Notices
Results 1 to 65 of 65

Thread: Biochemists Turn To Quantum Physics

  1. #1 Biochemists Turn To Quantum Physics 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    171

    19 September 2005
    Biochemists Turn To Quantum Physics




    Rodriguez' team is using supercomputers which he says will soon run virtual models of molecules that can then 'react' with one another in simulations that accurately predict what will happen when they meet in the physical world. "We are at the point where we have developed computational tools to analyze the spin-dependent processes of biomolecules and have applied them to a few important test cases," he said. "But our methods are based on approaches that are valid for any molecular system. Therefore, hundreds more metalloproteins that are of great scientific and practical interest may be studied in the future with the methods we have developed. We are creating a new field that attempts to understand biochemical processes at the most fundamental level - that of quantum mechanics. It could be the most important step toward making biochemistry a predictive science rather than a descriptive one," he concluded.


    http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/200...runc_sys.shtml


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    177
    Tunneling of hydrogen is a well known effect of vital importance to the function of many key enzymes. Biochemists have been using this aspect of quantum physics to explain phenomena for the last couple of decades.

    So I think the article is misleading in attempting to characterize the application of quantum physics to biochemistry as something 'new'.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    171
    Quote Originally Posted by silylene
    Tunneling of hydrogen is a well known effect of vital importance to the function of many key enzymes. Biochemists have been using this aspect of quantum physics to explain phenomena for the last couple of decades.

    So I think the article is misleading in attempting to characterize the application of quantum physics to biochemistry as something 'new'.


    The field of quantum biology is brand new, this article is about one of the first computer generated models that can predict in advance how a chemical may react within a complex system based on the level of quantum mechanics.

    I think your view is backward, looking at what has been known by a very few in the resent past, and not realizing yourself what this actually means for the future of biochemistry and biology for the future.




    Quantum Computing in DNA
    Stuart Hameroff

    Hypothesis: DNA utilizes quantum information and quantum computation for various functions. Superpositions of dipole states of base pairs consisting of purine (A,G) and pyrimidine (C,T) ring structures play the role of qubits, and quantum communication (coherence, entanglement, non-locality) occur in the “pi stack” region of the DNA molecule.
    http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/...tingInDNA.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Metatron, you are confusing the issue by poorly defining your terms, mixing up your terminology and by misapplying the resultant morass. This is not helpful to either discussion or understanding.

    Point 1:
    Quantum biology: exactly what do you mean by the term? Please provide your definition so that we may all be working from the same page.
    Point 2:
    Quantum biology as I understand the term, and as silylene has pointed out, is not new. Just check out, for example, when the Journal of Physical Chemistry was first published and search for early mentions of quantum mechanics.
    Point 3:
    The novelty of Rodriguez's work does not lie in the application of quantum mechanics to metalloproteins: the importance of qm to the behaviour of chlorophyll and haemoglobin has long been recognised. What is new here is the use of An efficient computational method for locating minimum-energy crossing points (MECPs) between potential-energy surfaces in spin-crossover transitions and nonadiabatic spin-forbidden (bio)chemical reactions.
    [Source: Teepanis Chachiyo and Jorge H. Rodriguez A direct method for locating minimum-energy crossing points (MECPs) in spin-forbidden transitions and nonadiabatic reactions J. Chem. Phys. 123, 094711 (2005)]
    Point 4:
    While I will sit up and take note of anything that has Roger Penroses's name on it, the only similarity I can see between the discussion of quantum consciousness (for which you provide a link) and the use of spin transitions in Rodriguez's work, is that quantum appears in both contexts and both are related to biology. Please explain how this constitutes a new field, if this is not already apparent from the answer you have provided for Point 1, above.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    171
    Ophiolite wrote;

    Please explain how this constitutes a new field
    Ophiolite wrote;
    quantum biology as I understand the term, and as silylene has pointed out, is not new. Just check out, for example, when the Journal of Physical Chemistry was first published and search for early mentions of quantum mechanics.
    --------------------------------------------------
    "... recently a wealth of evidence has demonstrated the importance of quantum mechanics for biological systems and thus a new field of quantum biology is emerging..... Novel biophysical methods resulting from the fusion of biology and quantum mechanics have the potential to revolutionize our understanding of both fields."
    (Quantum Biology - Nanotechnology, 25 June 2000).
    --------------------------------------------------
    Well it looks like most everyone in the scientific community thinks this is new, so I think I'm safe in saying its new.


    Quantum biology: exactly what do you mean by the term? Please provide your definition so that we may all be working from the same page.
    What makes this new field so exciting is that just a few years ago hardly anyone could apply the phenomenon of quantum mechanics outside the level of the particle now it appears all levels of reality exhibit a quantum dynamic.


    As for defining quantum biology, take some time and study it, along with systems science and chaos theory, then you will see how these fields apply to one another.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Would you like to properly address the points I have raised in my previous post, or are you going to go round in circles again?

    Stating "Well it looks like most everyone in the scientific community thinks this is new" does not make it new. I refer you again to Point 2 above.

    How do you justify quoting Rodirguez's work as being evidence of this new field when he clearly relates the novelty to the computational methods employe, not the concepts.

    I want your definition of quantum biology so I can be sure we are working on the same page. I am perfectly well aware of and am acclimated to the notion that free will may well derive from quantum level effects - and I have been aware of this for a couple of decades.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    171
    Quantum mechanics is no more than a confusing name for how waves get symmetry. They do this by agreeing to nod(e) in time to each other while entering rotation.

    One most profound definition for quantum physics is the geometry which allows wave lengths to divide evenly into circumference (origin of electron shells ) this turns the atomic table into a nested (&fractal) sequence of 3D platonic solids -
    First all waves are sine waves.
    Then all waves in 3D are self organized into donuts / toroids / vortex pairs. (revolve a sine wave in 3D your get a donut / torus smoke ring.)

    Dan Winter
    The above is a concept that emerged as an idea from the collective of scientific thought. From This same collective of information quantum mechanics is also about to be applied as predictive computational models.

    To be on the same page you need first to be in the same library.



    In my words, our future use of this quantum knowledge can be described as a synchronization and amplification of our collective human experience. Once this self-organizing system crystallizes into a cohesive whole it will emanate a coherent signal to the universe that we have matured and can now take our place in the collective of the cosmos.


    "There is a destination, a possible goal. That is the way of individuation. Individuation means becoming an "individual," and, insofar as "individuality" embraces our innermost, last, and incomparable uniqueness, it also implies becoming one's own self. We could therefore translate individuation as "coming to selfhood" or "self-realization." . The transcendent function does not proceed without aim and purpose, but leads to the revelation of the essential human. It is in the first place a purely natural process, which may in some cases pursue its course without the knowledge or assistance of the individual, and can sometimes forcibly accomplish itself in the face of opposition. The meaning and purpose of the process is the realization, in all of its aspects, of the personality originally hidden away in the embryonic germ-plasma; the production and unfolding of the original potential wholeness.
    C. G. Jung, 1953
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    177
    Quote Originally Posted by Metatron
    In my words, our future use of this quantum knowledge can be described as a synchronization and amplification of our collective human experience. Once this self-organizing system crystallizes into a cohesive whole it will emanate a coherent signal to the universe that we have matured and can now take our place in the collective of the cosmos.
    What does that mean? Don't take this wrong, but it sounds like a catenation of lots of scientific-sounding words together with no content or meaning.

    As I said, even since biochemists realized that tunneling was an important factor in the chemical mechanism of enzyme function (20+ yrs ago), quantum chemistry got firmly entrenched into biochemistry ('quantum biochemistry'). Do you deny this? I suggest one does needs to differentiate between a journalist's or researcher's desire for self-advertisement through hype ( a behavior which helps to acquire research grants) and a new field of science....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Sorry, Metatron, I can only echo silylene's comments on this, though unlike him I'm not unduly concerned if you take it the wrong way. If your ideas are of value then they will have at least two characteristics that are presently absent:
    1) Clarity of exposition
    2) Ability to withstand rigorous interrogation

    Here we are not even examining your central themes, but diverting to discuss what you claim as a new field of science - quantum biology - even though we have demonstrated that it is not new.
    When asked to define this field you respond with what silylene has described as a catenation of lots of scientific-sounding words together with no content or meaning. (S)He has been too kind. I can define any field of science you care to name clearly, concisely and comprehensively in a single paragraph, or less. I am asking no more than this of you, for the single new field of quantum biology. Why are you avoiding providing this?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    171
    Quote Originally Posted by silylene
    Quote Originally Posted by Metatron
    In my words, our future use of this quantum knowledge can be described as a synchronization and amplification of our collective human experience. Once this self-organizing system crystallizes into a cohesive whole it will emanate a coherent signal to the universe that we have matured and can now take our place in the collective of the cosmos.
    What does that mean? Don't take this wrong, but it sounds like a catenation of lots of scientific-sounding words together with no content or meaning.

