Are Molecules Animals?

I'm just curious, about what we know, that is, what do the scientists
know, about molecules. I call them molecular fibers, or, molecular
cell fiber structures.

No one has ever seen a molecule, right? There aren't any microscopes
that can allow us to see them, right? Are we kind of guessing at what
they are? Sure, there is chemistry and physics and lots of experiments
that tell us stuff about them, but is it possible that, there may be
more to it, than we understand, at the present?

Here is the question, and lots of people will possibly drop their
britches when they laugh so hard at me. I have this idea of what I
call neuronal pathways. What are they? Who knows, maybe they don't
exist, but maybe they do, and they are signaling lanes, sort of, that
allow signals to travel, through cell fibers, for example, of plants
and of animals.

Could it be possible that there are neuronal pathways in every cell
fiber, including molecular cell fibers, that allow signals to flow
about telling the 'organism', that means, molecules are organisms,
what is what, as to the time of year, for example, the location in
space and time, the temperature, for example, and possibly other types
of information?

If there are neuronal pathways in every molecular cell fiber, assuming
that molecules have cell fibers, just as there are neuronal pathways
in human tissue cells, though I haven't made a case for this, than
that would make, molecules, a type of living organism, much like
plants are, wouldn't it.

Now, how in the world do you scientific types calculate the weight of
a molecule, and determine what it consists of, if you can not even see
one? That's very puzzeling.

Some guy said on PBS that there are more molecules in a cup of water,
than there are cups of water in all the oceans of the world. That's
pretty insigtful, and he also relayed a spectacular statement, that
there are more planets in the universe, than there are grains of sand
on all the beaches of the world. He sounded very Buddhistic.

I am of the belief that frequencies are tiny pulse signtures of
molecular animals, and that molecules all have their own frequencies
that they operate on. These act like a pulse for the molecular cell
fiber organism. They may be very slow, but, they are in there,
pulsing. I mention this as a way to understand that even a piece of
rock, for instance, if pulsing on its own frequency, can be considered
alive, in a sense.

Anyway, do you think molecules, if they can be weighed and counted,
give off odors, and can be smelled? I would think so. What do you
brainy, scientific types think those tiny things are, that are the
odors of molecules? If molecule organisms give off odors, wouldn't you
think they are alive, in some way? I kind of think molecules are a
very primitive life form, but not neccessarily the tiniest of life
forms. If they are tiny primitive life forms, too bad we don't have
the microscopitic technologies that would allow us to be able to see a
living, breathing, molecule organism and then, to see and find out how
they get their nourishment to stay alive.

What do you think? People will dismiss this, outright, probably, but,
if we can not observe up close, molecules, and if we can not measure
them, or monitor them, or dissect them, or study them in any way, up
close, what proof is there, that molecules are not living organisms?
People are generally wondering how life got started in our univerese,
as far as I can figure it, and I'm sure there are lots of theories.
Theories are fine, and if what I'm suggesting is possible, this might
go some distance in helping us understand what is going on, at the
molecular and submolecular levels. What do you think? Do you think
these ideas can be argued, at all, rationally, are they at all
plausable? Plausable but not probable?

By the way, are there any brainy, scientific, non main stream perhaps
types out there who have postulated that molecules might be living
organisms? Just asking because it seems like a good question to ask,
before every one dismisses me out of hand.

Well, now that I've got the question, more or less, maybe I should go
and take some basic courses in science, right? Maybe if I get the
time. Thanks.

Jonjon

Dear jonattheh...:

On Jun 12, 7:34*am, [Only registered users see links. ] wrote:

No need in muddying up the waters with your preconceived notions. If
you build ignorance in, you will have to winnow through it every time.


Directly, no. We have taken pictures of them.


We have been able to image even the electron orbitals around an atom.


Yes, and none of the things you fantasize about. They are expressly
disallowed by hundreds of years of experiment

...

Not even plausible. Sorry.


Not in the last few decades, if not the last few centuries.


All questions are good questions.


It would be good, if you have the interest.

Consider that you expect that life is essentially "infinitely
divisible", that it extends down to the molecular level, then perhaps
the subatomic level (or beyond...).

Space and time do not appear to exist at the subatomic level, and only
at the molecular level does it really show up. Perhaps you need to
consider that life and many other things are "emergent properties",
that are entirely meaningless out of the context of the whole system.
Much like a single pixel changing colors is not (say) Jackie Chan or
Jet Li performing martial arts... just a contributor in supporting the
"play".

David A. Smith

On Jun 12, 11:21*am, dlzc <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I did a google search on what you
mentioned. The picture that popped up at
[Only registered users see links. ]
looks to me as if it could be a life form. What do you think? Does it
have an odor? Does it smell? Can we get fragrances or odors from it? I
don't suppose we could detect the fragrances or odors of it. Is there
any way to determine its internal structures, or if it has a mouth and
a poop hole, few or many? Could it be like some kind of tiny jelly
fish, as they can be very odd looking, we've never seen before, that
is a type of living organism comprised of different types of energies
with mass and weight, and other characteristics? Can there be evolved
types that are more complex than others, as living organisms? Is this
just a waste of time for the reader? I would think it would have to be
alive, and breathing, if we are comprised of them. It's pretty wierd
to concieve of, much like an encounter with an alien being from
another planet would be, I suppose. Looking and thinking along these
lines is something that could give some people, panic attacks, I would
think. Is there some one out there, an "alien" reading this? Please
come to our assistance if you would.

I wrote about beamers, plants that can draw on a universal brain wave
frequencies database, for compositing and morphing into other types of
living organisms for survival purposes, such as for acquiring food,
based on brain based and nervous system based meditational energies,
before. You folks ever hear of them? They are not very pleasant
plants, as they hunt and consume humans as well as other animals. They
might be considered along the same lines as very highly advanced
'venus fly trap' type plants, and apparently, there are a lot of types
of them, in this universe of ours.

Thanks.

Jonjon

Dear jonattheh...:

On Jun 13, 7:15*am, [Only registered users see links. ] wrote:
...
[Only registered users see links. ]

Not a life form to me. Does not replicate. Does not express
irritability. Does not consume and excrete, I unaware of jokes.


No nervous system. Most of those pictures are crystals, which are
relatively simple to slice and tend to hold still. So they don't have
odors.


No.


There are ways, and none of those things occur.


You have not described the characteristics of *life* in this list.
They do not express those characteristics.


Yes. Take humans... non specific in physical survival mechanisms,
just an "oversized" brain.


How about for you?


Probably not. Most of them think about the responses they have been
given, and realize that "life" is not an infintely divisible property.


Maybe even writing this.


Probably too busy laughing. Or hoping we will develop the maturity
necessary ot "make it". Or even learn what mother cats teach their
young, how not to mess their own "nests".

We are not being visited by meteors, we are "suffering" largely from
our own problems. Overpopulation. Graft in the building industry.
The urge to run out onto newly exposed sea bed, when this means the
ocean is about to deliver a tsunami.

How can you "assist" away stupidity? Should you just not wait to see
if it is not just ignorance, or if it is a trait that will be
evolutionarily excised?

David A. Smith