Energy Cloud May Be Triggering Rapid DNA Changes & Evolution

reply to post by Bluesma

I think if one gets carried away on either end, they pose an obstacle to creative discussion, cooperation, and even reason. One can lose their focus in trying too hard to control the focus of others.

I find it important to strip the nonsense and falsehoods from discussions. That strips out much of the malarkey this discussion is based on. If people want to discuss a situation which is fantasy then they should do that.

For example, instead of stating that these interstellar clouds are energy clouds it is more fitting to begin with a statement such as, "Although energy clouds do not exist we could pretend that some demonic force has altered the laws of the universe and placed them in the vicinity of the Earth. Being a typical powerful demonic force, this demon has made this energy cloud so distant and vague that it might amount to no more than a celestial chair rattle. Can anyone conceive of a manner in which this energy cloud might do more that allow us to detect its existence?"

Another approach is to strip out the nonsense and discuss the residue. I like that approach. It takes thinking and learning to deal with reality.

ENERGY :

"Heat, a form of energy, is partly potential energy and partly of kinetic energy"

Interstellar CLOUD :

Interstellar cloud is the generic name given to an accumulation of gas, plasma and dust in our and other galaxies. Put differently, an interstellar cloud is a denser-than-average region of the interstellar medium.

Here is NASA saying :

It's about 30 light years wide and contains a wispy mixture of hydrogen and helium atoms at a temperature of 6000 C. The existential mystery of the Fluff has to do with its surroundings.

Voyages makes an Interstellar Discovery

WOW, sounds like the very definition of an "energy cloud" to me.

Then within the same article we can also read :

About 10 million years ago, a cluster of supernovas exploded nearby, creating a giant bubble of million-degree gas. The Fluff is completely surrounded by this high-pressure supernova exhaust and should be crushed or dispersed by it. "The observed temperature and density of the local cloud do not provide enough pressure to resist the 'crushing action' of the hot gas around it," says Opher.

So how does the Fluff survive? The Voyagers have found an answer.

"Voyager data show that the Fluff is much more strongly magnetized than anyone had
previously suspected—between 4 and 5 microgauss ," says Opher. "This magnetic field can provide the extra pressure required to resist destruction."

Wait...what was that? It magnetized!? Some pretty funky psuedo-science there...

Originally posted by stereologist
[
I find it important to strip the nonsense and falsehoods from discussions. That strips out much of the malarkey this discussion is based on.

I can agree with that.
I prefer doing it with a bit of respect and recognition of others involved in the discussion.

Here's a thought off the top of my head-
Let's look at some of the buzz words of this guys hypothesis, that may have been the "taking off" point for him to go putting this together:

Atmosphere
Energy
Cloud
DNA
Changes
Evolution

(and corresponding images one could see in mind as symbolic of these)



Hm. Wwwhhhat about ......
....... depleteing ozone layer in the stratosphere is leading to-
.......Increased UV radiation, leading to-
......increased tropospheric (oxidizing) ozone, and-
......increased mutation rates in DNA of living organisms, including human.


-Here's something that is happening, for real, now. Some of the eventual effects upon humans of this process is impossible to predict, but we know it will cause mutations in DNA.



Now, how much can we influence the direction of mutations? Perhaps not at all. There is enough reason to at least keep a bit of open mind about the influence of consciousness upon matter, especially ones body. The placebo effect is evidence of this.

So consider- what if a person believes strongly that a placebo will cause a certain effect in their body on a molecular level? Add to that, the "placebo" being a radioactive energy which stimulates change in chaotic ways...

This is relevant to the part of the discussion on the necessity of pulling down violently all tat might not be scientifically proven.

reply to post by RadicalRebel

WOW, sounds like the very definition of an "energy cloud" to me.

Thus all clouds are energy clouds. Pretty pointless don't you think?

Notice that the articles you reference make a distinction between energy and cloud. A cloud is defined by being made of matter. That matter has a mean kinetic energy. That is translated into a temperature.

