It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Majorana particle?

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 10:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

There is no reason not to consider that a structure is related to its components??

The point in intent when presented as offered is more than simply a metaphor of nothing....it relates to matter being related to structure upon a classical scale whose basis in structure is obvious.

As well as inherently relatable despite what is often wrong and inherent to the reductionist ideology.






edit on 9-2-2016 by Kashai because: Added content

edit on 9-2-2016 by Kashai because: Content edit




posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 11:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

I mean do you understand how trivial in relation to the OP your point really is?

Given the issue was brought up does not make it trivial what is trivial is your desire to imply it was not brought up for a reason, that is relevant to the research!!






edit on 9-2-2016 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 11:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
There is no reason not to consider that a structure is related to its components??


If you're referring to the relation of Majorana Particles and DNA, then no, there is absolutely no reason at all to consider any relation between the two in accordance to the articles in the OP, because that's not what they're talking about in those articles.


originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
I mean do you understand how trivial in relation to the OP your point really is?


How is saying that the issue you have with the article is actually meant to be a metaphor not relevant to the OP?

Once again, I see no form of evidence from you to demonstrate that the use of the term 'DNA' in the one article is not metaphorical.

So we can only conclude that you're arguing a point that doesn't exist.



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 11:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

You still make absolutely no sense to me this due perhaps to the box you obviously live in.



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 11:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147

You still make absolutely no sense to me this due perhaps to the box you obviously live in.



That's fine. Now, please present the evidence within the 4 articles in your OP that show a distinct correlation between Majorana Particles and DNA.



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 11:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

The OP makes clear there is a relationship please explain why that is impossible?

I have more then elaborated as to why.

I mean are we back to discussing a feeling in your big toe?

And please do not again bring up how many agree with you that just brings up another effort at presenting a Fallacy in Logic.

As well as your lack of education with all due and in respect.
edit on 9-2-2016 by Kashai because: Added and edited content



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 11:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
The OP makes clear there is a relationship please explain why that is impossible?


It's impossible because it's a metaphor.


originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
I have more then elaborated as to why.


Yes, using your own words in sentences that aren't even readable because they don't make sense.

If it is so obvious, you can quote the articles themselves.


originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
I mean are we back to discussing a feeling in your big toe?

And please do not again bring up how many agree with you that just brings up another effort at presenting a Fallacy in Logic.


It has nothing to do with others agreeing with me, it's evident in the articles and I've already explained why.

~ DNA is mentioned only 1 time out of the span of 4 articles
~ None of the 4 articles even remotely suggest that the Majorana Particle is inside DNA or has DNA in it
~ The context in which DNA is mentioned is in a state where the researcher is saying that "we need to look inside such a particle" indicating the term DNA is a metaphor
~ The context of the paragraph that is before and after that line goes on to explain that we need to look inside such a particle in order to understand it, also indicating that the use of the term DNA is a metaphor.
~ None of the articles mention biology at all, unless they explicitly state that the use of biological concepts is used as an analogy

All those factors clearly show that the term 'DNA' is meant as a metaphor to looking inside the Majorana Particle, nothing more.


originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
As well as your lack of education with all due and in respect.


Haha, do I even need to bring up the post you just made about "personal attacks just show that your argument is baseless" or does saying "with all due respect" mean you can call anyone a moron and it's fair game?

PS: you typed the phrase wrong...
edit on 9/2/16 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 11:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

And as a whole you are making one enormous guess as to the intent of the author.

Which is still irrelevant to the fact that matter in relation to its structure at the grand scale is related to the very small.

Environment allows for an inherent condition that is called life due to its fundamental structure, under the correct conditions in relation to how matter is structured.

Clearly the intent of the OP is to stress that DNA is a page as compared to the words in that page.

The paper/AKA space-time in metaphor.

Get over it.




edit on 9-2-2016 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 11:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147

And as a whole you are making one enormous guess as to the intent of the author.


If that is true, then you should easily be able to demonstrate, using nothing but the articles themselves, that my view is inaccurate.



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 11:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

Baloney the articles are not related except that they are at the front page of a search engine. And they relate to a topic in general, in response to a Boolean Search of the topic in general.

Your point is irrelevant.



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 11:55 PM
link   
***** ATTENTION ALL MEMBERS *****

Go after the ball and not the player please. Continued off topic or rude discussion will result in more post removals and possible posting bans. If you feel like you are not up to the challenge of civil discourse please take a break and come back when you are up to it.

Thanks.

***** DO NOT REPLY TO THIS POST *****



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 12:10 AM
link   
" I think you have to do a DNA test.” Such a test, he says, must show the particles do not obey the normal laws of the two known classes of particles in nature. "

Presenting that a DNA test of some kind would yield results related to the issue...not a metaphor but a clear point related to some kind of "test".

Not a metaphorical test but a real test.

I mean I am certain the authors understood the difference between making a statement and identifying it is metaphorical and the alternative.

Such a statement usually begins with, "Metaphorically speaking,"
edit on 10-2-2016 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 12:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
Baloney the articles are not related except that they are at the front page of a search engine. And they relate to a topic in general, in response to a Boolean Search of the topic in general.

Your point is irrelevant.


Ok, let's just focus on the first article then.

The only text you wrote in your OP referring to the first article stated:

Kashai
This article was presented in October, 2nd 2014 it offers an issue and then relates to issue to DNA? A new kind of particle as in something that could be related to DNA?


That is what I am currently responding to.

The first article has nothing to do with DNA at all. It was a metaphor, that's it.

