| | |||||||
| Register | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
| Chemistry Forum Chemistry Forum. Discuss chemical reactions, chemistry. |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
| |||
| |||
| 02 Jul 2003 20:28:17 GMT Sean Houtman wrote: Well, not really. I did mention that the Linnaeus Classification scheme, although 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 around 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 calcium. And so already there would exist a line of separation in the Animal kingdom itself. 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 offspring 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 carbon 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 that animal 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 life 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 carbon dioxide is the inverse of a animal that lives on oxygen. We can say that a plant 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 to 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 |
|
#2
| |||
| |||
| > 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. |
| Tags |
| animal , bifurcation , kingdoms , physics , plant , quantum , versus |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
| | ||||
| 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 Dimensions | jollyrogership@yahoo.com | Physics Forum | 64 | 03-31-2012 10:24 AM |
| Simply put, MOVING DIMENSIONS THEORY is THE NEW MODEL: http://physicsmathforums.com | drelliot@gmail.com | Physics Forum | 0 | 08-29-2006 06:32 AM |
| Moving Dimensions Theory!! Rock On!! | drelliot@gmail.com | Physics Forum | 1 | 07-06-2006 05:19 PM |
| Physicists Losing Their Grip?? | Consc | Physics Forum | 218 | 01-06-2005 12:20 PM |