    As I said, even since biochemists realized that tunneling was an important factor in the chemical mechanism of enzyme function (20+ yrs ago), quantum chemistry got firmly entrenched into biochemistry ('quantum biochemistry'). Do you deny this? I suggest one does needs to differentiate between a journalist's or researcher's desire for self-advertisement through hype ( a behavior which helps to acquire research grants) and a new field of science....


    Its referring to the evolution of quantum consciousness.

    Just as separate biological systems {cells} assembled into singularities {complex life}bringing about cognition, the next evolutionary step is for a quantum cohesive populations of diverse but cohesive cognitive systems to emerge.
    These systems reflecting a larger cooperative system that they are embedded within.
    We are just now discovering these vast underlying system though the integration of biology and quantum physics.

    The work you are referring to as old news is nothing compared to the discoveries that are about to be made. The reason you insist that this is not new is that you have yet to realize its potential for the future.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Metatron
    Just as separate biological systems {cells} assembled into singularities {complex life}bringing about cognition,.
    What is the rationale for referring to complex life as a singularity? Why distinguish between the singularity of a cell from the singularity of a metazoan? This appears to be the use of jargon for no purpose other than to impress. Please explain the significance.

    Most definitions of cognition would place it amongst the higher forms of mental activity and thus absent from most multi-cellular organisms. Your statement, therefore, appears to be self-contradictory. Please clarify.

    Quote Originally Posted by Metatron
    quantum cohesive populations.
    Which are just what, exactly?

    Quote Originally Posted by Metatron
    We are just now discovering these vast underlying system though the integration of biology and quantum physics..
    Please identify two such systems, in order that we may understand what you are referring to.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    171
    Ophiolite wrote;
    What is the rationale for referring to complex life as a singularity? Why distinguish between the singularity of a cell from the singularity of a metazoan? This appears to be the use of jargon for no purpose other than to impress. Please explain the significance.

    Most definitions of cognition would place it amongst the higher forms of mental activity and thus absent from most multi-cellular organisms. Your statement, therefore, appears to be self-contradictory. Please clarify.

    The cells are an inevitable result when the underlying quantum wave dynamics collapse chemical relationships into self-replicating self-renewing self-contained evolving structures.

    Complex life is the next inevitable step when groups of cells collapse around this same quantum wave dynamic.

    Cognition within this framework can be defined as cellular communication utilizing quantum dynamics, which applies to complex life as well as simple life.
    What we are finding is that this quantum dynamic exists on all levels of life, and is what life is based upon. Simply put, life is a wave function just like light!


    Metatron wrote:
    quantum cohesive populations.
    Ophiolite wrote;
    Which are just what, exactly?

    Cooperative networks within a population that are self-renewing self-sustaining and evolving. Simply,...... quantum coherency within the flow of information among people. The next singularity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    177
    Quote Originally Posted by Metatron
    The cells are an inevitable result when the underlying quantum wave dynamics collapse chemical relationships into self-replicating self-renewing self-contained evolving structures.
    Huh? Biological cells have nothing to do with quantum wave collapses.

    Complex life is the next inevitable step when groups of cells collapse around this same quantum wave dynamic.
    Why? Prove this. Find a reference from a reputable refereed jouranl or give some rational logical reasoning to support this. I haven't ever seen, or heard of, or can even imagine why a biological cell would collapse in a quantum sense.

    Cognition within this framework can be defined as cellular communication utilizing quantum dynamics, which applies to complex life as well as simple life.
    Again, what are talking about? Propose a rational scientific mechanism, not just empty words.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    171
    Quote Originally Posted by silylene
    Quote Originally Posted by Metatron
    The cells are an inevitable result when the underlying quantum wave dynamics collapse chemical relationships into self-replicating self-renewing self-contained evolving structures.
    Huh? Biological cells have nothing to do with quantum wave collapses.

    Complex life is the next inevitable step when groups of cells collapse around this same quantum wave dynamic.
    Why? Prove this. Find a reference from a reputable refereed jouranl or give some rational logical reasoning to support this. I haven't ever seen, or heard of, or can even imagine why a biological cell would collapse in a quantum sense.

    Cognition within this framework can be defined as cellular communication utilizing quantum dynamics, which applies to complex life as well as simple life.
    Again, what are talking about? Propose a rational scientific mechanism, not just empty words.


    Biological systems and cognitive systems form around the information contained within waves dynamics.



    This is a quote from Catastrophe Theory,
    Semantic Models
    In section 13.8 of Structural Stability and Morphogenesis, René Thom proposes the following definitions and their implications.
    Every object, or physical form, can be represented as an attractor of a dynamical system on a space of internal variables.
    Such an object is stable, and so can be recognized, only when the corresponding attractor is structurally stable.
    All creation or destruction of forms, or morphogenesis, can be described by the disappearance of the attractors representing the initial forms, and their replacement (by capture) by the attractors representing the final forms. This process, called catastrophe, can be described on a space of external variables.
    Every structurally stable morphological process is described by a structurally stable catastrophe, or a system of structurally stable catastrophes, on the space of external variables.
    Every natural process decomposes into structurally stable islands, the chreods. The set of chreods and the multidimensional syntax controlling their positions constitute the semantic model.

    When the chreod is considered as a word of this multidimensional language, the meaning (signification) of this word is precisely that of the global topology of the associated attractor (or attractors) and of the catastrophes that it (or they) undergo. In particular, the signification of a given attractor is defined by the geometry of its domain of existence on the space of external variables and the topology of the regulation catastrophes bounding that domain.
    One result of this is that the signification of a form (chreod) manifests itself only by the catastrophes that create or destroy it. This gives the axiom dear to the formal linguists: that the meaning of a word is nothing more than the use of the word; this is also the axiom of the "bootstrap" physicists, according to whom a particle is completely defined by the set of interactions in which it participates.”
    --------------------------------------------------

    Simply put, he is stating that nature creates these points of order [chreods] in the same fundamental way we create langage to compress information at large!
    It such a ubiquitous process we use in language, math and communication technology we forget nature invented this process first by creating cells .

    I see this process as a collapse of information into a point, as the system at large reaches a threshold of complexity.
    This point is then kept stable by its surrounding parent matrix.


    Once these systems become self-replicating as in biological systems it can continue drawing additional information from these outer matrices.
    This is the purpose of why living systems behave in this way. This instability enables the system to collect information in mathematical process {Algorithmic iteration} therefore the system builds more and more internal complexity , patterned after its surrounding matrices, or Environment.


    Platonic solids can contain chemical information in packets but cannot move this information in a life like way.

    Abiogenesis is not the result of the some mysterious alchemy or some extra-terrestrial origin, panspermia {pseudoscience }
    Abiogenesis is simply a point when chemical organization integrates with the quantum field.

    This seems the simple answer to the question; what is life?
    Life is a wave.

    life is music, the platonic solids are the individual notes, the wave is the melody.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    177
    Quote Originally Posted by "Metatron
    Biological systems and cognitive systems form around the information contained within waves dynamics.
    No it doesn't - real life examples please. And that quote of yours is simply bizarre. Reference please? I bet it isn't from a reuptable refereed journal.

    Simply put, he is stating that nature creates these points of order [chreods] in the same fundamental way we create langage to compress information at large!
    It such a ubiquitous process we use in language, math and communication technology we forget nature invented this process first by creating cells .

    I see this process as a collapse of information into a point, as the system at large reaches a threshold of complexity.
    This point is then kept stable by its surrounding parent matrix.
    You continuously confuse analogy with observed reality. The two are not necessarily the same. Simply because you can construct an analogy doesn't mean a fantasy will become real.

    Platonic solids can contain chemical information in packets but cannot move this information in a life like way.
    Real life examples please!

    Abiogenesis is simply a point when chemical organization integrates with the quantum field.
    Real life examples again please!