There is no energy cloud. There is a cloud of matter and some of the properties of that cloud are presented including its composition, temperature, location, magnetic field strength, and density.

It's not a cloud of energy.

Article:
Passing into the Energy Cloud

Quote from article :

"We have discovered a strong magnetic field just outside the solar system. This magnetic field holds the interstellar energy cloud together and solves the long-standing puzzle of how it can exist at all," says Opher, a NASA Heliophysics Guest Investigator from George Mason University.

Individual being quoted in article :

Merav Opher

Merav Opher received a B.A from the University of SÃo Paulo, Brazil in 1992 and a Ph.D. in plasma astrophysics from the Astronomy Department of the University of SÃo Paulo, Brazil in 1998. We worked as scientific staff at Jet Propulsion Laboratory and from 1999-2001. From 2001-2004 she was a Caltech Postdoctoral Scholar at JPL. Her previous post-doctoral experience was working in plasma astrophysics in the plasma group at UCLA. There she worked with George Morales, Jean Noel Leuboff and John D

Guess even professional scientist use psuedo-science now

Yup...its an "energy cloud"!

O M G!

Energy cloud changing DNA! That completely explains that extra arm growing out of my left ear!!

Evil energy cloud!!

*shaking fist*

Originally posted by RadicalRebel

Guess even professional scientist use psuedo-science now

The quote is from a HuffPo panic blogger in an end-of-the-world blog post. Did you check the original text that he's supposedly quoting from yet?

eta: and, much as I expected to see, that 'quote' is a poorly-done summation of the abstract. In which Opher is discussing the magnetic field energy, not the gas cloud, other than he's determining the metrics of the magnetic field by studying flow patterns in the gas. And not a quote.

In fact, the only place you ever SEE that "quote" is on woo sites, quoted from the HuffPo blog. Considering that the blogger attributes it to that Nature article, and the article doesn't contain that quote at all, I'd say you ought to be wary of data from Lawrence Joseph.

further: It's paid content, I have access to it but if you do not, someone has posted it here.

Even more fun - Opher explicitly states this:

These estimates relied either on indirect obser-
vational inferences or modelling in which the interstellar neutral
hydrogen was not taken into account.

He also calls it

The local interstellar medium magnetic field ... is one of the
key elements that control the interaction between the Solar System
and the interstellar medium.

The cloud of material that surrounds the Sun
moves in the Local Standard of Rest in a nearly perpendicular
motion. The result of these two motions isthat weobserve interstellar
material flowing towards the Sun, called the interstellar wind.

Within 100–200pc from the
Sun, the interstellar gas is embedded in the Local Bubble
16
, a huge
region of hot tenuous plasma which contains small, cooler, denser
clouds such as the Local Interstellar Cloud (also called the Local
Cloud), which envelops the Sun.

Hm. The terms he uses are not 'energy cloud', but 'neutral hydrogen' (hm where did we hear that upthread), 'interstellar wind', 'interstellar gas', 'interstellar medium', 'tenuous plasma'.

Never does he say 'energy cloud of galactic wave'. He's very very clearly calling it a thin gas. So, there you go, I agree, Opher is a good source. You just have to graduate up from quoting HuffPo to looking at the source material

reply to post by RadicalRebel


This is in an interview with someone that does not understand what they are writing. It was not in a real science article. Opher was being polite with a reporter.

Guess even professional scientist use psuedo-science now

No. The interviewee was simply being polite and dumbing down the conversation to the level of the reporter.

Apparently, the reporter is not the only one requiring the material to be dumbed down.

Thanks bedlam for the correction. Opher was misquoted. I had incorrectly assumed that Opher had to dumb down the material for a reporter/blogger unable to understand the material. The reporter/blogger did not properly quote the interviewee.

Originally posted by stereologist
Thanks bedlam for the correction. Opher was misquoted. I had incorrectly assumed that Opher had to dumb down the material for a reporter/blogger unable to understand the material. The reporter/blogger did not properly quote the interviewee.

