Extending upon this RNA research, I recently compiled an incommensurable, trans-disciplinary, neologistical, axiomatic theory of life from quantum gravity to the living cell.

Lunar Formation. The favored hypothesis for the formation of Earth's Moon is from planetesimal impact on a proto-Earth proceeded by matter ejection, accretion, and gravitational capture [189,190]. However, the question of lunar origin has not been settled since there are competing, albeit antiquated hypotheses [191,192]. I also discovered the stunning admission that, "...shamefacedly, [astronomers] have little idea as to where [the Moon] came from. This is particularly embarrassing... [193]." The oxygyre models the Moon as a macroxyon that has a macroelectron within itself; this simple gyrosystem accounts for the known chemical composition of the Moon surface, oxides [194]. Regarding lunar origin, the macroxyon that is the Moon emerges from the macroelectron that is the Earth, concomitant with the emergence of Earth's macroxyon [195,196].

Several additional points can be derived from this gyrosystem. First, the oxygyre explains water on and in the Moon [197-199]. Second, the gyrating effects of the macroxygyre model the rotation of the Moon on its axis. Third, the path of a less exergic macroxyon (Moon) around more exergic one (Earth) follows an ohiogyre path, or lunar orbit. Fourth, this oxygyre provides insight into how tidal cycling is linked to lunar orbit and axial rotation [200] since the Earth's oceans (macroxymatrix) and Moon itself (a macroxyon) exert complementary attractorepulsive forces. Fifth, this theoretical union also helps clarify short-term chronobiological ([201]; see 3.8) and long-term geophysical [202] relationships. Sixth, the craters that cover planetary, lunar, and satellite surfaces [203-205]--most if not all of which are near-perfect circles--bear the signature of the macroelectron singularity and its strong thermodynamic force on the oxygyre [206].

I will be honest I have not read this myself, I am in the process now. I thought this would be fun to kick around a bit.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/01/the_comparison_to_jabberwocky.php

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/01/thanks_crwu_for_forcing_me_to_get_the_pa.php#more



OHHHHH, sounds impressive.

Oh dear.....

I've always felt that a convenient shortcut to detecting crankery is that many of them feel the need to define new terminology and insist that their theory cannot be understood without the new terminology. I mean, it's fair to invent a new word occasionally, but cranks will redefine half the language. If you feel the need to define a whole new set of vocabulary, clearly you feel you have stumbled upon something totally novel in their history of human thought, and to feel that way requires a great deal of arrogance -- the sort of arrogance that blinds.

Posted by: Calli Arcale | January 30, 2012 12:44 PM

The oxygyre models the Moon as a macroxyon that has a macroelectron within itself; this simple gyrosystem accounts for the known chemical composition of the Moon surface, oxides [194]. Regarding lunar origin, the macroxyon that is the Moon emerges from the macroelectron that is the Earth, concomitant with the emergence of Earth's macroxyon

That was awesome!

I wonder if that's how real science jargon sounds to people with no science education.

The earth is alive, asserts a revolutionary scientific theory of life emerging from Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine. The trans-disciplinary theory demonstrates that purportedly inanimate, non-living objects--for example, planets, water, proteins, and DNA--are animate, that is, alive. With its broad explanatory power, applicable to all areas of science and medicine, this novel paradigm aims to catalyze a veritable renaissance.

My questions is, what is so shocking or "wrong" about a theory that the earth and purportedly inanimate objects are animate or alive?

This response misses the point of the criticism of this guy.

It isn't that animism is shocking or wrong.

He wrote an entire book filled with actual gibberish, and has been earnestly trying to publish it along with papers derived from the book.

He is actively trying to pollute scientific discourse - not with incorrect theories - but with completely unintelligible nonsense while providing absolutely no evidence nor rational for it.

See what philosophy does to some people?

Now we're getting somewhere.

As soon as I saw "preceding" misspelled, I got suspicious of the quality of the person's understanding. And . . . oxygyre? When I put that into Google, I get some hits saying, "The comparison to Jabberwocky is inevitable." Myself, I thought it might be a previously unknown fantastic animal, some combination of a griffin and a facial cleanser.

Kudos to Bravalady, for standing up and speaking out.

My suspicion was raised with a reference of sub-atomic particles as a system of planetary objects. To draw a similarity is compelling, but not after accepting the Heidelberg view of electrons.

But I would have let it slide, as one can't always argue agaisnt everything. One must choose his battles wisely as to not exhaust himself, as to not divide himself up into too many pieces and bits.

I find it refreshing, though, that here is one topic, on we all agree, with glee. And with Bravalady, of course. There is still someone we trample on, and that is the writer of the quoted article. This shows to me that conflict is an essential part of the mechanism of human motovation, even in its deepest, most basic level.

Kudos to Bravalady, for standing up and speaking out.

My suspicion was raised with a reference of sub-atomic particles as a system of planetary objects. To draw a similarity is compelling, but not after accepting the Heidelberg view of electrons.

But I would have let it slide, as one can't always argue agaisnt everything. One must choose his battles wisely as to not exhaust himself, as to not divide himself up into too many pieces and bits.

I find it refreshing, though, that here is one topic, on we all agree, with glee. And with Bravalady, of course. There is still someone we trample on, and that is the writer of the quoted article. This shows to me that conflict is an essential part of the mechanism of human motovation, even in its deepest, most basic level.