Higgs Particle? Dark Energy/Matter? Epigenetics? All YOK!

* Earth-life is just another, self-replicating, mass format.

* All mass formats evolve from gravitons, the primal universe mass-energy particles.

* Since singularity gravitons are extricated from their big-bang clusters , i.e. become mobile, energy, at a constant rate.

* All mass formats follow natural selection, i.e. intake of energy or their energy taken in by other mass formats.

* Evolution Is The Quantum Mechanics Of Natural Selection.

* Quantum mechanics are mechanisms, possible or probable or actual mechanisms of natural selection.

* Life’s Evolution is the quantum mechanics of biology.

* Every evolution, of all disciplines, is the quantum mechanics of the discipline’s natural selection.

 

See:

Update Concepts-Comprehension…

http://universe-life.com/2011/12/13/21st-century-science-whence-and-whither/

Earth life genesis from aromaticity-H bonding

http://universe-life.com/2011/09/30/earthlife-genesis-from-aromaticityh-bonding/

Universe-Energy-Mass-Life Compilation

http://universe-life.com/2012/02/03/universe-energy-mass-life-compilation/

Seed of human-chimp genome diversity

http://universe-life.com/2011/07/10/seed-of-human-chimp-genomes-diversity/

New Era For Science Including Genomics

http://universe-life.com/2012/04/14/new-era-for-science-including-genomics/

SCM, suggested online educational program promoting rational-science-based over present faith-belief-based civilization/culture

http://universe-life.com/2006/03/13/science-creed-manifest-scm/

 

C. Universe Inflation And Expansion

Inflation on Trial

Astrophysicists interrogate one of their most successful theories

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/342219/title/Inflation_on_Trial

 

Commonsense:

Inflation and expansion are per Newton.

Since the Big Bang galactic clusters loose mass at constant rate. Mass, gravitons, continue

escaping at constant rate from their Big Bang fragments-clusters thus becoming

energy, mass in motion, thus thrusting the clusters. Constant thrust and

decreasing galactic clusters weight accelerate the separation of clusters from each other.

 

Common sense.

==============================

 

Natural Selection Is Built-In Hypocrisy In US Science Structure

In addition to the omnipotency of the AAAS trade-union-church with its science testament and gospels...:

 

A.

http://www.nas.edu/

Where the Nation Turns for Independent, Expert Advice

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine

 

B.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_policy_of_the_United_States

In the Executive Office of the President,

the main body advising the president on science policy is the Office of Science and

Technology Policy. Other advisory bodies exist within the Executive Office of the President, including the President's

Council of Advisors on Science and Technology and the National Science and Technology Council.

 

Further advice (on legislating science policy) is provided by extra-governmental organizations such as The National Academies, which was created and mostly funded by the federal government,^[2] and the RAND Corporation, as well as other non-profit organizations such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the American Chemical Society among others.

 

C.

Conflict of interest arises whenever the personal or professional interests of a board or committee member or of an expert adviser are potentially at odds with the best interests of the nonprofit…by the people for the people…

 

D.

I rest the people’s case…

 

Dov Henis (comments from 22^nd century)

[Bignose]

- The Higgs particle case: by plain common sense and data the origin of all mass in the universe is the minuscule pre-big-bang gravitons singularity…

Science does not just believe 'common sense'. Fortunately, you also wrote data there. So, present that data please.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Moved to speculations.

[cladking]

 

Since the early 1900’s ALL “science” has been taken over by the Technology Culture of the religious Americans, represented by the trade-union-church AAAS. Plain and simple. There has not

been any science in the world since then except “religious-American-science”.

 

 

 

 

 

OK, science has taken a turn for the worse and I can even agree on its approximate swoon. It seems closer to 1925 to me though precursors existed earlier. But I can't see why you believe it has anything to do with religion. It's not as though science has been becoming more beneficial or less detrimental to religions over the decades. I've slain numerous windmills myself even though most were very diminuative, I am working on the grandaddy of all windmills right now which will have far ranging consequences once it's under my belt. Where is evidence that it's religious? Most signs point to the military but political correctness has the military more often on the side of foreign religions than those customarily associated with the US. Would any sect or religion use the benefits of scientific research into arms and then use the military itself to support "outsiders"?