I looked far and wide for some sort of source where Opher MIGHT have said that, to get the context, but it never appears anywhere except as a quote from that HuffPo article. Certainly no paper I've seen from Opher ever calls it an energy cloud, and I've skimmed a half dozen.

Seems the HuffPo guy was sort of making crap up based on the abstract. The blogger is a 2012er.

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by ExquisitExamplE

Now, allow me to share with you a snippet of what I've been reading lately that I believe speaks specifically to the idea of DNA changes and this idea of 'new energy'.

Now, this material is channeled material, so, if that upsets you, by all means, read no further.

This is one of those hallmarks of religion - that of "revealed truth". The problem with "revealed truth", generally provided by some sort of prophet, in this case "channeled", is that it is unverifiable, untestable, something you have to take on faith. Besides just being hogwash, that is.

A weakness of this is as follows: I just channeled a revelation by the Great and Powerful Hiram. He told me your source was an evil energy who is misleading you. There is no "new energy", in fact you are misusing the term, and there are no "DNA changes" other than the usual. He also says your momma dresses you funny. Oh, and in case you are a disbeliever, then read no more and simply go your way.

See? Anyone can make up any bovine waste and claim it as unchallengeable truth by simply claiming it came 'from beyond'. And then, of course, tacking on the usual horsehockey about 'if you want to question it, read no further!'. Right.

The difference between discovered truth, science, and 'revealed truth', religion, is that anyone can participate in discovered truth - by design, the path that the discoverer took is painstakingly documented, verified by many, and can be taken by YOU. "revealed truth", of course, is only revealed to the prophet or whatever, and purports to come from some unquestionable, unavailable source.

Thank you for that perspective. The problem I have with most of your interactions with people in this thread, and indeed myself as well, is not particularly your assertions, but rather your method of making them, that is, you come off like a completely narcissistic, arrogant jerk. If you want people to come around to your way of thinking, it's generally not the best idea to constantly belittle them and attempt to point out how foolish they are. It makes me, and I'm sure others in this thread as well, very disinterested and disinclined in listening further to anything you have to say.

reply to post by ExquisitExamplE


Sorry, if facts upset you, please read no further.

Did I do it right?

I dunno. If you seriously try to slide information by me that was 'channeled' from some 'elder spirit' or 'the ancients', I really don't know how to deal with that, other than being blunt - I think those sources come down to hucksters and the mentally ill. And, although you might not like it, I stand by the issues with this sort of thing.

When have you seen someone channeling legitimate scientific discoveries? It's the same old vague poo you get from spirit and trance mediums. Have one of them reveal to me a testable unified field theory. THAT would get you noticed. Or any number of mathematical proofs of conjectures we depend on but haven't been able to formally solve. There's dozens of 'em.

I'm not talking pseudo-science babbling. If one of these channelers were to come out with something really applicable, it would be amazing. But it doesn't happen. And so I don't have any respect for those 'sources' of information.

eta: But, you're right, I could sugar coat it a bit better. For you, I'll give it a shot.

reply to post by Bedlam


Seemed like a direct quote, didnt assume that it was a lie...still dont...
Plus.... im honestly not paying to read it, though i did try to dl the pdf but the only links i could find didnt work
Almost like some one is suppressing he info....

I also tried Ophers site at BU but didnt find it there. If you have a link though i would love to read it.

Originally posted by RadicalRebel
reply to post by Bedlam

 

Seemed like a direct quote, didnt assume that it was a lie...still dont...
Plus.... im honestly not paying to read it, though i did try to dl the pdf but the only links i could find didnt work
Almost like some one is suppressing he info....

I also tried Ophers site at BU but didnt find it there. If you have a link though i would love to read it.

I've seen this guy do that before, which is why I posted the 'did you look at the original article' comment before I found the paper.

Heck, I searched jstor, googlescholar and science direct as well as the web for that quote, and you never see it other than as a quote from the guy from HuffPo.

Does this link not work for you? It works here, but I've got mil certificates at work, so maybe there's some reason it displays here and not there.

