Another Quantum Duality between that of plants to animals

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Archimedes Plutonium - 20 Apr 2004 09:06 GMT

This one is really strange. For the past several years I have been
tabulating and keeping a record of various dualities between that of
plants to animals. The most famous of which is that plants give oxygen
and take in carbon dioxide and the reverse for animals. Another is that
plants give animals food and animals give plants food via manure and
body decay.

So today a very strange reversal caught my attention. The catching of
fire, or the ability to catch on fire. Plants are full of carbon and
thus fire-able. But animals are not fire-able because they are moving
sacs of mosly water. So plants are mostly carbon and animals are mostly
water.

We don't have animal fires as we do have forest or grassland fires.

Strange one that needs much more penetration.

Archimedes Plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
www.archimedesplutonium.com
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium

Reply to this Message

Dirk Bruere at Neopax - 20 Apr 2004 14:41 GMT

> This one is really strange. For the past several years I have been
> tabulating and keeping a record of various dualities between that of
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> Strange one that needs much more penetration.

Hypothesis falsified:
Spontaneous human combustion.

Signature

Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org

Reply to this Message

B Gilmour - 20 Apr 2004 16:42 GMT

> > This one is really strange. For the past several years I have been
> > tabulating and keeping a record of various dualities between that of
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> Hypothesis falsified:
> Spontaneous human combustion.

Nonsense; No such thing as SHC; only anecdotal evidence; When properly
investigated they can all be explained. BS baffles brains.

Dirk

> The Consensus:-
> The political party for the new millenium
> http://www.theconsensus.org

Reply to this Message

Dirk Bruere at Neopax - 20 Apr 2004 14:52 GMT

>>>This one is really strange. For the past several years I have been
>>>tabulating and keeping a record of various dualities between that of
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> Nonsense; No such thing as SHC; only anecdotal evidence; When properly
> investigated they can all be explained. BS baffles brains.

The explanation being that people catch on fire and burn.

Signature

Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org

Reply to this Message

B Gilmour - 20 Apr 2004 17:02 GMT

> >>>This one is really strange. For the past several years I have been
> >>>tabulating and keeping a record of various dualities between that of
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
> The explanation being that people catch on fire and burn.

Yes; their clothes [usually cotton or nylon (highly flamable)] catch on fire
from an external source [usually cigarette], and if they are imobile [like
elderly or passed out in a chair] they can reach a critical temp and burn.
You,ve probably seen pictures of legs sticking out from an ash pile, because
fire burns upward and leaves lower extremities. SHC is a psuedo science
explanation where they spontaneously catch on fire from the inside (body tem
p rise in a localized area), which is hogs wollop.

:) Bill

Reply to this Message

Steve Turner - 20 Apr 2004 23:09 GMT

>Yes; their clothes [usually cotton or nylon (highly flamable)] catch on fire
>from an external source [usually cigarette], and if they are imobile [like
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>p rise in a localized area), which is hogs wollop.
>:) Bill

Whether spontaneous or not, humans can burn under the right (or wrong,
depending on your POV) circumstances.

Steve Turner

Reply to this Message

B Gilmour - 20 Apr 2004 17:01 GMT

-- A trivial observation, nothing new or exciting here,
Why the heck would it need more penetration?????????
Sounds like you have too much time on your hands!!!

> Archimedes Plutonium
> whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
> of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
> www.archimedesplutonium.com
> www.iw.net/~a_plutonium

Reply to this Message

Geoff Taylor - 20 Apr 2004 17:13 GMT

>Another is that
> plants give animals food and animals give plants food via manure and
> body decay.

This is a cloth-eared falacy.
In simple, very simple, terms, animals do not give plants "food".
Plants use photosynthesis to provide the energy for life otherwise known as
food.
It is basically a one-way flow of energy from the sun, via plants, via
animals to the environment.
Animals only provide minerals, nitrogen and a miniscule percentage of carbon
dioxide via decomposing faeces and dead bodies.

>But animals are not fire-able because they are moving
> sacs of mosly water.

Another poor observation.
Animal bodies are quite combustible.
e.g. cremation, burning of witches, self imolation etc

>We don't have animal fires as we do have forest or grassland fires

Only because most animals can run!!
Those that don't burn just as well as trees.
Ever seen the results on the passengers of a car caught in a forest fire?