 

I might even agree that the military industrial complex has a religious bent but this didn't come into power until the late-'50's.

 

It seems more like a massive confusion and superstition at play than religion (not entirely mutually exclusive but largely so).

[Bignose]

OK, science has taken a turn for the worse and I can even agree on its approximate swoon. It seems closer to 1925 to me though precursors existed earlier.

I really quite disagree with this. Science as it is practiced in 2013 is worlds apart from how it was practiced in 1925.

 

The information sharing that exists today must be at least 1,000 more than occurred 80+ years ago.

 

While there may be a pocket or two of nationalism leftover, in any of the major players of scientific funding there isn't anyone pushing for a nation-specific type of science anymore. For example, there isn't anyone dictating a 'Germanic science' or a 'Soviet science' agenda like the Nazis and the Stalinist were doing. In the 1920s, it was very conceivable that your career would be ruined, or you'd even be possibly killed if your scientific work didn't meet some pre-defined political agenda.

 

And then lastly, the technology of the last 80 years has allowed so many more avenues of research. For example, the entire field of genetics, the large number of already successes that field has had, and the potential for so many more is owed to the direct manipulations of genetic material we can do today. Genetics 80 years ago was limited to what could be cross-pollinated.

 

I guess, in short, I really am curious what you think about science 80 years ago was so much better than how it is practiced today.

[Dov]

Genetics is another example of religious-based AAAS "science".

The neural system, including the brain, was evolved by unicells communities (cultures) to react to-exploit the environments for survival-natural selection.

Update Comprehension Of Culture-Genetics

I.

Legacy: A Genetic History of the Jewish People by Harry Ostrer

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/342238/title/Legacy_A_Genetic_History_of_the_Jewish_People_by_Harry_Ostrer

A genetic history of a cultural phenotype is the progeny of its cultural history.

 

Genetics is the progeny of culture. Culture, the reaction to and exploitation of circumstances, shapes the genetic expressions and profile. Genes are organisms, life’s primal organisms.

See Darwin, Pavlov and cause and cure of addictions…

II.

Eating tiny amounts of eggs helps some children overcome their egg allergy

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/342999/title/FOR_KIDS_Bye-bye%2C_egg_allergy

Our RNA genes are our primal base organisms. Now see Darwin, Pavlov , and cause/cure of addictions and of allergies…

III.

On Brain And Natural Selection

 

A.

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/07/bad-news-for-big-brains.html?ref=em

“experimentally manipulate brain size, you get cleverer fish".

“Experimentally manipulate” is Pavlov. Pavlov experimentally manipulated dogs’ genes.

 

Manipulating creatures is manipulating their genes by manipulating their culture, which modifies their genes’ expressions since genetics is the progeny of culture. Genes themselves are organisms, life’s primal organisms, evolved from modified RNA nucleotides in a cultural-natural selection-reaction to energetic circumstances.
THIS IS DARWINIAN EVOLUTION. NATURAL SELECTION IS UBIQUITOUS TO ALL MASS FORMATS. LIFE IS JUST ANOTHER MASS FORMAT.

B.

I grow various fruits. Fruit trees are brainless, mindless, of low intelligence i.e. low capacity to learn from experience.

A fruit tree sprouts, starts producing, a great number of fruits, of which only a small fraction complete their growth, of which in nature only few if any at all evolve into a fruit tree to reproduce the fruit-tree genes. This is the genes reproduction mode of the mindless creatures…

Look around you at other creatures including humans and draw your own conclusion…

 

Dov Henis

PS:

Re "the secret life of plants"...

Sentience, the ability to feel, perceive, or be conscious, or to have subjective experiences, is correct for every organism. In essence it is the reaction of the organism to its circumstances.

Note : genes are life's primal organisms, genetics is the progeny of culture, culture is response-reaction to circumstances, the extent and nature of genetics of an organism is proportional to the extent of challenges it has been facing and to the extent of its resultant genetic-neural constitution-history…

Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)

[cladking]

I really quite disagree with this. Science as it is practiced in 2013 is worlds apart from how it was practiced in 1925.