If you believe it wasn't a metaphor, please use the first article's words to show that the first time the researcher used the term "DNA", it wasn't simply referencing the need to look inside such a particle and literally is referring to DNA itself.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 12:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kashai
Presenting that a DNA test of some kind would yield results related to the issue...not a metaphor but a clear point related to some kind of "test".


The term DNA is a metaphor. He doesn't literally mean DNA. If he did, DNA or any form of biology would be present somewhere else in the article.


originally posted by: Kashai
Not a metaphorical test but a real test.


Absolutely correct, he is referring to a real test. just not one on DNA.


originally posted by: Kashai
I mean I am certain the authors understood the difference between making a statement and identifying it is metaphorical and the alternative.


I'm sure they do, it's you that is having trouble understanding what is metaphorical and what isn't.


originally posted by: Kashai
Such a statement usually begins with, "Metaphorically speaking,"


Which is why I, and others have stated that it was a poor choice to use as a metaphor. He also elaborates after that very sentence that we need to look inside it. Not that we're looking for DNA, not that the particle relates to DNA, but that we have to look inside it to find how it functions like we do with DNA and cells.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 12:34 AM
link   
" I think you have to do a DNA test.” Such a test, he says, must show the particles do not obey the normal laws of the two known classes of particles in nature.


I think difference with a "Metaphor" and a "test" is apparent.

I am not interesting in listening how many agree with you. As that is often evidence of nothing more than some bias that has nothing to do with cold hard facts.


Which, are that the OP offered that DNA is related and in context. Matter could be defined as more than the "classical", sum of its parts.


edit on 10-2-2016 by Kashai because: Content edit



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 12:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Bedlam

Nonetheless the DNA contains electrons and so in order for DNA to form there needs to be electrons.


HCG contains electrons, too. If HCG is present, then a pregnancy test will be positive. If the pregnancy tests are positive, there is a baby.

Therefore...

electrons are pregnant.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 12:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kashai
I think difference with a "Metaphor" and a "test" is apparent.


The metaphor is not the test part, the metaphor is the DNA part.


originally posted by: Kashai
I am not interesting in listening how many agree with you. As that is often evidence of nothing more than some bias that has nothing to do with cold hard facts.


Believe it or not, but I've already presented a ton of evidence other than "people agree with me", and they have provided their own individual evidence, which even further backs up the obvious fact that the use of "DNA" is a metaphor.


originally posted by: Kashai
Which are that the OP offered that DNA is related and in context matter could be defined as more than the "classical", sum of its parts.


Perhaps you didn't read my words when I stated, multiple times now, use any other part of the article to back your claim.

The claim is that DNA is related to Majorana particles. The researcher uses the term 'DNA' once. There is no reference to biology anywhere else in the article. The context in which the term "DNA" is used is to imply that we need to look inside of the particle, not for DNA, not to prove that Majorana particles relate to DNA, but it is used to describe that we need to know what parts make it up.

Prove to us that DNA or even Biology is relevant anywhere else in the article, using quotes from the article, not your supposition.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 12:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

Matter has the potential to become animated under the right conditions.

Those conditions relate to inherent relationships that clearly go beyond simply separating environment from something that exists within it.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 01:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

Why even mention it at all and again you are not making much sense to me. The article point to the fact that this is in fact related to DNA and in relation to its structure fundamentally. You have yet to provide any argument in response to my points, that actually seems completely relevant to the structure of matter.

It in all sincerity makes no difference that you think it was a metaphor as in fact there is not referent in the article to any metaphor. The article states as a matter of fact that investigating or testing DNA to this end should produce a relationship between the issue of such particles and DNA.

While you opinion has been noted in my opinion it is irrelevant to this discussion.

To be clear I am not impressed with the idea that two other members who like you support "religiously", a reductionist ideology, support your position.


edit on 10-2-2016 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 01:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
Why even mention it at all


Because you're forming questions and making claims off of a false premise.


originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
The article point to the fact that this is in fact related to DNA and in relation to its structure fundamentally.


You haven't presented any evidence that supports this claim, yet I've asked you for it a good 4-5 times now.


originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
You have yet to provide any argument in response to my points, that actually seems completely relevant to the structure of matter.


I'm not making an argument to your points, because they aren't relevant to the article in the OP. If I were to respond to them it would be derailing the topic because they simply aren't relevant. You're forming this argument based off of a false premise.


originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
It in all sincerity makes no difference that you think it was a metaphor as in fact there is not referent in the article to any metaphor.


Yes, there is, I've already presented that to you.


originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
The article states as a matter of fact that investigating or testing DNA to this end should produce a relationship between the issue of such particles and DNA.


No, they make no such claim that they are testing literal DNA. If it did, DNA would be mentioned everywhere throughout the article. It's mentioned once, and in the context that refers exclusively to the action of looking inside the particle to understand how it functions, just like we look inside DNA to see how genes function.

It is a metaphor, and a poor one at that.


originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
While you opinion has been noted in my opinion it is irrelevant to this discussion.


How is it irrelevant? You're entire thread is based on your belief that the article is about DNA, which it is not.

You are completely misunderstanding the article because you can't recognize a metaphor.


originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
To be clear I am not impressed with the idea that two other members who like you support "religiously", a reductionist ideology, support your position.


I've already responded to this exact sentence of yours 3 times already. It makes no difference to me if others support me or not, the evidence is clear, I have presented the evidence, others have also presented even more evidence, and you have yet to actually address said evidence.
edit on 10/2/16 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join