> This one is really strange. For the past several years I have been
> tabulating and keeping a record of various dualities between that of
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> www.archimedesplutonium.com
> www.iw.net/~a_plutonium

Reply to this Message

Archimedes Plutonium - 22 Apr 2004 07:52 GMT

> >Another is that
> > plants give animals food and animals give plants food via manure and
> > body decay.
>
> This is a cloth-eared falacy.
> In simple, very simple, terms, animals do not give plants "food".

You argue not science concepts but the nitpicking of terms. Nutrients instead
of food. So, I win, you lose.

> Plants use photosynthesis to provide the energy for life otherwise known as
> food.
> It is basically a one-way flow of energy from the sun, via plants, via
> animals to the environment.
> Animals only provide minerals, nitrogen and a miniscule percentage of carbon
> dioxide via decomposing faeces and dead bodies.

That is a lot. Funny how you mix in words such as "only provide" to suit your
unscientific mind.

But worse, you do not understand what Quantum duality and complimentary means
in the first place. One would think that if a person entered a discussion that
plants are dual complements of animals that the person would have at least a
foggy idea of duality and complementarity which you do not.

I am not saying that the Sun needs a dual star, for the sun is irrelevant to
the discussion of plant to animal duality.

To your bonehead view of this topic, you imply that a alien planet could come
into existence of a abundant life and where there are no animals at all but
that the plants of that planet evolve towards the diversity present on earth of
its plants, yet never any animals.

Quantum Duality, please read some quantum physics before opening your yappity
yap feable understanding. QM complementarity and duality implies that the
evolution of plants on Earth could never have reached this level of complexity
and variety if animals had never existed and that if animals had never existed,
that the plant kingdom would be and remain a primitive life form. Duality and
complementarity is the only means in which Life can make full use of the
maximum number of elements and compounds of chemistry. Because what the plants
cannot do, the animals can do it and vice versa. Without complementarity and
duality, is like a car with wheels but no axle, where plants are axles and
animals are wheels.

> >But animals are not fire-able because they are moving
> > sacs of mosly water.
>
> Another poor observation.
> Animal bodies are quite combustible.
> e.g. cremation, burning of witches, self imolation etc

Bonehead, get yee to a physics book to learn what complementarity and duality
means.

I brought up fire-ability because carbon is more important to the plants than
to animals and that plants are a reservoir of carbon and so plants are
depositories of carbon that is easy to fire whereas water is more important to
animals and they are a depository for water and less fire prone. So it is a
duality of storage of CO or CO2 for plants whereas H2O is the storage for
animals.

> >We don't have animal fires as we do have forest or grassland fires
> Only because most animals can run!!
> Those that don't burn just as well as trees.
> Ever seen the results on the passengers of a car caught in a forest fire?

Duality is not a hard fast drawn line where everything is white or black.
Duality is blurred and has gray with white and black. The key is to recognize
that plant kingdom without animal kingdom on Earth would be so primitive that
it would still be algae in seas.

Duality says that animals did not come from plants but that when life began
there existed both plants and animals simultaneously.

But get yee to a physics book to learn what duality and complimentarity mean,
and do you always enter a discussion oblivious to the main points under
discussion.

Archimedes Plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
www.archimedesplutonium.com
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium

Reply to this Message

Archimedes Plutonium - 22 Apr 2004 09:02 GMT

> QM complementarity and duality implies that the
> evolution of plants on Earth could never have reached this level of complexity
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> duality, is like a car with wheels but no axle, where plants are axles and
> animals are wheels.

If plant kingdom was dual complement to animal kingdom would have another
implication of major importance in that we would be able in the future to write
out a sort of biology equation where plant kingdom plus animal kingdom are on one
side of the equation with some other terms such as bacteria, viruses and on the
other side of the equation is advanced life forms capable of technology and
science.

This equation would resemble the Uncertainty Principle relationship for that is a
math relationship over the dual complements of particle to wave. But in this
biology math equation the wave is plant kingdom and the particle is animal
kingdom.

At this moment humanity is too dumb and the fog of not seeing the dual
complementary between plant kingdom and animal kingdom is so opaque that we are
just beginning to scratch at the surface of this huge underlying science.

What plants complementary to animals means is that a maximum use of the elements
and chemical compounds can be achieved. In physics we have the concept of "path
taken is of lowest energy". In plant animal complementarity we would have a
concept that a maximum utilization of the chemical elements from hydrogen to
element 92 and beyond and a maximum utilization of chemical compounds could only
occur if the kingdoms of biology were duals of one another. Complementarity and
duality allow for a maximization of elements and compound utilization.

