|Register||Search||Today's Posts||Mark Forums Read|
|Chemistry Forum Chemistry Forum. Discuss chemical reactions, chemistry.|
| ||LinkBack||Thread Tools||Display Modes|
Quantum Physics bifurcation of Plant versus Animal kingdoms in
02 Jul 2003 20:28:17 GMT Sean Houtman wrote:
Well, not really. I did mention that the Linnaeus Classification scheme,
it has worked very well for many decades and centuries will probably need a
entire face-lift in the future. And the face-lift I envision is one centered
Quantum Duality of Quantum Physics. Where the kingdoms in biology are on the
order of lines of separation by that of Quantum duals such as
Animals with large size need calcium skeletons in order to be compatible with
body electricity for motion
Animals with small size are better off with exoskeleton of carbon and not
And so already there would exist a line of separation in the Animal kingdom
And so the question that I seek (originally begun in the mid to late 1990s) is
whether some future human being via genetic engineering is ever able to replace
the calcium skeleton with a carbon fibre skeleton and reproduce into its
that carbonfibre skeleton. Linneaus and Darwin would be absolutely deaf dumb
and silent on such a huge question.
But, if biology should be classified not via Linnaeus scheme but classified to
Quantum Physics then an answer should and would be forthcoming. It would
say whether a future human being is possible or impossible to ever have a
fibre internal skeleton and able to reproduce that skeleton in offspring.
My guess at this moment in time, (I could be wrong), is that it is impossible
for an animal of the size of a human being to ever replace that calcium
skeleton with a carbonfibre skeleton because the body electricity for motion of
would be incompatible. Not just hard or very difficult but impossible. That is
what my intuition is telling me at this moment in time.
And that leaves us with the notion that the Linnaeus Classification scheme of
is in need of major overhaul in the future such that the lines of
classification conform not to "similarites" between species but rather that the
lines have a
foundation in Quantum Physics with its duality and inverses. We can say that
a particle is the inverse of a wave. We can say that a plant that lives on
dioxide is the inverse of a animal that lives on oxygen. We can say that a
gets nourishment from animal waste and animal body and that the animal gets
nourishment from the plant from its waste and body, which is another inverse.
Linnaeus lived in a past century where Inverse relationships and Quantum
Physics were unknown to him. But now in the 21st century Quantum Physics
has subsumed all of chemistry and should subsume all of biology.
The Classification scheme in Physics is not whether one object has retractable
claws and another does not. The Classification scheme in Physics is whether the
object is very massive and large and whether it has great speed or not. So then
Sean with his attention on the fact that the majority of animals-- insects have
carbon based exoskeletons and large animals have interior calcium skeletons.
My question would be why not insects with interior calcium skeletons and why
not large animals with either interior or exterior carbon skeletons.
So it ends with the question that the Linneaus Classification of the Animal
Kingdom is probably wrong and that it needs a 21st century Quantum Revision
of the Classification of Lifeforms.
Archimedes Plutonium, [Only registered users see links. ]
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
Quantum Physics bifurcation of Plant versus Animal kingdoms in biology Re: Leghemoglobin
> Animals with large size need calcium skeletons in order to be compatible with
Some sharks were very large. Cartilage is also carbon along with some
nitrogen and other materials.
|animal , bifurcation , kingdoms , physics , plant , quantum , versus|
|Thread||Thread Starter||Forum||Replies||Last Post|
|Moving Dimensions Theory Book Due Out in Fall 05--Very Rough Draft: 4th Dimensions Expanding Relative to 3 Spatial Dimensionsfirstname.lastname@example.org||Physics Forum||64||03-31-2012 10:24 AM|
|Simply put, MOVING DIMENSIONS THEORY is THE NEW MODEL: http://email@example.com||Physics Forum||0||08-29-2006 06:32 AM|
|Moving Dimensions Theory!! Rock Onfirstname.lastname@example.org||Physics Forum||1||07-06-2006 05:19 PM|
|Physicists Losing Their Grip??||Consc||Physics Forum||218||01-06-2005 12:20 PM|