| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Chemistry Forum » #12 Carbon to Calcium Complimentarity in plants versus...
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| ... |
 Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:02 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Quote:
So far I have identified two Quantum Complimentarity relationships in
animals and plants:
That is not really accurate because in the 1990s, I was doing a patent
application
for a human carbon fiber skeleton via cloning, where we replace our
calcium
skeletons for a carbon fiber skeleton and in the midst of that
research, I realized
that such a scheme is not only difficult but probably impossible due
to this
Complimentarity between plants and animals. That if I wanted to change
out the
calcium in bones and make the bones carbon, that it would mess up the
electrical system of animals and thus no longer an animal.
So in the 1990s, I was well on the way of this entire book dealing
with Quantum
Complimentarity in biology.
Quote: (1) respiration Complimentarity of carbon-dioxide intake for plants
with oxygen
emission and oxygen intake for animals with carbon-dioxide emission
(2) Nitrogen a base-maximum for plants
In the case of Nitrogen, its compliment in animals maybe not another
element or
compound but rather the idea that the nitrogen is a maximum point of
alkalinity for
plants but a minimum point of alkalinity for animals, meaning that
nitrogen is far more
essential to plant chemistry than it is to animal chemistry and where
animals need to
exist to transport around the nitrogen in their waste products. So
where plants provide
food for animals, animals provide food for plants in their waste
product of poop and piss
which are high in nitrogen.
Quote: I need to identify others such as these:
(3) Backbone structure or Stiffness for plants is based on carbon,
whereas in animals
it is based on calcium
For some reason, no animal can have a backbone or stiff structure made
of
carbon. In the 1990s, I had reckoned it was due to the electrical
system of
animals that carbon is incompatible as a backbone and although carbon
would
be superior in strength for animals, it is impossible to make a animal
with
mobility with a carbon backbone. So that in this sense, carbon is the
compliment of calcium.
Quote: (4) Energy pathways in plants, much like the Bronsted-Lowry scheme
where plants are
donors and animals utilize the donation
There are alot of energy pathways in plants and animals, and I am
going to have
to "brush up" on this topic. Some molecules of sugar made by plants
and utilized
by animals. I already spoke of the nitrogen in animal waste which is a
"food for plants."
I have to look into photosynthesis and look into ATP.
Now some may argue against Complimentarity citing these strange
bacteria that
live solely off of rocks by eating rocks such as in deep caves or such
as in Yellowstone
geysers living off of inorganic compounds. These advocates would tend
to think such
rock eaters could have been the first life on Earth and everything
else evolved from them.
I would reply that "rock eaters" are derivatives of plants. That the
plants came before the
Rock eaters and these rock-eaters evolved from plants. A good analogy
here is the idea
of a cancer cell versus the body that the cancer inhabits. The cancer
cell was a offspring
of the normal cells. So that rock-eaters came from normal plant cells.
Quote: (5) Mobility Compliments where plants are stationary and animals
mobile
Now above I listed Carbon as a compliment to calcium for stiffness and
backbone.
It is highly likely that carbon and calcium are complimentary in other
ways, not just
one way. The mobility required of animals involves electricity in the
body. And here I
am thinking of "muscle mobility". What makes a muscle do what a muscle
does?
Well it involves contractions and involves energy.
This is another area I need to brush-up on.
So I want to firmly state that elements like calcium or carbon maybe
complimentary
in many ways and not just one characteristic.
Quote:
(6) Water molecule complimentarity for life, in that water is
compliments of hydrogen
ion H+ and hydroxide ion OH-
Most of life is water and since water is composed of complimentary
parts, we would thus
think, or should think that life is a complimentarity schemata or
blueprint.
One of the important aspects of Complimentarity is that it proves
Darwin Evolution cannot
be a true theory because you need the ever prescence of two
compliments in order for
each to live. Which reminds me of a seventh complimentarity.
(7) Single cell complimentary to multicell organism.
Now this is a form of Complimentarity which I have not given in depth
thought to. It would
not involve one chemical element versus another chemical element or
compounds. It raises
very many questions. One such question is when the first life forms
appeared on Earth as
a energetic Cosmic Ray or Gamma Ray burst transformed into a Colony of
living individuals,
where all the individuals a mix of one celled plants and animals, or
was the colony a mix
of one celled and multicelled plants and animals? I would guess it was
all one-celled to
save on energy. And that multicelled organisms can evolve easily
enough through time. At least
that is my guess, but perhaps I maybe surprized that a multicelled
organism has something
that no single celled organism possess and essential and thus
essential to first life colony.
At the moment, I cannot envision a single aspect of a multicell that
is not found in single cell.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Nov 23, 2008 1:42 pm
|
|