Otherwise, there will be alien planets where there exists no animals yet the
plants would be virtually as progressed as the plants on modern day Earth. Duality
would say no, and that a planet with only a plant kingdom and no animal kingdom
will always remain as primitive algae and nothing more advanced.

Summary. We can write an equation for particle wave duality which is the
Uncertainty Principle. If plants are the dual to animals, then in the future we
can also write a equation which has plant and animal kingdoms on one side of
equation and advanced civilization on the other side.

Archimedes Plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
www.archimedesplutonium.com
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium

Reply to this Message

Archimedes Plutonium - 22 Apr 2004 19:37 GMT

(snipped)

> If plant kingdom was dual complement to animal kingdom would have another
> implication of major importance in that we would be able in the future to write
> out a sort of biology equation where plant kingdom plus animal kingdom are on one
> side of the equation with some other terms such as bacteria, viruses and on the
> other side of the equation is advanced life forms capable of technology and
> science.

This math relationship of plant kingdom and animal kingdom on one side of the
equation and modern technology society on the other side would show us that the
"throwing of rocks and stones" is a natural part of history. What I mean is that
given any planet that can support life. If it has both plant and animal life then it
must have a stage wherein the treelike animal begins to throw rocks and stones and
thus civilization is created on that alien planet.

> This equation would resemble the Uncertainty Principle relationship for that is a
> math relationship over the dual complements of particle to wave. But in this
> biology math equation the wave is plant kingdom and the particle is animal
> kingdom.

In physics the Heisenberg UP is for the microscopic and talks about particle wave
duality. For Biology, it would be reversed in that the math formula or relationship
would be about macroscopic and particle wave duality becomes animal kingdom to plant
kingdom duality. In particle wave duality of physics we have momentum position energy
time parameters. In biology we have parameters of plant kingdom animal kingdom
bacterial kingdom and viral kingdom.

> At this moment humanity is too dumb and the fog of not seeing the dual
> complementary between plant kingdom and animal kingdom is so opaque that we are
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> can also write a equation which has plant and animal kingdoms on one side of
> equation and advanced civilization on the other side.

The above hinges on whether I am correct about one special item. Otherwise my above
is flawed. That special item is whether starting from say a algae you can evolve
animals along with plants. Where the starting block is some plant like algae that is
able to act as a bridge of evolution for all of plants and all of animals.

Quantum Duality in Biology would say the opposite that plants are so different from
animals that they have "no common ancestor" but that the plants came in existence
from plant origins and animals from animal origins with no bridge connecting both.

The way I picture it was on the day of creation of life on Earth, that some neutrino
with huge energy of 10^14 MeV came to rest and discharged that energy by creating an
entire algae organism and that the neutrino interior is perfect DNA itself. And a few
days later or a few years later another energetic neutrino of let us say 10^15 MeV
came to rest nearby to the algae and created a animal lifeform that helps the algae
lifeform.

So, my theory of Quantum Duality for Biology hinges on the idea that if all of
evolution can be bridged by one single organism that a plant can evolve into an
animal. Or, whether there is no such bridge and that the animal kingdom has to be
created separately from the plant kingdom.

I place my bet on QM in Biology as being true because the past history of all of
science has been one of a convergence towards the Quantum method. Everytime in
science a debate has arisen placing QM against something not-QM then it was the QM
that came out the victor. So I would be rather dumb by not betting on QM of biology.
I may change my mind if evidence comes in contrary.

Archimedes Plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
www.archimedesplutonium.com
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium

Reply to this Message

Steve Turner - 20 Apr 2004 23:13 GMT

>So today a very strange reversal caught my attention. The catching of
>fire, or the ability to catch on fire. Plants are full of carbon and
>thus fire-able. But animals are not fire-able because they are moving
>sacs of mosly water. So plants are mostly carbon and animals are mostly
>water.

Having had considerable experience drying plant materials, I would
opine that most plants are mostly water. And few herbacerous plants
will burn very well, if at all, without being dried first.

>We don't have animal fires as we do have forest or grassland fires.

Animals have a key ability which plants lack: mobility. I'm glad
that's so, because a large animal fire would stink to high heaven.

Steve Turner

Reply to this Message

Natural Science Forum / Biology / Biology / April 2004

Another Quantum Duality between that of plants to animals