    Life is a wave.
    Real life examples please! A mouse is a wave? Or is a crocodile? And a toaster is not a wave?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    171
    Metatron
    Biological systems and cognitive systems form around the information contained within waves dynamics.
    silylene"No it doesn't - real life examples please. And that quote of yours is simply bizarre. Reference please? I bet it isn't from a reuptable refereed journal.


    http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex...tumbiology.htm
    Enjoy!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    I was just browsing through an old copy of SCIAM (Jan 2005), when I came across an article by Michael Shermer. Let me offer this quote:

    The attempt to link the weirdness of the quantum world to mysteries of the macro world (such as consciousness) is not new. The best candidate to connect the two comes from University of Oxford physicist Roger Penrose and physician Stuart Hameroff of the Arizona Health Sciences Center, whose theory of quantum consciousness has generated much heat but little light. Inside our neurons are tiny hollow microtubules that act like structural scaffolding. Their conjecture (and that's all it is) is that something inside the microtubules may initiate a wave-function collapse that results in the quantum coherence of atoms. The quantum coherence causes neurotransmitters to be released into the synapses between neurons, thus triggering them to fire in a uniform pattern that creates thought and consciousness. Because a wave-function collapse can come about only when an atom is "observed" (that is, affected in any way by something else), the late neuroscientist Sir John Eccles, another proponent of the idea, even suggested that "mind" may be the observer in a recursive loop from atoms to molecules to neurons to thought to consciousness to mind to atoms....

    In reality, the gap between subatomic quantum effects and large-scale macro systems is too large to bridge. In his book The Unconscious Quantum (Prometheus Books, 1995), University of Colorado physicist Victor Stenger demonstrates that for a system to be described quantum-mechanically, its typical mass (m), speed (v) and distance (d) must be on the order of Planck's constant (h). "If mvd is much greater than h, then the system probably can be treated classically." Stenger computes that the mass of neural transmitter molecules and their speed across the distance of the synapse are about two orders of magnitude too large for quantum effects to be influential. There is no micro-macro connection.
    Doubtless Penrose and Hameroff have one or more rebuttals to Shermer, which might be interesting to read. But Shermer's mention of Victor Stenger sent me checking on what he has to say about quantum this and quantum that. Interestingly enough, he has an article of the same title (though with a different slant) in Skeptical Inquirer (1997). I didn't have that issue, so I had to rely on the web-based version. Stenger said there, "Not everyone has been happy with the conventional interpretation of quantum mechanics, which offers no real explanation for wave function collapse. The desire for consensus on an ontological interpretation of quantum mechanics has led to hundreds of proposals over the years, none gaining even a simple majority of support among physicists or philosophers."

    But what Metatron is saying in an earlier post of this thread seems like it is from Deepak Chopra more than any scientist. Quantum Consciousness?

    our future use of this quantum knowledge can be described as a synchronization and amplification of our collective human experience. Once this self-organizing system crystallizes into a cohesive whole it will emanate a coherent signal to the universe that we have matured and can now take our place in the collective of the cosmos.
    "Quantum knowledge" is science fiction, my friend. There is no "collective human experience" that has been tested or demonstrated. "Self-organizing system crystallizes into a cohesive whole" is double-speak and means nothing with relation to the position you've taken.

    It will "emanate a coherent signal?" It being our "collective human experience?" On what medium will this "signal" "emanate?" Are you suggesting that the universe is a deity that is awaiting our "signal" of "maturation?"

    Is "our place in the collective of the cosmos" some sort of salvation? What evidence do you have of these points?

    The idea of a consciously evolving universe is quite similar to the strong anthropic principle in cosmology and a central tenet of Chopra's dogma. This is the same nutjob that claims humans can levitate by "melding their consciousness with the unified field."

    I think people just like to attach cool terms like "quantum" to their alleged "new ways of thinking." Indeed, these people also like the word "paradigm" and get off on announcing a new one. I think there are those, too, that are simply put off by the fact that our significance in the universe is so inconsequential. Copernicus proved we weren't the center of the universe; Darwin demonstrated that we weren't the center of biology; modern astronomers tell us that we are on but one of untold trillions of rocks captured in the gravities of untold trillions of stars. Is it necessary that humanity remain so significant -that we be legends in our own minds?

    I don't know that Metatron is one of the people in the preceding paragraph, but I have to wonder when he makes statements like:

    Cooperative networks within a population that are self-renewing self-sustaining and evolving. Simply,...... quantum coherency within the flow of information among people. The next singularity.
    Are these networks technological, biological or mystical? Is this population humanity as a whole, portions of humanity or something else? You say "quantum coherency" is "simply" a concept, but this is an adverb with a unit of measure that means "the smallest unit of measure" modifying it. The act of being coherent, or "sticking together" in the smallest possible unit. That's what you are saying without saying. Double speak.

    So, people communicating in a medium of the smallest measurable unit in a manner that sticks together? A communication network that is, apparently, able to replicate and evolve, yet willing to cooperate with other networks. Do roaming charges and free weekend minutes apply? Can I get rollover minutes?

    Forgive my jest, but it really is funny.



    Shermer, Michael (2005) Quantum Quackery Scientific American 292 (1)

    Stenger, Victor J (1997) Quantum Quackery. Skeptical Inquirer, 21 (1).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    171
    The idea of a consciously evolving universe is quite similar to the strong anthropic principle in cosmology and a central tenet of Chopra's dogma. This is the same nutjob that claims humans can levitate by "melding their consciousness with the unified field."
    You hate Deepak Chopra! wow someone needs a hug.



    Love is the impulse of evolution that expands life.
    ~Deepak Chopra
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    171
    SkinWalker wrote;
    So, people communicating in a medium of the smallest measurable unit in a manner that sticks together? A communication network that is, apparently, able to replicate and evolve, yet willing to cooperate with other networks. Do roaming charges and free weekend minutes apply? Can I get rollover minutes?

    Forgive my jest, but it really is funny.
    Quantum communication utilizing a wave form is pretty much ubiquitous. Why you would think this a strange idea ?
    Light is a quanta of energy, when it enters a biological system it is processed into cognitive information.

    Life evolves around this information, whether your a Cro-Magnon man hunting on the plains of Africa, or a student studying quantum mechanics on his lap top.
    Information travels in the universe in wave forms and it remains so as it passes into and out of biological systems or technological ones.

    The point is this, The position of the particle,molecule or biological system is determined by the information contained in the wave form as it relates to the observer.

    The position of the Cro-Magnon as he approaches his prey is determined by the medium of light that connect the two points {predator and prey} within a quantum field of light.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    171
    "Quantum knowledge" is science fiction, my friend. There is no "collective human experience" that has been tested or demonstrated. "Self-organizing system crystallizes into a cohesive whole" is double-speak and means nothing with relation to the position you've taken.

    It will "emanate a coherent signal?" It being our "collective human experience?" On what medium will this "signal" "emanate?" Are you suggesting that the universe is a deity that is awaiting our "signal" of "maturation?"

    Is "our place in the collective of the cosmos" some sort of salvation? What evidence do you have of these points?

    Biological systems form around information contained within the quantum wave form. Whether it is a eukaryote cell, plant cell, animal or a cohesive population that resonates a coherent signal to the “universe” at large.

    The reason I used “universe” is to be respectful to diverce views points of ones reading and that they feel free to interpret this word from an ecological to the theological view point.

    I would appreciate that you show me the same courtesy and cease the attempt to stereotype my own personal Religious view points {that I have not brought up}though ridicule and innuendo.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by Metatron
    Biological systems form around information contained within the quantum wave form. Whether it is a eukaryote cell, plant cell, animal or a cohesive population that resonates a coherent signal to the “universe” at large.
    Where's the evidence? What are the data? Moreover, your use of "eukaryote" cell seems redundent as both plants and animals can have eukaryotic cells.

    "Cohesive population" is ambiguous terminology and could refer to many things. Do you care to be more specific? What binds what population. Or are you using "cohesive" in the sense that a population is ordered? If so, what defines the order? Indeed, what frequency is this "resonance" occurring on and how is it measured? What is the "signal," specifically, and what mechanisms in the "universe" can receive it?

    So far, all you've done is offer some double-speak. You've demonstrated nothing that is measurable, testable, or potentially falsifiable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Metatron
    The reason I used “universe” is to be respectful to diverce views points of ones reading and that they feel free to interpret this word from an ecological to the theological view point.
    This makes no sense. Science relies on empiricism, and that which can be measured, tested, falsified, etc.. Theology objects to these. Either you wish to appeal to the rigors of science or you don't. So far, you've not demonstrated the former desire.