Originally posted by RadicalRebel
I also tried Ophers site at BU but didnt find it there. If you have a link though i would love to read it.

Bedlam edited his post to include a link and it works for me...

Thanks Bedlam! I asked for a link to a scientific paper on page 1, and only had to wait until page 9 to get one, but I finally got one, so thank you!

I found information about the "cloud" but as you already pointed out, the scientists don't call it an "energy cloud".

However what I'm still not seeing is any science linking this "cloud" to "Rapid DNA Changes & Evolution". Is there any paper on that or did some blogger just hear about the interstellar cloud and make up the part about "Rapid DNA Changes & Evolution"?

Even the very ground we walk on is slightly radioactive, so ambient radiation from cosmic rays may only be about 13% of the total radiation humans are exposed to.

In countries like the USA, average exposure to medical radiation amounts to a lot more than exposure from cosmic rays.

But even a claim that higher levels of radiation from the medical profession are speeding up evolution would not be plausible. Why? because for evolution to occur, the "more fit" mutated specimens must survive in favor of the "less fit" "unmutated" specimens. And the very medical profession that is causing the increased radiation is also slowing the death rates of the "less fit specimens". So lacking any hard data on modern genetic mutation rates, and having lots of hard data on declining death rates due to modern medicine, I think it's much easier to argue for a drastic decrease in the rate of human evolution, though this would also be speculative, but more plausible and backed by more data (declining death rate data).

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

However what I'm still not seeing is any science linking this "cloud" to "Rapid DNA Changes & Evolution". Is there any paper on that or did some blogger just hear about the interstellar cloud and make up the part about "Rapid DNA Changes & Evolution"?

I don't think there would be any. Certainly the Solar System's been plowing through hydrogen and helium since Adam was a pup. It isn't 'radiation' in the sense of something that could cause mutations directly. Now, if you hit some region that was SO dense that the cosmic ray level went up very substantially, you might get increased mutations. We're not seeing that, really, in terms of big jumps of cosmic ray density.

And as we've both said, increased mutation rates don't speed up evolution, that's set by the generational rate of the organism. You could increase the rate of speciation, or of divergence, if you had an isolated human group to diverge that was having a lot of successful mutations. But the only way it would 'speed up evolution' would be to have the mutation permit having six kids at the age of three or something.

IMHO, it harkens back to the 2012 new age ascension thing where a contingent of people were expecting to morph into X Men or something like you saw on Stargate, it looks like an attempt to say it really did happen, this was what it was, and now we will all mutate into beings of light powered by this putative energy cloud.

Reply to Arbitrageur

DNA may be modified, either naturally or artificially, by a number of physical, chemical and biological agents, resulting in mutations. In 1927, Hermann Muller first demonstrated mutation with observable changes in the chromosomes can be caused by irradiating fruit flies with X-ray,[2] and lent support to the idea of mutation as the cause of cancer.[3] His contemporary Lewis Stadler also showed the mutational effect of X-ray on barley in 1928,[4] and ultraviolet (UV) radiation on maize in 1936.[5] In 1940s, Charlotte Auerbach and J. M. Robson, found that mustard gas can also cause mutations in fruit flies.[6]
While changes to the chromosome caused by X-ray and mustard gas were readily observable to the early researchers, other changes to the DNA induced by other mutagens were not so easily observable, and the mechanism may be complex and takes longer to unravel. For example, soot was suggested to be a cause of cancer as early as 1775,[7] and coal tar was demonstrated to cause cancer in 1915.[8] The chemicals involved in both were later shown to be polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH).[9] PAHs by themselves are not carcinogenic, and it was proposed in 1950 that the carcinogenic forms of PAHs are the oxides produced as metabolites from cellular processes.[10] The metabolic process was identified in 1960s as catalysis by cytochrome P450 which produces reactive species that can interact with the DNA to form adducts,[11][12] the mechanism by which the PAH adducts give rise to mutation however is still under investigation.
DNA may sustain more than 50,000 damages per cell per day,[13] and some estimates put the number of oxidative adducts per cell generated through reactive oxidative species at 150,000.[14] If left uncorrected, these adducts can give rise to mutation. In nature, the mutations that arise may be beneficial or deleterious - it is the driving force of evolution, an organism may acquire new traits through genetic mutation, but mutation may also result in impaired function of the genes, and in severe cases, causing the death of the organism. In the laboratory, however, mutagenesis is a useful technique for generating mutations that allows the functions of genes and gene products to be examined in detail, producing proteins with improved characteristics or novel function, as well as mutant strains with useful properties. Initially the ability of radiation and chemical mutagens to cause mutation was exploited to generate random mutations, later techniques were developed to introduce specific mutations.
[edit]