 

The information sharing that exists today must be at least 1,000 more than occurred 80+ years ago.

 

While there may be a pocket or two of nationalism leftover, in any of the major players of scientific funding there isn't anyone pushing for a nation-specific type of science anymore. For example, there isn't anyone dictating a 'Germanic science' or a 'Soviet science' agenda like the Nazis and the Stalinist were doing. In the 1920s, it was very conceivable that your career would be ruined, or you'd even be possibly killed if your scientific work didn't meet some pre-defined political agenda.

 

And then lastly, the technology of the last 80 years has allowed so many more avenues of research. For example, the entire field of genetics, the large number of already successes that field has had, and the potential for so many more is owed to the direct manipulations of genetic material we can do today. Genetics 80 years ago was limited to what could be cross-pollinated.

 

I guess, in short, I really am curious what you think about science 80 years ago was so much better than how it is practiced today.

 

Don't get me wrong. I'm not an insider and am not privvy to everything going on. Obviously there are many good things going as well as high quality and cutting edge science. Information sharing is, obviously, more common and rapid now days.

 

These aren't the things I'm talking about though. I'm talking about the bad science that is common and the inability of real scienbtists to get the ear of the media so people know what is actually going on. In the 70's you could read Scientific American and stay reasonably well informed but now days they print tripe about parallel worlds and global warming. I couldn't even tell you any of the leading scientists in the world today because scientific reporting has gone the same fate as news reporting; it's strictly political nonsense. It's all axes being ground and agendas that are wholly unrelated to science. even most of the science that is still occuring is often more math and thought experiments than it is experimental.

 

Of course the world is really composed of individuals and it is they who make new discovery and have new ideas. Even Egyptologists aren't all pseudo-scientific nincompoops. Indeed, perhaps none or few of them are except in aggregate.

 

Now most scientific research is aimed toward military applications and basic research has taken a back seat. Much of the research being done has to be politically correct to even get funding.

 

Of course much of the problem over the longer term is that in 1900 an individual could work alone with affordable instruments and this is becoming nearly impossible. Costs of living and research are both far higher and a far larger fraction of a living wage.

 

I see much more a ratcheting down in the quality, scope, and methodology of cutting edge research beginning about 1900. Of course there are hundreds of thousands of reputable scientists to whom this doesn't really apply but a system is composed of many people and it's the system that seems badly "misdirected".

[Dov]

With full respect,

I do not speculate.

All I write is data-based SCIENCE.

 

Dov Henis

Hod-HaSharon, Israel.
Born (1925) and raised in Israel.
WWII vet N.Africa & Europe.
1956 BioChem PhD Univ of Pgh, Pgh, PA.
Industrial R&D, consultant, retired 2006.
Interests: universe/life/humans evolutions.

[cladking]

 

I guess, in short, I really am curious what you think about science 80 years ago was so much better than how it is practiced today.

 

Let me just add this;

 

Hawking is supposedly a world class scientist but he came out recently and announced he has disproven the possibility that God exists. I have done better at casting doubt on the belief but in the process my estimation of the possibility has actually increased substantially.

 

Where does one turn for real science as an outsider?

[Bignose]

Don't get me wrong. I'm not an insider and am not privvy to everything going on. Obviously there are many good things going as well as high quality and cutting edge science. Information sharing is, obviously, more common and rapid now days.

 

These aren't the things I'm talking about though. I'm talking about the bad science that is common and the inability of real scienbtists to get the ear of the media so people know what is actually going on. In the 70's you could read Scientific American and stay reasonably well informed but now days they print tripe about parallel worlds and global warming. I couldn't even tell you any of the leading scientists in the world today because scientific reporting has gone the same fate as news reporting; it's strictly political nonsense. It's all axes being ground and agendas that are wholly unrelated to science. even most of the science that is still occuring is often more math and thought experiments than it is experimental.