    Quote Originally Posted by Metatron
    I would appreciate that you show me the same courtesy and cease the attempt to express what you assume are my Religious view points, though ridicule and innuendo.
    I assure you, I don't mean to ridicule. I am simply describing my impressions of what I observe in your posts. If I am wrong, I gladly -and willingly- accept correction. But I stand by what I've said to date. There isn't anything specific in your assertions so far. But there is much that is esoteric and ambiguous.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    171
    SkinWalker wrote;
    So far, all you've done is offer some double-speak. You've demonstrated nothing that is measurable, testable, or potentially falsifiable.

    Metatron wrote;
    Quantum communication utilizing a wave form is pretty much ubiquitous. Why you would think this a strange idea ?
    Light is a quanta of energy, when it enters a biological system it is processed into cognitive information.
    You do not believe light is real measurable or testable?

    IF YOU CAN READ THIS YOU ARE UTILIZING LIGHT WAVES !
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Describe what those measurements are in regards to your assertions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    171
    This reminds me of the old Zen proverb "Riding the ox in search of the ox"

    What measurements are you referring to?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    177
    Metatron, your arguments really make no sense at all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    171
    Thank you, that was very helpfull
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    It matched or exceeded the helpfullness of your own posts.

    Metatron, several well educated, intelligent persons, each capable of writing in a coherent and clear manner have stated, in various ways, that your own writings lack cohesion and logic; that they are filled with double-speak and a catenation of terminology; that you respond to requests for hard facts with high sounding phrases that obscure rather than clarify, or with quotations from dubiious sources that muddy the waters further.

    Do you think it possible that these persons may have something? Might it be that you are expressing yourself very badly? Or is it simpler to believe that they are narrowminded, argumentative, unimaginative hypocrites?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    171
    Michael Crichton on consensus:

    I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. [...]

    The remainder of Metatron's post can be found at: http://www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/GW-Aliens-Crichton.html

    It was deleted in so that The Science Forum could adhere to Fair Use standards. The post was lifted from Crichton's Caltech Michelin Lecture
    on January 17, 2003 titled, Aliens Cause Global Warming.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    177
    Quote Originally Posted by Metatron

    I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science.
    Consensus science is science supported by data and testable hypotheses. The accumulation of data supporting a hypotheses or theory adds greater and greater credibility to the theory.

    Bogus science is flapping the lips with no data, lacking testable hypotheses, and throwing around scientific words without meaning.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    171
    You are not telling the truth, You deleted my quotes and then in there place linked an intelligent design sight that I has never been on, and now you delete my Michael Crichton quote and link it back to a site on aliens that I’ve never been. this is obviously an attempt to try to discredited my thread though a misuse of power.



    The remainder of Metatron's post can be found at: http://www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/GW-Aliens-Crichton.html

    It was deleted in so that The Science Forum could adhere to Fair Use standards. The post was lifted from Crichton's Caltech Michelin Lecture
    on January 17, 2003 titled, Aliens Cause Global Warming.





    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    It matched or exceeded the helpfullness of your own posts.

    Metatron, several well educated, intelligent persons, each capable of writing in a coherent and clear manner have stated, in various ways, that your own writings lack cohesion and logic; that they are filled with double-speak and a catenation of terminology; that you respond to requests for hard facts with high sounding phrases that obscure rather than clarify, or with quotations from dubiious sources that muddy the waters further.

    Do you think it possible that these persons may have something? Might it be that you are expressing yourself very badly? Or is it simpler to believe that they are narrowminded, argumentative, unimaginative hypocrites?



    http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/




    Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
    Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period
    Michael Crichton





    Prevarication:
    deliberately ambiguous or evasive behavior: the attempt to avoid giving a direct and honest answer or opinion, or a clear and truthful account of a situation, often by telling a lie
    ad hominem:
    appealing to emotions: appealing to people’s emotions and beliefs rather than their ability to think.

    ad hom·i·nem (hŏm'ə-nĕm', -nəm)
    adj.
    Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    171
    I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science.Michael Crichton


    silylene wrote
    Consensus science is science supported by data and testable hypotheses. The accumulation of data supporting a hypotheses or theory adds greater and greater credibility to the theory.

    Bogus science is flapping the lips with no data, lacking testable hypotheses, and throwing around scientific words without meaning.

    Those are not my words they are Michael Crichton's so your arguing with a scientist.


    This confusion could be remedied if the moderator would cease editing my responses in order to win a debate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    177
    Those are not my words they are Michael Crichton's so your arguing with a scientist.
    Michael Crichton got his degree in anthropology, and then got an MD. He's a science fiction author and screenplay writer. I could not find any refereed publications he authored.

    And why do you assume I am not a scientist? My bio might suprise you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    171
    Quote Originally Posted by silylene
    Those are not my words they are Michael Crichton's so your arguing with a scientist.
    Michael Crichton got his degree in anthropology, and then got an MD. He's a science fiction author and screenplay writer. I could not find any refereed publications he authored.

    And why do you assume I am not a scientist? My bio might suprise you.

    I haven’t made any assumptions about you , why do you insinuate that I did?
    You are however veering away from point of the statement, you are debating a scientist not me.





    CRICHTON, (John) Michael. American. Born in Chicago, Illinois, October 23, 1942. Educated at Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, A.B. (summa cum laude) 1964 (Phi Beta Kappa). Visiting Lecturer in Anthropology at Cambridge University, England, 1965. Henry Russell Shaw Travelling Fellow, 1964-65. Entered Harvard Medical School, M.D. 1969; spent one year as a post-doctoral fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Sciences, La Jolla, California 1969-1970. Visiting Writer, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1988.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by Metatron
    You are not telling the truth,
    I'm only going to tell you once, sir. If you type there and accuse me of lying, you had best get more specific than just being pissed because I moderated your posts to help The Science Forum adhere appropriately to Fair Use Standards.

    I deleted your LARGE QUOTES OF OTHER TEXTS and listed the very first link that google provided with the text of the source you inappropriately quoted large chunks of.

    Quote Originally Posted by Metatron
    You deleted my quotes and then in there place linked an intelligent design sight that I has never been on,
    Are you suggesting that you obtained all those quotes from their original sources yourself, independently of any other site or source?

    Quote Originally Posted by Metatron
    and now you delete my Michael Crichton quote and link it back to a site on aliens that I’ve never been.
    Are you suggesting that you were in attendence at Crichton's lecture and the quote is exactly as you transcribed it as you listened?

    Quote Originally Posted by Metatron
    this is obviously an attempt to try to discredited my thread though a misuse of power.
    No, sir. You're doing a fine job of discrediting yourself through the quote-mining you've engaged in as well as the violations of Fair Use Standards. Consider yourself warned about that matter formally. If you feel it is a "misuse of power," then you are free to PM one of the Administrators to complain.

    The texts I linked to included the entire bits of your quotes as well as their appropriate contexts. Moreover, it seems very clear that if the creationist link I provided wasn't the originator of the original quote-mining endeavor, it was another creationist organization. That you chose a set of out-of-context creationists quotes may or may not be telling. But that isn't for me to decide, its for others. Regardless, it is not only fair that readers have access to the remainder of the texts of the sources you copied large portions of text you copied, but it is also fair to the original authors/creators of the texts.


    ad hominem:
    appealing to emotions: appealing to people’s emotions and beliefs rather than their ability to think. [...]

    Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives.
    From the language called Latin: argumentum ad hominem - "argument at/to the man"

    Stop relying on irrelevant websites and start educating yourself via primary sources of information and you'll have less problem making your point. Your first statement I quoted in this post is an example of argumentum ad hominem. You accuse me of lying, but fail to actually demonstrate it. You've accused me of being deceptive, but have failed to demonstrate it.

    You, quite clearly, are attempting to provoke.

    Stop provoking. Stop quoting large sources of text in violation of Fair Use Standards (and, perhaps, copyright).

    I realize that part of your resentment to me is because I've challenged some of your assertions, so I'm willing to give you some lattitude. But if you have further disagreement with my moderation, I suggest you PM an Administrator rather than air it out in the threads. Your criticisms of my moderation to date are unfounded and I have acted in the best interests of The Science Forum and have enforced the standards of Fair Use

    If you want to post here, you have to be prepared to: 1) have others criticize your assertions when they disagree, 2) have your posts moderated if needed because of rules violations, 3) expect that there are those that believe in the scientific method and will object to extraordinary claims that don't have extraordinary evidence.

    If you have further questions or objections, PM either myself or an Administrator.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    171
    Stop editing out my post and linking them back to creationist and pseudoscientific web sites this is dishonest. And stop hiding behind the administrator are you a child? how old are you any way?

