Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [sl] DNA HAS IMPOSSIBLE TELEPATHIC PROPERTIES

Expand Messages
  • Kate Loux
    ... This isn t actually as strange as it sounds. At the quantum level, matter behaves very different from what we re accustomed to. Here s an excerpt
    Message 1 of 6 , Feb 12, 2008
      On Feb 12, 2008 2:29 PM, eviewrayartist.com <wrayevelyn@...> wrote:


      > DNA has been found to have a bizarre ability to put itself together, even at
      > a distance, when according to known science it shouldn't be able to.
      > Explanation: None, at least not yet.
      > Scientists are reporting evidence that contrary to our current beliefs about
      > what is possible, intact double-stranded DNA has the "amazing" ability to
      > recognize similarities in other DNA strands from a distance. Somehow they
      > are able to identify one another, and the tiny bits of genetic material tend
      > to congregate with similar DNA. The recognition of similar sequences in
      > DNA's chemical subunits, occurs in a way unrecognized by science. There is
      > no known reason why the DNA is able to combine the way it does, and from a
      > current theoretical standpoint this feat should be chemically impossible.
      > (More on Link) http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=118733


      This isn't actually as "strange" as it sounds. At the quantum level,
      matter behaves very different from what we're accustomed to. Here's
      an excerpt discussing the oddities of atoms from a Bill Bryson book:

      "Finally, in 1926, Heisenberg came up with a celebrated compromise,
      producing a new discipline that came to be known as quantum mechanics.
      At the heart of it was Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, which
      states that the electron is a particle but a particle that can be
      described in terms of waves. The uncertainty around which the theory
      is built is that we can know the path an electron takes as it moves
      through a space or we can know where it is at a given instant, but we
      cannot know both. Any attempt to measure one will unavoidably disturb
      the other. This isn't a matter of simply needing more precise
      instruments; it is an immutable property of the universe.

      What this means in practice is that you can never predict where an
      electron will be at any given moment. You can only list its
      probability of being there. In a sense, as Dennis Overbye has put it,
      an electron doesn't exist until it is observed. Or, put slightly
      differently, until it is observed an electron must be regarded as
      being "at once everywhere and nowhere."

      If this seems confusing, you may take some comfort in knowing that it
      was confusing to physicists, too. Overbye notes: "Bohr once commented
      that a person who wasn't outraged on first hearing about quantum
      theory didn't understand what had been said." Heisenberg, when asked
      how one could envision an atom, replied: "Don't try."

      So the atom turned out to be quite unlike the image that most people
      had created. The electron doesn't fly around the nucleus like a planet
      around its sun, but instead takes on the more amorphous aspect of a
      cloud. The "shell" of an atom isn't some hard shiny casing, as
      illustrations sometimes encourage us to suppose, but simply the
      outermost of these fuzzy electron clouds. The cloud itself is
      essentially just a zone of statistical probability marking the area
      beyond which the electron only very seldom strays. Thus an atom, if
      you could see it, would look more like a very fuzzy tennis ball than a
      hard-edged metallic sphere (but not much like either or, indeed, like
      anything you've ever seen; we are, after all, dealing here with a
      world very different from the one we see around us).

      It seemed as if there was no end of strangeness. For the first time,
      as James Trefil has put it, scientists had encountered "an area of the
      universe that our brains just aren't wired to understand." Or as
      Feynman expressed it, "things on a small scale behave nothing like
      things on a large scale." As physicists delved deeper, they realized
      they had found a world where not only could electrons jump from one
      orbit to another without traveling across any intervening space, but
      matter could pop into existence from nothing at all—"provided," in the
      words of Alan Lightman of MIT, "it disappears again with sufficient
      haste."

      Perhaps the most arresting of quantum improbabilities is the idea,
      arising from Wolfgang Pauli's Exclusion Principle of 1925, that the
      subatomic particles in certain pairs, even when separated by the most
      considerable distances, can each instantly "know" what the other is
      doing. Particles have a quality known as spin and, according to
      quantum theory, the moment you determine the spin of one particle, its
      sister particle, no matter how distant away, will immediately begin
      spinning in the opposite direction and at the same rate.

      It is as if, in the words of the science writer Lawrence Joseph, you
      had two identical pool balls, one in Ohio and the other in Fiji, and
      the instant you sent one spinning the other would immediately spin in
      a contrary direction at precisely the same speed. Remarkably, the
      phenomenon was proved in 1997 when physicists at the University of
      Geneva sent photons seven miles in opposite directions and
      demonstrated that interfering with one provoked an instantaneous
      response in the other.
      ~
      Because of its oddities, many physicists disliked quantum theory, or
      at least certain aspects of it, and none more so than Einstein. This
      was more than a little ironic since it was he, in his annus mirabilis
      of 1905, who had so persuasively explained how photons of light could
      sometimes behave like particles and sometimes like waves—the notion at
      the very heart of the new physics. "Quantum theory is very worthy of
      regard," he observed politely, but he really didn't like it. "God
      doesn't play dice," he said. (Or at least that is how it is nearly
      always rendered. The actual quote was: "It seems hard to sneak a look
      at God's cards. But that He plays dice and uses 'telepathic' methods.
      . . is something that I cannot believe for a single moment.")