reply to post by Arbitrageur

from en.wikipedia.org...Link and further:

The fact that electromagnetic radiation exerts a pressure upon any surface exposed to it was deduced theoretically by James Clerk Maxwell in 1871 and Adolfo Bartoli in 1876, and proven experimentally by Russian physicist Peter Lebedev in 1900[1] and by Ernest Fox Nichols and Gordon Ferrie Hull in 1901.[2] The pressure is very feeble, but can be detected by allowing the radiation to fall upon a delicately poised vane of reflective metal in a Nichols radiometer (this should not be confused with the Crookes radiometer, whose characteristic motion is not caused by radiation pressure but by impacting gas molecules).
[edit]Theory

[edit]Radiation pressure in classical electromagnetism
According to Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism, an electromagnetic plane wave carries momentum, which can be transferred to a reflecting (or absorbing) surface hit by the wave.
The energy flux (intensity) is expressed by the Poynting vector , whose magnitude we denote by S. S divided by the square of the speed of light in free space is the density of the linear momentum of the electromagnetic field. The time-averaged intensity divided by the speed of light in free space is the radiation pressure exerted by an electromagnetic wave on the surface of a target, if the wave is completely absorbed:
.
This formula is multiplied by a factor of 2, if the wave is actually completely reflected.
[edit]Particle argument
From the perspective of quantum theory, light is made of photons: particles with zero mass but which carry energy and — importantly in this argument — momentum. According to special relativity, because photons are massless their energy (E) and momentum (p) are related by E=pc.[3]
Now consider a beam of light perpendicularly incident on a surface, and let us assume the beam of light is totally absorbed. If we imagine the beam is made of photons, then every second numerous photons strike the surface and are absorbed. The momentum the photons carry is a conserved quantity — that is: it cannot be destroyed — so it must be transferred to the surface; the result is that absorbing the light beam causes the surface to gain momentum.
Newton's second law tells us that force equals rate of change of momentum,

etc. The last pertaining to the stuff of fluff in clouds and such and how that may or may not work. There's a whole lot of "papers" out there, very easy to find about all this.

Now, the channeling stuff and its accuracy or lack thereof, and posters' arguments about all that, is way beyond me, because whomever is channeling me the current ability to think at all, much less type it, isn't cooperating on that subject at the moment.

edit on 20-3-2013 by tetra50 because: (no reason given)

There's also another guy out there named Andrew Collins who wrote a book called the "Cygnus Mystery," which takes a metaphysical and philosophical approach, combined with some of this hard science about mutagenic radiation and its effects on evolution, and applies it with some astrodynamic and simple astronomy corresponding with geography of Egypt, and goes from there.

edit on 20-3-2013 by tetra50 because: (no reason given)

We're screwed, we're screwed....screwed. Am I thinking outloud again

reply to post by Bedlam


Thank you greatly for the link, the one i tried to get the pdf from wouldnt download, maybe because im confined to my cell phone. In any case, TY, i hope you understand why i do not simply take peoples word.
Unfortunately, like the example of this thread, it is sometimes all we have to build on. Its good to see that there is someone willing to look and provide further information when needed. I certainly dont mind being wrong (being the pessimistic conspiracy minded person i am).