    Remember how this all started, you falsely accused me of plagiarism when no such crime occurred. I apologized for my mistake I had made in my referencing, but clearly I had giving credited and referenced the source of the information and then after the fact you accused me of plagiarism. Clearly you were mistaken in this accusation and also never admitted your mistake. Now if you want to be a man and admit you made a mistake also we can then bury the hatchet.

    Your move.
    ---------
    ----
    -
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    While we are waiting for the earth to revolve and that move to occur, let me ask Metatron this.
    If we can consider Michael Crichton the entertainer to be a scientist, and therefore his words to be worthy of scientific consideration, why are you so ready to discard mine?
    Also Metatron, could you explain the relevance to the wikipedia quote link as a response to my suggestion that perhaps you were not getting your point across all that well.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
    Posts
    861
    Thank you Ophiolite for trying to get this thread back on thread.

    This confusion could be remedied if the moderator would cease editing my responses in order to win a debate.
    Metatron, if you have a problem with a moderator here, PM me. But please, be convinced that I have already assessed this situation and that I can find little sympathy for your situation. I urge you to reconcile and alter your position here at the board, meaning that you try to be sensitive about sources, don't post pages long of information (but merely use url-reference), and stop attacking moderators. Failure to do so will result in a serious danger to your future here.

    And stop hiding behind the administrator are you a child?
    To make myself more clear, seize your insolence, or consider yourself banned.

    Now, please, in the tradition of Ophiolite, let us continue with the discussion regarding the original topic of this thread.

    Mr U
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Metatron, I am also wondering if perhaps some of the heated differences that have arisen are down to a confusion over intent. Let me explain.
    On the one hand you have stated at least once that you are not a scientist and that you would welcome comments upon your idea of the Vessica Attractor as the source of morphological diversity.
    Yet when other posters seek to comment, identifying weaknesses in your arguments, or lack of clarity in your posted argument, you react very negatively. You then begin to present your case as if it were fact and as if we were all somewhat shortsighted and unimaginative.
    It really would be helpfull if
    a) you could clarify that you are looking for serious input and comment.
    b) be prepared to listen to that when it is offered

    And perhaps the rest of us could make additional effort to be openminded in our consideration of M's ideas. I shall make that effort, chalenging as it is. :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    177
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    And perhaps the rest of us could make additional effort to be openminded in our consideration of M's ideas.
    I will try to be as open-minded as possible. Please just don't ask me to suspend reality and limit the differentiation between fiction and science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    171
    Quote Originally Posted by silylene
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    And perhaps the rest of us could make additional effort to be openminded in our consideration of M's ideas.
    I will try to be as open-minded as possible. Please just don't ask me to suspend reality and limit the differentiation between fiction and science.
    "The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
    the one that heralds new discoveries,
    is not 'Eureka!' ('I found it!')
    but rather 'hmm....that's funny...'"
    - Isaac Asimov
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Freshman Yevaud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    87
    Yes, but if one goes far beyond the rules as they're generally accepted, a huge burden of proof descends on them. The reason being, known scientific thought works. It may be imperfect, but that's known and accepted. All theory is a "work in progress."

    However, one can go too far in their hypotheses. At that point, it not only challenge's all known theory on a subject, it also challenge's the basic precepts of the matter. That's a huge thing.

    That's the point where people, IMO, lose it.

    Just a thought.
    *Welcome, my friends, to the show that never ends*
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    171
    Quote Originally Posted by Yevaud
    Yes, but if one goes far beyond the rules as they're generally accepted, a huge burden of proof descends on them. The reason being, known scientific thought works. It may be imperfect, but that's known and accepted. All theory is a "work in progress."

    However, one can go too far in their hypotheses. At that point, it not only challenge's all known theory on a subject, it also challenge's the basic precepts of the matter. That's a huge thing.

    That's the point where people, IMO, lose it.

    Just a thought.



    Wise thoughts my friend. Burden is right.

    As for as “intent” the way this model came about was by deciphering the information contained within a fossil artifact, then placing it within the context of the fossil record. I had no prior intention of proving or disproving anything. It just occurred as a natural confluence of elements that ties together information that then produces new information.


    In hindsight the best way I’ve found to test a new model is the "bootstrap approach".
    If your newly discovered model begins to provide solutions to problems not yet solved by present models its probably a good model.

    When these solutions provide information that you never expected or could not have predicted its probably going in the right direction.

    If this new information can then shed light on problems you formerly never knew existed, and further still those solutions show practical applications to help our species survive in changing times you are no longer objectively observing the evolutionary process you are now participating in the evolutionary process.

    Evolution and the study of evolution can never be solely objective activities.
    Both are the acquisition and utilization of information from the world around us, whether it is a plant cell utilizing light waves via the photosynthetic process or a scientist receiving information on skin cancer cells via fiber optics.

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

    We gain our ends only with the laws of nature; we control her only by understanding her laws.


    Jacob Bronowski

    -----------------
    -----
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    This artifact that set you off on this burdensome journey was found - correct me if I am mistaken - on a stream bed. Its provenance is therefore exceedingly dubious.
    No other example of this kind has been found since - correct me if I am wrong. Its significance, then, seems highly questionable.
    This artifact has yet to be described by you in a technical way - dimensions, geometry, composition, etc. Please do so. An absence of vague references to collapse of waveforms into cohesive communities would be appreciated.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    A stream bed? Then, of course, its usless for any scholarly discussion or hypotheses regarding a specific stratum. The stream and its load is an intrusive feature, therefore its alluvial deposition has to be assumed to be from up stream and certainly not the strata at the locality of the find.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    171
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    A stream bed? Then, of course, its usless for any scholarly discussion or hypotheses regarding a specific stratum. The stream and its load is an intrusive feature, therefore its alluvial deposition has to be assumed to be from up stream and certainly not the strata at the locality of the find.



    The stream bed is an upland stream, not a lowland river system, there is no other geological stratum up stream supplying any other types of rock.
    The rock is a layered fossilized cyanobacteria of Cambrian age which reflect certain environmental conditions (shallow inland sea) the fossil also reflects this same conditions and make up, oolites bound together by cyanobacteria and forming in the identical conditions of the surrounding early Cambrian strata.
    Also the artifact has been subject to the same distinct yellow mineral stain of the local insitu chert.


    Further this issue of the geological sequence does not apply the same way at it usually would, in that this artifact is not a fossil of animal in an environment, but rather a crystallizing point within the environment becoming an animal.

    This artifact representing not only the surrounding strata but also the midway point between this autocatalytic process at large collapsing to a point as a microcosm of dynamics and components of the environment.


    "Waves of oscillation in open water, which is less than half their wavelength in depth, shape (by back and forth traction) the sediments on the floor into oscillation ripples. Under such conditions, in the marine environment in warm climatic zones, evaporation precipitates CaCO3 as aragonite on shifting particles. As these become coated, they grow, somewhat like rolling snowballs, into spheres called oolites. Once oolites have reached sand size, they can be easily redistributed by currents and so they travel as migrating submarine dunes or bars and come ultimately to rest, along with settling lime muds, in quieter water below the beveling level of the wave base."
    http://geowords.com/histbooknetscape/c04.htm




    from earlier in this thread;

    The fossil came from a creek bed cutting down though early Cambrian strata This strata is made up of dolomite limestone. The strata this originated from developed layers of a microbial mats in fine silty mud, that is devoid of any particles that would induce the growth of stromatalites, so instead you just find layers of cyanobacteia. When fine quartz particles our introduced, oolites are formed.

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

    This fossil form contains a matrix of environmental components consisting of oolites, cyanobactia and what appears to be a colonization of eukaryotes geometrically dispersed throughout the structure.{ this eukaryote micro-fossils structure needs to confirmed with a laboratory analysis} the cyanobacterail structure is confirmed. This structure has also recorded the dynamical aspect of its environment. This type of oolites can only form in certain tidal conditions of shallow sea with long wave pulses the overall form{of oolites and cyanobateria filaments} also are consistent with this pattern of flow. It is the size and shape of a large ostrich egg with a flat underside. Probably larger originally} the pattering of construction is spiraled with two right and left apertures shaped in such a way as to redirect the flow of sea water into the structure. And then though the layers.



    Understanding the intricacies of system science, non-linear dynamics and self-organization is a major shift and how we see the world.

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

    --
    -
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    What's the lat/long of the stream locality? What is the geologic member that it "cuts through?"