      Einstein couldn't bear the notion that God could create a universe in
      which some things were forever unknowable. Moreover, the idea of
      action at a distance—that one particle could instantaneously influence
      another trillions of miles away—was a stark violation of the special
      theory of relativity. This expressly decreed that nothing could
      outrace the speed of light and yet here were physicists insisting
      that, somehow, at the subatomic level, information could. (No one,
      incidentally, has ever explained how the particles achieve this feat.
      Scientists have dealt with this problem, according to the physicist
      Yakir Aharanov, "by not thinking about it.")"

      ~k!

      --
      - Kate Loux
      ----
      Yahoo! - cranberri04
      -----
      ---
      "The system gives you just enough to make you think that you see change.
      They will sing you right to sleep and then they'll screw you just the same."
      -- Ani Difranco
      ----
    • eviewrayartist.com
      Kate, Funny...I didn t author this comment you replied off of. My words were a respond to this comment, too. Maybe we have virational kindred DNA, LOL. You
      Message 2 of 6 , Feb 12, 2008
        Kate,
         Funny...I didn't author this comment you replied off of. My words were a respond to this comment, too.  Maybe we have virational kindred DNA, LOL. You and I basically said the same thing. Once again...instantaneous transmission from two unrelated places taking up the same time/space place.
        Luv,
        Evie

        Kate Loux <kate.loux@...> wrote:
        On Feb 12, 2008 2:29 PM, eviewrayartist.com wrote:


        > DNA has been found to have a bizarre ability to put itself together, even at
        > a distance, when according to known science it shouldn't be able to.
        > Explanation: None, at least not yet.
        > Scientists are reporting evidence that contrary to our current beliefs about
        > what is possible, intact double-stranded DNA has the "amazing" ability to
        > recognize similarities in other DNA strands from a distance. Somehow they
        > are able to identify one another, and the tiny bits of genetic material tend
        > to congregate with similar DNA. The recognition of similar sequences in
        > DNA's chemical subunits, occurs in a way unrecognized by science. There is
        > no known reason why the DNA is able to combine the way it does, and from a
        > current theoretical standpoint this feat should be chemically impossible.
        > (More on Link) http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=118733


        This isn't actually as "strange" as it sounds. At the quantum level,
        matter behaves very different from what we're accustomed to. Here's
        an excerpt discussing the oddities of atoms from a Bill Bryson book:

        "Finally, in 1926, Heisenberg came up with a celebrated compromise,
        producing a new discipline that came to be known as quantum mechanics.
        At the heart of it was Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, which
        states that the electron is a particle but a particle that can be
        described in terms of waves. The uncertainty around which the theory
        is built is that we can know the path an electron takes as it moves
        through a space or we can know where it is at a given instant, but we
        cannot know both. Any attempt to measure one will unavoidably disturb
        the other. This isn't a matter of simply needing more precise
        instruments; it is an immutable property of the universe.

        What this means in practice is that you can never predict where an
        electron will be at any given moment. You can only list its
        probability of being there. In a sense, as Dennis Overbye has put it,
        an electron doesn't exist until it is observed. Or, put slightly
        differently, until it is observed an electron must be regarded as
        being "at once everywhere and nowhere."

        If this seems confusing, you may take some comfort in knowing that it
        was confusing to physicists, too. Overbye notes: "Bohr once commented
        that a person who wasn't outraged on first hearing about quantum
        theory didn't understand what had been said." Heisenberg, when asked
        how one could envision an atom, replied: "Don't try."

        So the atom turned out to be quite unlike the image that most people
        had created. The electron doesn't fly around the nucleus like a planet
        around its sun, but instead takes on the more amorphous aspect of a
        cloud. The "shell" of an atom isn't some hard shiny casing, as
        illustrations sometimes encourage us to suppose, but simply the
        outermost of these fuzzy electron clouds. The cloud itself is
        essentially just a zone of statistical probability marking the area
        beyond which the electron only very seldom strays. Thus an atom, if
        you could see it, would look more like a very fuzzy tennis ball than a
        hard-edged metallic sphere (but not much like either or, indeed, like
        anything you've ever seen; we are, after all, dealing here with a
        world very different from the one we see around us).

        It seemed as if there was no end of strangeness. For the first time,
        as James Trefil has put it, scientists had encountered "an area of the
        universe that our brains just aren't wired to understand." Or as
        Feynman expressed it, "things on a small scale behave nothing like
        things on a large scale." As physicists delved deeper, they realized
        they had found a world where not only could electrons jump from one
        orbit to another without traveling across any intervening space, but
        matter could pop into existence from nothing at all—"provided," in the
        words of Alan Lightman of MIT, "it disappears again with sufficient
        haste."