 

Of course the world is really composed of individuals and it is they who make new discovery and have new ideas. Even Egyptologists aren't all pseudo-scientific nincompoops. Indeed, perhaps none or few of them are except in aggregate.

 

Now most scientific research is aimed toward military applications and basic research has taken a back seat. Much of the research being done has to be politically correct to even get funding.

 

Of course much of the problem over the longer term is that in 1900 an individual could work alone with affordable instruments and this is becoming nearly impossible. Costs of living and research are both far higher and a far larger fraction of a living wage.

 

I see much more a ratcheting down in the quality, scope, and methodology of cutting edge research beginning about 1900. Of course there are hundreds of thousands of reputable scientists to whom this doesn't really apply but a system is composed of many people and it's the system that seems badly "misdirected".

So, you're upset with the scientific reporting? Not really sure how that is science's fault. The publishers of Scientific American need to make money. If stories about parallel worlds makes that money, then that is what they are going to publish. Though, I'd argue that articles about global warming are probably rather important.

 

Then, regarding the 1900s, I think that in general it appears that there was more cutting edge stuff being published then is for a few reasons. 1) There was less known then, so there was more opportunity to discover stuff. Because of the lesser amount of knowledge, there wasn't the specialization that is present today. 2) That specialization works against some of the impact of today's researchers, because someone may write a really important paper in their particular area, but it isn't known by the majority of scientists because it is only in a particular area. 3) We only read the really impactful papers from 1900 today, no one goes back and re-reads the 'workaday' papers again, because, well, they were only workaday. So, unless you have data that backs up that more of the papers written in 1900 were impactful than today, I suspect this is just some 'remember the good ol' times' bias. I am not really sure how well one could determine the percentages of impactful in 1900 versus today.

 

Let me just add this;

 

Hawking is supposedly a world class scientist but he came out recently and announced he has disproven the possibility that God exists. I have done better at casting doubt on the belief but in the process my estimation of the possibility has actually increased substantially.

 

Where does one turn for real science as an outsider?

It is going to depend a lot on what your definition of 'real science' is. One the one hand, there is nothing stopping you from going into a library and reading journal articles. But, most people aren't going to understand very much of them at all. So, if you let someone else reinterpret the work, you always run the risk of misinterpretation or dumbing down... in short, not 'real science'.

 

Genetics is the progeny of culture. Culture, the reaction to and exploitation of circumstances, shapes the genetic expressions and profile. Genes are organisms, life’s primal organisms.

You claim to keep using data, but this Lamarckism has been generally shown not to be correct.

 

When Trofim Lysenko tried to apply these ideas to crops grown in the Soviet Union in the 1930s, he caused the death of a great number of people due to famine.

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

 

So, you're upset with the scientific reporting? Not really sure how that is science's fault. The publishers of Scientific American need to make money. If stories about parallel worlds makes that money, then that is what they are going to publish.

 

 

 

Every quantum physics book written by some Noble price winner that I had in mine hands is talking about parallel universes..

 

Apparently US universities should pay them more..

[Bignose]

All I write is data-based SCIENCE.

You keep saying this. I am not sure you know what it means.

 

In other words, I haven't seen any data posted at all. And you keep wanting us to believe what you say without any evidence. Exactly who is trying to install religious views here?

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

Dov, you need to start addressing the questions put to you. This is a discussion forum, not a blog or a place where you can proselytize. You also are required to back up assertions with evidence. And lastly, stop putting the end link to your blog in your posts. I don't mind you posting specific links from your site as long as they offer evidence for the assertions you're making, but stop advertising the blog in general. That's against the rules you agreed to when you joined.

 

If you have a problem with this modnote, don't discuss it in this thread. Either PM another member of the staff or use the Report Post function.

[Dov]

Science Comprehension Derives From Data Assessment

And most data is all around us. We just have to look around, notice, assess.

 

Remember that EVERYTHING in the present universe started from a minute singularity and that the universe keeps expanding. This is an evolving system, a system that derives from moving between two poles, all-mass and all-energy.