    What dating methods were applied? What other analyses were applied?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    171
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    What's the lat/long of the stream locality? What is the geologic member that it "cuts through?"

    What dating methods were applied? What other analyses were applied?



    Potosi Dolomite,
    (JBD & JBP)
    Knox Supergroup,

    Cambrian System

    Type locality and use of name: The Potosi Dolomite was named for cherty carbonate rocks exposed at Potosi, Washington County, Mo. (Winslow, 1894, p. 331, 351, 355). This unit was traced from the type locality, through the subsurface, and to its exposures in northern Illinois, where it has been called the Trempealeau Formation (Workman and Bell, 1948) and the Potosi Dolomite (Buschbach, 1964) and where it overlies the Franconia Formation and underlies the Eminence Formation. From this Illinois understanding, use of the name was extended to Indiana by Droste and Patton (1985), but in modified concept. Rocks equivalent to the Eminence of Illinois are included in the Potosi of Indiana because the Eminence of Illinois becomes much less sandy eastward and gives way to predominantly dolomitic rocks that are badly distinguishable in Indiana from the main body of Potosi rocks.
    Description: The Potosi Dolomite consists of fine- to medium-grained dolomite and a few thin interbeds of shale or siltstone and sporadic quartz sand grains that are most common in northern Indiana. In color it grades downward from light shades of gray and brown to medium and dark shades of gray and brown. Glauconite is sporadic in many places and is typical in the upper and lower beds of the Potosi in northern Indiana. Chert is not nearly so abundant in the Potosi as it is in rocks of the Prairie du Chien Group. Small cavities lined with drusy quartz are characteristic of the Potosi, but similar cavities are less common in some zones in Prairie du Chien rocks above the Potosi.
    In Indiana the Potosi Dolomite is present throughout the subsurface. It ranges in the subsurface from less than 20 feet (6 m) in northwestern Indiana, where it overlies the Franconia Formation, to more than 2,000 feet (610 m) in southwestern Indiana, as judged from data from deep wells in Kentucky and Illinois. The southward increase in thickness results in part from downstepping of the Potosi through the whole of the Franconia, Ironton, and Galesville stratigraphic interval to where the Potosi lies on the Eau Claire Formation in southwestern Indiana. (See also the discussion under "Munising Group.")
    In northwestern Indiana the Potosi lies conformably on the Franconia Formation. Elsewhere the Potosi lies conformably on the Davis Formation or on the Eau Claire Formation. The top of the Potosi is generally conformable with the overlying Oneota Dolomite except in northwesternmost Indiana where the St. Peter Sandstone lies unconformable above the Potosi.
    Correlation: Traditionally, the Potosi Dolomite has been considered as the youngest rocks in the Cambrian System (Trempealeauan Stage). The Potosi of Indiana correlates with the Trempealeau Group (Formation) of Wisconsin and Michigan; a lower part of the undifferentiated Knox Dolomite and an upper part of the Eau Claire Formation as recognized by Janssens (1973) in Ohio the Elvins Formation and the Copper Ridge, Potosi, and Eminence Dolomites of Kentucky; and the Derby-Doe Run Member of the Franconia Formation, the Potosi Dolomite, and the Eminence Formation of Illinois. (See Droste and Shaver, 1983, and Shaver and others, 1985.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    171
    Vesica Attractor Gastrapoda



    Oolites............................... Blue green algae.
    Eukaryote cells









    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    171
    The fossil has a opening all the way though the center just as the photo-shop rendering.

    This representation is what I think this embryo would have looked like when it was alive. The right intake aperture became dominant over the left, resulting in an asymmetrical growth of extruding mineralization around the left aperture.

    This particular vesica attractor would have resulted in a conch, or gastropod design.
    The dominant right intake would develop a gill while the left developed a spiraling shell and central axis of the [columella.]

    This would keep spiraling until the shell enclosed the left aperture complexly. This left spiraling point then became what most would assume as the front. Myself included.

    If both chambers keep a symmetrical flow, which would have been very rare, the result would be a symmetrical body plan and two gills.

    If the attractor retained the shell and a symmetrical flow though the apertures, the result would be a cephalopod. This shell is not a genetic adaptation but more precisely the a receipt from paying {Schrödinger entropy debt} http://www.entropylaw.com/thermoevolution9.html

    {The oolitic mass would shrink [dissipate] during this pulse into a higher ordered state.}

    A fish’s body plan is the most perfect of all the possible out comes, and looks as though it only occurred once. All the myriad shell designs now appear to me as beautiful attempts at a fish’s body plan. Even natures screw up’s are geometrical marvels.

    The fossil came from a creek bed cutting down though early Cambrian strata This strata is made up of dolomite limestone. The strata this originated from developed layers of a microbial mats in fine silty mud, that is devoid of any particles that would induce the growth of stromatalites, so instead you just find layers of cyanobacteia. When fine quartz particles our introduced, oolites are formed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    171



    http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_...-t-000007.html

    Yes, predisposition is a problem, if someone has an intention in seeing or proving a point his or her work is automatically bias this is expected and countered by having the work checked by others that have differing biases. I believe what you are really asking is how we as individuals can seek answers without having the question pre-determine the final outcome. The answer is you can't. This is the reason why a lot of big breakthroughs are made by accident or happenstance. A good example is this discovery. At the time my only intent was to walk the river beds and read the information contained in the strata. It was my way to become aware of another aspect of nature, one of deep time, not just from a book or computer but to experience it first hand though the rocks. I found once you crossed a threshold of understanding the language of the rocks, they came to life, and contained a dynamic all their own. One way I found to enhance this dynamic is to connect it to a system view. My goal was just to see what I could see. When I found this artifact I was a Darwinist and had no knowledge of any major flaw in this theory. When it became apparent that this was an embryonic form that was in the process of self assembling from a totality of environmental components, my first reaction was that this was something completely out of sync with the natural order, a parallel evolution of sorts. It forced me to take another look at the fossil record of the early Cambrian. What I found in the text was that this represented a missing piece in organizational phases of the evolution of complex body plans, such as how shelled animals could have survived before developing shells. How eukaryotes cells could come together to form a dynamic self sustaining system cooperatively without starving each other first, just by competing for energy in a contained space. The answers where provided before I had ask them.
    The elemental components formed around a logarithm. This geometry is expressed as the wave curls in on itself redirecting the linear flow into a circular one. Once the mico-environment had reached an energetic threshold, the archetypal components of the environment ( oolitic spheres, cyanobacterial filaments, eukaryote cells ) assemble into these spiraling patterns. The oolitic spheres and cyanobacterial filaments are rolled into a recursive, concentric contained form. This layered circular mass begins to act not only as an Architectural framework, but also as a bridge, connecting fluid dynamics and a life support system for a self-organizing eukaryote system. Macro-dynamics construct and assemble the Micro-components, that intern capture and contain the Macro-dynamics. The wave pulse was the breath of life that the components formed around. I was cognitive of the answer but blissfully unaware of the question. Life, it turns out is based firstly on a flow of energy and secondly on the physical components contained in this flow, and this flow pattern is based on a logarithmic curve, or more well known as, The geometry of phi.

    Interestingly this dynamic appears almost identical to the formation of a galaxy.



    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    1. Whats the latitude/longitude of the location the rock was found.

    2. How did you remove it (did you pick it up, hammer it out)?

    3. Where's the photo of the locality?

    4. Where's the scale for the photo (even a ruler or a geo hammer)?

    5. Are you suggesting that one or more of the photos that follow the first above are enhancements or also of the rock itself?

    6. Do you have a macroscopic photo of the rock? Or even one that isn't blurred?

    7. How was it dated? What lab did you use?

    8. How was it tested/analyzed for mineral composition?

    9. What's the latitude/longitude of the locality?

    I asked one question twice. Its important. BUt, if indeed, you really are studying this with any seriousness, all of these questions should be answerable with a mere glance at your notes, eh?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    171

    5. Are you suggesting that one or more of the photos that follow the first above are enhancements or also of the rock itself?

    No but you are, this is what I said..........

    The fossil has a opening all the way though the center just as the photo-shop rendering.


    This representation is what I think this embryo would have looked like when it was alive. The right intake aperture became dominant over the left, resulting in an asymmetrical growth of extruding mineralization around the left aperture.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Actually, you cannot realistically say "this embryo" or even "oolite" or "eukaryote cells" with regard to this rock.

    You haven't established that it is, indeed, any of these things. From the poor photo you provided, it could just as easily be a chunk of discolored concrete waste from an upstream construction project.