        Perhaps the most arresting of quantum improbabilities is the idea,
        arising from Wolfgang Pauli's Exclusion Principle of 1925, that the
        subatomic particles in certain pairs, even when separated by the most
        considerable distances, can each instantly "know" what the other is
        doing. Particles have a quality known as spin and, according to
        quantum theory, the moment you determine the spin of one particle, its
        sister particle, no matter how distant away, will immediately begin
        spinning in the opposite direction and at the same rate.

        It is as if, in the words of the science writer Lawrence Joseph, you
        had two identical pool balls, one in Ohio and the other in Fiji, and
        the instant you sent one spinning the other would immediately spin in
        a contrary direction at precisely the same speed. Remarkably, the
        phenomenon was proved in 1997 when physicists at the University of
        Geneva sent photons seven miles in opposite directions and
        demonstrated that interfering with one provoked an instantaneous
        response in the other.
        ~
        Because of its oddities, many physicists disliked quantum theory, or
        at least certain aspects of it, and none more so than Einstein. This
        was more than a little ironic since it was he, in his annus mirabilis
        of 1905, who had so persuasively explained how photons of light could
        sometimes behave like particles and sometimes like waves—the notion at
        the very heart of the new physics. "Quantum theory is very worthy of
        regard," he observed politely, but he really didn't like it. "God
        doesn't play dice," he said. (Or at least that is how it is nearly
        always rendered. The actual quote was: "It seems hard to sneak a look
        at God's cards. But that He plays dice and uses 'telepathic' methods.
        . . is something that I cannot believe for a single moment.")

        Einstein couldn't bear the notion that God could create a universe in
        which some things were forever unknowable. Moreover, the idea of
        action at a distance—that one particle could instantaneously influence
        another trillions of miles away—was a stark violation of the special
        theory of relativity. This expressly decreed that nothing could
        outrace the speed of light and yet here were physicists insisting
        that, somehow, at the subatomic level, information could. (No one,
        incidentally, has ever explained how the particles achieve this feat.
        Scientists have dealt with this problem, according to the physicist
        Yakir Aharanov, "by not thinking about it.")"

        ~k!

        --
        - Kate Loux
        ----
        Yahoo! - cranberri04
        -----
        ---
        "The system gives you just enough to make you think that you see change.
        They will sing you right to sleep and then they'll screw you just the same."
        -- Ani Difranco
        ----


        Topics suitable for discussion in this e-list can be found at:
        http://www.luckymojo.com/sacredland.html

        To UNsubscribe, send email to:
        sacredlandscapelist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

        Yahoo! Groups Links

        <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sacredlandscapelist/

        <*> Your email settings:
        Individual Email | Traditional

        <*> To change settings online go to:
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sacredlandscapelist/join
        (Yahoo! ID required)

        <*> To change settings via email:
        mailto:sacredlandscapelist-digest@yahoogroups.com
        mailto:sacredlandscapelist-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

        <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        sacredlandscapelist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

        <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
        http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



        Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

      • Dominick Carlucci
        ... even at a distance, when according to known science it shouldn t be able to. Explanation: None, at least not yet. ... Proving, of course that Hamlet (and
        Message 3 of 6 , Feb 13, 2008
          --- In sacredlandscapelist@yahoogroups.com, "Lynda Brasier"
          <susoni@...> wrote:
          >
          > DNA has been found to have a bizarre ability to put itself together,
          even at a distance, when according to known science it shouldn't be
          able to. Explanation: None, at least not yet.
          >snip<

          Proving, of course that Hamlet (and the Great Bard) was correct after
          all:

          "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
          Than are dreamt of in your philosophy..."

          Hamlet, Act 1, Scene 5

          Cheers,
          Dominick
        • wrayevelyn
          Greetings, I adore that this group is so leading edge with What is Reality ? It is heart warming to share with others that think beyond tick tock and square
          Message 4 of 6 , Feb 14, 2008
            Greetings,
            I adore that this group is so leading edge with " What is Reality" ?
            It is heart warming to share with others that think beyond tick tock
            and square boxes. All boxes heart shape today!
            The imagination is a palace with a drawbridge that raises and
            lowers. We need not be afraid of it closed or open because we are the
            one that has control of the leverage of that. What is thought of as
            imagination becomes reality all in due time. The impossible becomes
            the common place and thinkers create another anew from the palace of
            our Imagination.
            Luv,
            Evie



            --- In sacredlandscapelist@yahoogroups.com, "Dominick Carlucci"
            <scorpio_eagle2002@...> wrote:
            >
            > --- In sacredlandscapelist@yahoogroups.com, "Lynda Brasier"
            > <susoni@> wrote:
            > >
            > > DNA has been found to have a bizarre ability to put itself
            together,
            > even at a distance, when according to known science it shouldn't be
            > able to. Explanation: None, at least not yet.
            > >snip<
            >
            > Proving, of course that Hamlet (and the Great Bard) was correct
            after
            > all:
            >
            > "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
            > Than are dreamt of in your philosophy..."
            >
            > Hamlet, Act 1, Scene 5
            >
            > Cheers,
            > Dominick
            >
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.