 

This is possible only if the elementary particle of the universe is a mass-energy duality, inert-moving duality. This defines everything in the universe and this renders that ALL things in the universe are just various formats of the base elementary particles and all forces and processes derive from the ongoing motion between the mass/energy poles.

 

And this means that the universe is not a collection of disciplines but a oneness of intertwined TEMPORARY sub-evolutions. And that life is just one of them.

And this means that commonsense, not academEnglish, is the best scientific approach to comprehension of the universe.

 

Dov Henis (comments from the 22^nd century)

Edited January 26, 2013 by Dov

[michel123456]

Science Comprehension Derives From Data Assessment

And most data is all around us. We just have to look around, notice, assess.

 

Remember that EVERYTHING in the present universe started from a minute singularity and that the universe keeps expanding. This is an evolving system, a system that derives from moving between two poles, all-mass and all-energy.

 

This is possible only if the elementary particle of the universe is a mass-energy duality, inert-moving duality. This defines everything in the universe and this renders that ALL things in the universe are just various formats of the base elementary particles and all forces and processes derive from the ongoing motion between the mass/energy poles.

 

And this means that the universe is not a collection of disciplines but a oneness of intertwined TEMPORARY sub-evolutions. And that life is just one of them.

And this means that commonsense, not academEnglish, is the best scientific approach to comprehension of the universe.

 

Dov Henis (comments from the 22^nd century)

Hi Dov.

 

_you are certainly correct on 2 things:

 

1. To think, to learn, to conduct experiments, to make science, that's all good but that's not enough. What one has to do is to ponder.

 

2. The betrayal of the Enlightenment science heritage is a fact. The Renaissance Man is dead. Science has been chopped in so many disciplines with so many "eminencies" that there is almost no way to find a single "common sense" explanation to anything. Each discipline examines only a part of a one and single phenomena that as long as we proceed becomes more and more complicated. The Enlightenment asked for simple answers to divulgate and enlight humanity. IOW we are going into darkness, we know more and more and understand less and less.

 

On the other hand my opinion is the following:

 

_There is no conspiracy.There is no hidden agenda in today's science.

Or if there is one, it is not on purpose. I truly believe that most scientists have a genuine interest in discovering what is going on instead of pushing their own beliefs.

But maybe I am naive and completely wrong on this.

 

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

I googled Dov Henis: you have spread your ideas widely over the Net.

 

Maybe it's time to discuss.

Edited January 26, 2013 by michel123456

[Bignose]

Science Comprehension Derives From Data Assessment

And most data is all around us. We just have to look around, notice, assess.

 

Remember that EVERYTHING in the present universe started from a minute singularity and that the universe keeps expanding. This is an evolving system, a system that derives from moving between two poles, all-mass and all-energy.

 

This is possible only if the elementary particle of the universe is a mass-energy duality, inert-moving duality. This defines everything in the universe and this renders that ALL things in the universe are just various formats of the base elementary particles and all forces and processes derive from the ongoing motion between the mass/energy poles.

 

And this means that the universe is not a collection of disciplines but a oneness of intertwined TEMPORARY sub-evolutions. And that life is just one of them.

And this means that commonsense, not academEnglish, is the best scientific approach to comprehension of the universe.

 

Dov Henis (comments from the 22^nd century)

hmmmmmmmmm. More words. Distinctly lacking in evidence. Any chance you're going to post some of that soon?

 

Without evidence supporting your claims, you are basically asking us to believe in the church of Dov Henis. Isn't that exactly what you were against in the first post?

[Dov]

Dear Bignose,

 

Since I rely on Newton I'll first try to reach him and ask for evidence for his comprehensions and on this occasion also for his research equipment supplier for his falling apple incident...

 

respectfully,

Dov

 

PS:

The wonders of evolution of the thinking human: the matching diameters of the human nostrils and his forefingers...

[Bignose]

Dear Bignose,

 

Since I rely on Newton I'll first try to reach him and ask for evidence for his comprehensions and on this occasion also for his research equipment supplier for his falling apple incident...

 

respectfully,

Dov

 

PS:

The wonders of evolution of the thinking human: the matching diameters of the human nostrils and his forefingers...

stay classy, Dov. Stay classy.