    Answers to the remainder of my questions would help you define this rock and establish its provenience appropriately now that we can discard the remainder of the images as irrelevant.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    171
    9. What's the latitude/longitude of the locality?
    Location has been given as for as strata.

    As for “latitude/longitude” I really do not feel comfortable saying were my exact source since I have not been published and am still looking for more examples.

    Your questions seem to be focused on lab dating which is important and will take place.

    But to Missouri geologist the lab test are only of secondary importance.
    Oolites, blue green algae and the distinct yellow mineral stain are all distinctive to the particular strata in which it originated. Any Missouri geologist can tell its origins at a glance.

    To Mo. rock hounds and geologist its like showing them a kangaroo and saying guess where this came from?

    But what throws them is the thing is completely made out of oolites and its shape is so geometrically complex as to suggest a function and a process and not like anything anyone has ever seen before.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Then there's really nothing left to discuss here. We cannot see a better photo of the alleged oolite. Nor can we see the lat/long of the find to look on a geologic/topo map to reference the exact member. Nor can we see any data of significance in dating.

    If any geologist tells you that dating is secondary with regard to the claim/assertion that you're making, the geologist in question is not worth his degree. Indeed, if this is characteristic of Missouri geologists in general, perhaps this says more about the MO uni system, but I suspect it is an attitude that originates with yourself and not the geological community.

    Why don't you come back if you ever publish, then show us the data then. Without the data, there really isn't a discussion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    171
    Actually, you cannot realistically say "this embryo" or even "oolite" or "eukaryote cells" with regard to this rock.

    You haven't established that it is, indeed, any of these things. From the poor photo you provided, it could just as easily be a chunk of discolored concrete waste from an upstream construction project.

    Sure. the picture could be any thing at all, and you can call it anything you chose, But that’s not really the point is it. The point is only ideas and information can be exchanged on this medium.
    I can not send you physical evidence Only information, and this is understood .
    This leads me to ask you a question. can you prove my model is flawed on any level using reason or logic?


    This is what your avoiding... well shall we debate this issue on my flawed logic or you just going to avoid the core premise here, or is it you don’t understand it ?

    Do you know what I am proposing here?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Through all the double-speak and pseudoscience, you appear to be proposing that a singularity, a tiny blackhole, formed in one or more locations in the pre-cambrian, which gave rise to all complex life on the planet.

    But you haven't presented a coherent and logical model. Only postmodernist, esoteric double-speak.

    It's fun to speculate in a "what if" scenario, but that doesn't give you a model. It only provides a speculation. There's no evidence that you've given us of a quantum collapse that can be measured or reproduced. You talk of guarding your secret location because you haven't published, but true science shouldn't worry about such things. Indeed, science concerns itself with finding answers and truth regardless of credit.

    I think you truly believe your "vessica attractor" speculation. But you have yet to demonstrate a clear and concise model that can be tested. To date, you have yet to provide anything of substance. I'm still waiting to see why you consider this rock of no provenience to be oolitic. I've seen nothing that is consistent with oolitic material, and I have seen many examples of this. Indeed, I've examined ooids under high power microscope and actually understand the formation process that they undergo. You have yet to demonstrate that you have even basic understanding of geology let alone ooid formation. Indeed, you've mixed terms with regard to ooid and oolite on several occasions.

    I would recommend enrolling in your local community college or perhaps even pursuing a university education. You definately have the desire to explore and discover, but it needs the annealment of education.

    Good luck with it all. Despite my harsh criticisms, I am approving of your motivation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    171
    Through all the double-speak and pseudoscience, you appear to be proposing that a singularity, a tiny blackhole, formed in one or more locations in the pre-cambrian, which gave rise to all complex life on the planet
    I never said black holes formed in the Cambrian that silly

    A singularity as



    Wikipedia

    sin·gu·lar·i·ty (sĭng'gyə-lăr'ĭ-tē)
    n., pl. -ties.
    The quality or condition of being singular.
    A trait marking one as distinct from others; a peculiarity.
    Something uncommon or unusual.

    Astrophysics. A point in space-time at which gravitational forces cause matter to have infinite density and infinitesimal volume, and space and time to become infinitely distorted.
    Mathematics. A point at which the derivative does not exist for a given function but every neighborhood of which contains points for which the derivative exists. Also called singular point.




    The general position of singularities in algebraic geometry
    Such singularities in algebraic geometry are the easiest in principle to study, since they are defined by polynomial equations and therefore in terms of a coordinate system. One can say that the extrinsic meaning of a singular point isn't in question; it is just that in intrinsic terms the coordinates in the ambient space don't straightforwardly translate the geometry of the algebraic variety at the point. Intensive studies of such singularities led in the end to Heisuke Hironaka's fundamental theorem on resolution of singularities (in birational geometry in characteristic 0). This means that the simple process of 'lifting' a piece of string off itself, by the 'obvious' use of the cross-over at a double point, is not essentially misleading: all the singularities of algebraic geometry can be recovered as some sort of very general collapse (through multiple processes). This result is often implicitly used to extend affine geometry to projective geometry: it is entirely typical for an affine variety to acquire singular points on the hyperplane at infinity, when its closure in projective space is taken. Resolution says that such singularities can be handled rather as a (complicated) sort of compactification, ending up with a compact manifold (for the strong topology, rather than the Zariski topology, that is).


    The smooth theory, and catastrophes
    At about the same time as Hironaka's work, the catastrophe theory of René Thom was receiving a great deal of attention. This is another branch of singularity theory, based on earlier work of Hassler Whitney on critical points. Roughly speaking, a critical point of a smooth function is where the level set develops a singular point in the geometric sense. This theory deals with differentiable functions in general, rather than just polynomials. To compensate, the stable phenomena only are considered. One can argue that in nature, anything destroyed by tiny changes is not going to be observed; the visible is the stable. Whitney had shown that in low numbers of variables the stable structure of critical points is very restricted, in local terms. Thom built on this, and his own earlier work, to create a catastrophe theory supposed to account for discontinuous change in nature.


    Where did I say "tiny blackhole"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    171
    About ten years ago I found an extremely unusual fossil artifact originating from lower Cambrian strata. It is about the size and shape of a large ostrich egg with a flat underside. Running though the center of this artifact is a cavity in the form of a logarithmic spiral. The entire mass is made up of gain size oolitic spheres. These spheres form by rolling in wave cycles. The mass was formed by cyanobactia filaments connecting the oolites and also rolling within wave pulses. Visualize a spiral galaxy. This is beautiful in its symmetry but not anything to write about.


    What is very unusual is the other features that appear to have been emerging after it came to rest, and internalized the wave pulses, these features appear to be in the process of developing a complex geometry between forces at large and the microbial substrate and oolitic spheres within. I am an engineer and have a very good grasp of petrology {the study of rocks}., so I have some concept of form and function.




    Oolites are the base for a scaffolding
    This type oolite are formed under a conditions of waves these particular oolites have the appearance of a mass of perfectly sized and shaped grain sized spheres.

    "Waves of oscillation in open water, which is less than half their wavelength in depth, shape (by back and forth traction) the sediments on the floor into oscillation ripples. Under such conditions, in the marine environment in warm climatic zones, evaporation precipitates CaCO3 as aragonite on shifting particles. As these become coated, they grow, somewhat like rolling snowballs, into spheres called oolites. Once oolites have reached sand size, they can be easily redistributed by currents and so they travel as migrating submarine dunes or bars and come ultimately to rest, along with settling lime muds, in quieter water below the beveling level of the wave base."




    This vesica attractor represents an emerging eukaryote system that crystallizes though successive stages from higher to lower order iteration matrices, while being shaped by an internal and external fluid dynamics.
    An attractor in the form of a mobile circular mass of cyanobacterail filaments and oolites capture and contain a circular flow of sea water after it comes to rest.
    This internalized flow inside the micro-environment is then captured a second time, and further ordered by Eukaryote cells as they reproduce in this layered internal system. The eukaryote growth appears to radiate out from these flow channels, creating a recursive symmetrical circulatory system.

    To visualize this layered pattern take a pencil, tape the end of a ribbon around the pencil now wrap the ribbon tightly three or four times in a clockwise direction. Now reverse the direction counterclockwise do this about 7-8 times. Now tape down the outside all the way around tightly. now wrap your thumb and forefinger around the ribbon in a circle. take the end of the pencil and turn in a ratcheting motion. You will get a rough idea of the internal dynamic of the vesica attractor. A central paisley turning in unison with the surrounding layers resembling a circulating toaist Mandela , contained in a torus or bagel structure.