[Dov]

How can science be more theosophized than by regarding life-brain-mind-spirituality as being mysteriously apart-different from other mass formats?

Life is just another mass format. Self-replicating.

Most phenomena attributed (erroneously) to life only are ubiquitous, including culture, natural selection and (apparent) intelligence…

Why RNA genes are the heart of medicine…

Life underneath the academEnglish verbiage…

Intelliget Life

Life:

self-replicating mass format of evolving naturally selected RNA nucleotide(s), which is life’s primal organism.

Natural selection:

ubiquitous phenomenon of material, a mass format, that augments its energy constraint.

Mass-Energy:

inert-moving graviton(s), the fundamental particle of the universe, inert extremely briefly at the pre-big-bang singularity .

Intelligence:

learning from experience.

Intelligent Life

Life is an evolving system continuously undergoing natural selection i.e. continuously selecting, intelligently, opportunities to
augment its energy constraint in order to survive i.e. in order to avoid its own mass format being re-converted to energy.

Dov Henis (comments from 22^nd century)

url deleted by mod, per rule 2.7

 

PS:

Genome is a base organism evolved, and continuously modified, by the genes of its higher organism as its functional template.

DH

[Bignose]

How can science be more theosophized than by regarding life-brain-mind-spirituality as being mysteriously apart-different from other mass formats?

 

Life is just another mass format. Self-replicating.

 

Most phenomena attributed (erroneously) to life only are ubiquitous, including culture, natural selection and (apparent) intelligence…

 

Why RNA genes are the heart of medicine…

 

Life underneath the academEnglish verbiage…

Intelliget Life

 

Life:

self-replicating mass format of evolving naturally selected RNA nucleotide(s), which is life’s primal organism.

 

Natural selection:

ubiquitous phenomenon of material, a mass format, that augments its energy constraint.

 

Mass-Energy:

inert-moving graviton(s), the fundamental particle of the universe, inert extremely briefly at the pre-big-bang singularity .

 

Intelligence:

learning from experience.

 

Intelligent Life

Life is an evolving system continuously undergoing natural selection i.e. continuously selecting, intelligently, opportunities to

augment its energy constraint in order to survive i.e. in order to avoid its own mass format being re-converted to energy.

 

Dov Henis (comments from 22^nd century)

url deleted by mod, per rule 2.7

 

PS:

Genome is a base organism evolved, and continuously modified, by the genes of its higher organism as its functional template.

DH

Sure looks like more from the church of Dov Henis -- things we should just take your word for because no evidence is cited to back any of it up.

 

Tell me again why this isn't exactly what you were so bitter about in the first post in this thread?!?

[Ringer]

How can science be more theosophized than by regarding life-brain-mind-spirituality as being mysteriously apart-different from other mass formats?

I have no idea what you're even trying to say here.

Life is just another mass format. Self-replicating.

 

Most phenomena attributed (erroneously) to life only are ubiquitous, including culture, natural selection and (apparent) intelligence…

Well, since by their definition they only apply to biological things they can only be attributed to life. So unless you wish to make up definitions you're wrong.

Why RNA genes are the heart of medicine…

How so?

Life underneath the academEnglish verbiage…

Intelliget Life

 

Life:

self-replicating mass format of evolving naturally selected RNA nucleotide(s), which is life’s primal organism.

And what of the evolutionary processes that are not natural selection? Are they not life now?

Natural selection:

ubiquitous phenomenon of material, a mass format, that augments its energy constraint.

NS already has a definition and this isn't it.

Intelligent Life

Life is an evolving system continuously undergoing natural selection i.e. continuously selecting, intelligently, opportunities to

augment its energy constraint in order to survive i.e. in order to avoid its own mass format being re-converted to energy.

Again, more to it than NS. Also, if something is selecting things it isn't NS it's artificial selection.

PS:

Genome is a base organism evolved, and continuously modified, by the genes of its higher organism as its functional template.

DH

Genome is the full complement of an organisms genes. Seriously, if you want to make up definitions do it for words that don't already have strict definitions.