    I believe this recursive concentric system is the bases for most, if not all the complex body plans of the higher taxon that emerged during the Cambrian. This particular scenario reflects one of a fish, the most perfect of all the emerging vesica attractors. differing body plans would result from differing perturbations of separately emerging attractors. As the eukaryote system develops, the layered structure begins to differentiate as the oolitic matrix shrinks. A tension emerges throughout the system and starts to divide into three main domains. The still open heart cavity, the outer layers conforming around external dynamics. The domain of loosely bound middle layers that will form into some of the internal organs, but at the moment only contain a developing symmetrical circulatory system powered by external forces.

    As the oolites shrink the domains begin to differentiate even further. This ever increasing tension crystallizes the form in an descending order of smaller domains of connectives, until the oolites have completely dissolved leaving in there place a vast patterned array of flexible geodesic scaffolding. called the extra-cellular matrix, at this phase the connectives is on a very fine cellular level, also at this stage the central heart tissue forms by coiling connected cells inward like a watch spring, separating from the outer right and left apertures that have now become subject to their own domain of connectives, a few layers of this heart tissue will be taken by the apertures as they differentiate from the central chamber. Two very critical steps take place at this stage. A connection is maintained though this tissue between the chamber and apertures while the heart chamber is enclosed as apertures shift and redirect and access an second outer layer. The sea water is redirected into this new layer opening a second cavity. This new chamber forms the, mouth, digestive system and anus and the apertures form the gill slits. A flow is maintain throughout this process but now blood cells begin to circulate though the enclosed internal circulatory system. The yet unformed mouth acts as an placental attachment to the oolitic bed which provides a nursery food of mineral spheres and algae. This substance begins to help form the developing digestive track.

    The developing cellular matrix begins to respond to, and is further ordered by a finer flow of information now passing from the cellular microcosm to the macrocosm of the environment.
    A cognitive system forms around this flow of light, sound and movement between these two worlds. This connecting flow of information is the key to an understanding the evolutionary roll of cognition in a biological system. Once this synergetic vortex is opened and set in motion it becomes a self-sustaining system. These original connecting points have been the central circulating force of information in evolution ever since.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    171
    I've examined ooids under high power microscope and actually understand the formation process that they undergo. You have yet to demonstrate that you have even basic understanding of geology let alone ooid formation. Indeed, you've mixed terms with regard to ooid and oolite on several occasions.

    Explain please.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    171
    I think you truly believe your "vessica attractor" speculation. But you have yet to demonstrate a clear and concise model that can be tested.
    The evidence lies in observing how the cosmos is shaped.
    Forces that drive development from one main stage to the next are always bifurcations points defined within newly created fields.
    The organization of a galaxy we now know forms around and within the influence of the formation of a black hole.
    Planets form around and within the influence of newly formed stars.
    Planetary life can only emerge and organize within the protected E.M. field generated within the mobile heart of dynamical planet.

    The Vesica Attractor that I am describing is the stabilized morphogenetic field that complex life forms within and around.

    This is what is missing in current evolutionary models.

    The stable central organizing point.

    You should be skeptical certainly but, if your not also intrigued by this idea your not really understanding the simple beauty of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    171
    The construction of the torus, probably occurred with in a tide cycle. The basic body plan structure in the time it would take for the oolites to dissipate. This could not be more than a few days, any longer than that the system would succumb to entropic instability. The last stage is the nursery stage. While remaining attached to the oolitic algae bed, the finer internal organs would form autopoetic domains.

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

    The wave function is captured during the formation of the heart. The heart is formed by the coiling of layers of cells. This core as it is tightly wound would pinch off from the outer intake apertures. These two pinch points become the sinoatrial and atrioventricular nodes. This winding and binding of the layered core would cinch the layers like the spine of a book with the pages curled back and attached to the spine in a circuit, now between the nodes layers are formed like pages, the nodes like the corners where all the layers meet to form two point attractors. The electrical signal pulses in a symmetrical circuit like a bar magnet. perpetually circulating a pulse of energy.

    It is simultaneously embedded into a fractal structure, acting in the same circular fashion. When the pulse of energy in the circulatory system is returned to the heart it reacts in a same synchronized pattern. The right and left ventricle, and right and left atrium, act as the two attractor nodes, in the self-same pattern as the heart structure. This dual wave pattern “nest” itself or is fractal-embedded, one within the other. This nesting of wave patterns not only self stabilizes these two wave pulses but also produces an effect called;

    heterodyning . Alternating currents of two different frequencies that are combined to produce two new frequencies, the sum and difference of the original frequencies,

    This resonance produces waves of descending amplitude that maintain the layered physical structure. This resonating multi-level wave pattern is not only the foundation of our structure. It is the founding flow of information that the structure was built around.
    This circulating flow of information forms a sustained attractor connecting information from the environment to the cell.

    Genomic controls follow this pattern…. just as in the beginning.

    Environment-Wave function-architecture-genome…..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    177
    Metatron, I have tried to understand what you write, but I have to be frank: you make no sense at all. In fact, I am wondering if you use a computer algorithm to generate your paragraphs. Your writing looks uncanningly similar to samples of machine-generated text.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    171
    SkinWalker wrote;

    I stand by my assertion that those educated in geology, biology and paleontology understand that the Cambrian "explosion" is a misnomer.
    The Cambrian Period marks an important point in the history of life on earth; it is the time when most of the major groups of animals first appear in the fossil record. This event is sometimes called the "Cambrian Explosion", because of the relatively short time over which this diversity of forms appears. It was once thought that the Cambrian rocks contained the first and oldest fossil animals, but these are now to be found in the earlier Vendian strata.

    http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/cambrian/camb.html



    SkinWalker wrote;
    Your use of the word "oolite" is also misinformed. An oolite is a rock formation that contains ooids. You seem to be discussing ooids,
    oolite


    From Wikipedia
    An Oolite (or an oolith or ooid) is a sphere typically consisting of several concentric layers of calcite or aragonite (forms of calcium carbonate) that was created by precipitation in the supersaturated warm waters of shallow tropical seas. The term may also be applied to an oolitic rock (a rock composed of many compressed oolites).
    Oolites are formed when a nucleus, typically a sand particle or shell fragment, accumulates a layer of calcite around it as currents roll it around on the sea bed. From time-to-time the growing oolite becomes buried beneath the surface, allowing the accumulated calcite to consolidate, with a fresh layer accumulating each time it returns to the surface. Oolites may grow up to 2.0 mm in diameter (1/12 of an inch). Spherical structures larger than 2.0 mm in diameter are called pisolites.
    Oolites also occur in chert, dolomite, and hematite. The oolitic dolomite and chert may result from the replacement of the original texture in limestone. Oolitic hematite occurs at Red Mountain near Birmingham, Alabama along with oolitic limestone.
    Oolitic limestone, a limestone consisting of many compressed oolites, was formed in the United Kingdom during the Jurassic period, and forms the Cotswold Hills. A particular type, Bath Stone, gives the buildings of the World Heritage City of Bath, England its distinctive appearance.
    The name derives from the Greek word oon meaning egg
    .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    171
    Quote Originally Posted by silylene
    Metatron, I have tried to understand what you write, but I have to be frank: you make no sense at all. In fact, I am wondering if you use a computer algorithm to generate your paragraphs. Your writing looks uncanningly similar to samples of machine-generated text.
    Maybe so, but I do have a purpose.

    If you are confused try asking a question.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As you release the ficticious beliefs that stand in your way, memory of these things will return. You will recognize eternity's thoughts as your own, and activate historically latent features of human design. You will see that creature and environment are inseperable, and that environment does not stop with an ecosystem but extends to include your star-system, and every galaxy resting in the universal sea.

    This blue and white sphere, floating so alive through space, is, after all, an intensely intimate place. Its rhythms pulse within our bodies, our gardens, our seasons. As our minds and hearts also attune, our vision clears; we see the world anew. Plants arrange molecules in patterns inspired by the light of our nearest star. Oceans rise to greet the moon. A biosphere plays with endless variations, mingling earth and sun, time and eternity, balancing matter and spirit in uncountable lives.

    Evolution moves toward balance in consciousness as well as in form.


    Vision
    Ken Carey

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

    What I am suggesting is that the future of science and our existence will rely on our ability to think of casual effects in a geometric way, were an action resonates in several directions at once. This ability to see these patterns in nature not only reflect how nature really operates but is also a reflection of our ability to evolve.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •