Following incubation at 121oC for 1 hour and longer, a marked change occurs in the internal appearance of the Red Rain cells (Fig.4 c (i) and d (i)), as small cells appear in the original larger cells. These small cells can be regarded as “daughter cells” having the same morphology as their “mother cells”. The size of the daughter cells ,after 1h exposure to 121oC, ranges from 30 nm to 120 nm in size (Fig 4 c (i), (ii) and b (i), (ii)). The cell wall of these daughter cells is seen to thicken following incubation for 2hours (Fig.5 (i) and (ii)).In conclusion, the results of the present study clearly establishes that red cells discovered in the Kerala rain, replicate at 121oC and that there is a significant increase in the number of cells after incubation at 121oC. Furthermore, optical microscopy and electron microscopy of post-incubated red cells confirms that these cells are hyperthermophiles. The formation of daughter cells having the same morphology as the mother cells clearly shows that Red Rain Cells are not single endospores, such as those seen in bacteria, such as species of Bacillus and Clostridium.The optimum growth conditions and upper temperature limit of these cells is yet to be determined. Although autoclaving at 121oC for 20 mins kills most microorganims, some spores of Bacillus and Clsotridium species can resist this treatment and germinate to form vegetative cells when incubated at lower temperatures (Hyum et al,1983,Vessoni,et al.1996). Here, however, we have shown that, unlike heat resistant bacterial spores, Red Rain cells grow and produce daughter calls when incubated at 121oC for 2 hours. The results of these experiments show the remarkable ability of Red Rain cells to grow and replicate at 121oC and thereby supports the hyperthermostability of red cells, as reported by Louis and Kumar (2003); no attempt however, was made to confirm their claims that Red Rain cells grow at 300oC.The origin of Red Rain, and the cells that it contains, has yet to be discovered, although the results of this study suggest that, since such cells are adapted to growth and reproduction at high temperatures, they likely originate in an extreme environment which is at times exposed to high temperatures; whether such environments occur on Earth, or elsewhere, has yet to be determined. (Emphasis mine).[…]While the origin of the red rain cells remains uncertain, the possibility of their astronomical relevance has been suggested in several papers (Louis and Kumar, 2003, 2006). In this connection, the hyperthermophile properties discussed in the present paper and the unusual fluorescence behaviour are worthy of note.We conclude this section by comparing spectra in Fig 7 with astronomical spectra of a fluorescnence phenomenon (ERE emission) for which no convincing abiotic model is still available, Fig 9 shows normalised ERE emission in several astronomical objects and Fig 10 shows the same emission in the famous Red Rectangle, a nebulosity associated with a planetary nebula (Witt and Boronson, 1990; Furton and Witt, 1992, Perrin et al, 1995, Hoyle and Wickramsinghe, 1996). Although non-biological PAH explanations are still being attempted their success has so far been minimal.[…]A spectrum of starlight from a blue star could provide the range of excitaton wavelengths that corresponds to those involved in Fig. . The correspondence of profile and peak fluorescence wavelength between the red rain spectra and the ERE spectrum of the red rectangle is impressive. We conclude this paper with a recollection of an earlier comment published by Hoyle and Wickramasinghe:“Once again the Universe gives the appearance of being biologically constructed, and on this occasion on a truly vast scale. Once again those who consider such thoughts to be too outlandish to be taken seriously will continue to do so. While we ourselves shall continue to take the view that those who believe they can match the complexities of the Universe by simple experiments in their laboratories will continue to be disappointed.” (Emphasis mine).
forgetomori posts this:
Brazilian contactee Antonio Alves Ferreira interviewed his alien abductors, Riaus and Telione , when their flying saucer landed. That’s not news. The news is, the aliens graciously allowed Ferreira to record the interview. And we have that recording right here…
The quality is unfortunately worse than terrible, as it was all recorded on cassette tape more than two decades ago. I tried to filter some noise out, but it also filtered some of the voices and sound effects, so I decided to upload the original, without filtering.
Even the parts where clear Portuguese is spoken cannot be quite understood. It’s not that important, since the parts where “Protu” is spoken are not translated by Ferreira, so we would miss at least half of the conversation anyway.
This recording was made available thanks to Eustáquio Patounas, from SOCEX, the “Society for the Study of Aliens“, who kindly authorized this reproduction.
Of the endless things that a debunker could say about the recording, I’ll first mention that it’s really adorable. Ferreira introduces the aliens in the beginning, and in the end thank them for the interview, just like a gentleman should. He has a slight country accent, and the background noises do remind me of cars and trucks. But they could be from inside the flying saucer, obviously.
This is the first time I’ve heard of an alien interview being ‘adorable’.
Like this guy was abducted by grey alien teddy-bears or some sh*t.
The Heavy Stuff further tackles the ‘Reality is a Simulation’ idea:
Of course, that `subject matter’ is the 1970’s college dorm late night favorite subject of `what is reality’? Yes, younger readers, before the Matrix – the very structure of realitywas something the `college heads’ thought discussion worthy. Perhaps is was those higher times that allowed a clearer seeing of the thin vail of reality – the illusionrefered to by the mystics and shaman of yester ages and days gone by.
And, in part one – THS – covered the `normal’ Matrixlike idea that `we’ (yes, you and I) and everything else — was simply the result of a running software program made by at least one civilization. In essence, an artifical being within an artificial reality.
In the first post, it was perhaps the logic of the `low threshold’ that was the most worrisome aspect of IF we are a simulation. Afterall, if only ONE civilization EVER ——— EVER — produced and ran (these are most important words) a `reality simulation software – in which ‘the spaces within the program could have self-awareness‘ ————– THEN — the `real odds’ of us (you and me) being real – in the manner WE think of real —– may be quite small. And, that the odds we ARE a simulation — quite large. Indeed, in part one – THS threw out some numbers to just form an opinion as to what the odds might actually be – or – to set you thinking about the hard numbers of the situation.
BUT, a closer look might dramatically INCREASE those odds – that is – increase the odds that we are real. (Isn’t that nice?) …
Circular logic here, but the author is essentially playing the devil’s advocate in this instance. He takes on Nick Bostrums’ Reality Theory head-on with aplomb and intelligence.
This is Part 2 in a series.
As more and more powerful telescopes look into the cosmos, the more our astronomers and cosmologists claim to know about the universe. But is our growing knowledge as simple as that?
One thing that worries me is the fact that any new discovery seems to offer a great deal of excitement, but only mild surprise. It is as if whatever is found fits quite neatly into our view of things.
One answer to this is that our theories are right.
We have a good grasp of the universal construct. We are on the right track, and soon everything will be disclosed. But there is another answer.
This concerns the nature of what we can know. For instance, many ‘realities’ could be out there, but we are only capable of imagining a certain set of principles. Even if the result of them was there to be seen, we would miss them.
anthonynorth isn’t exactly endorsing the Anthropic Principle per se, but he in fact is wondering why this seems to be so. Very intelligent essay.
Many tips o’ the hat to The Anomalist
Cosmology has taken on the aspect of religion and philosophy lately. There are various camps of scientists who don’t hold the candle of empirical science up high for all to see. One such camp holds to the theory of the anthropic principle . Basically it means that human beings as observers to events in the Universe actually impose constraints on our observations. Simply put, we only see a Universe that supports our kind of life. Also it means we effect the Universe itself by our observations. With that in mind, here’s part of an article posted in Cosmos Magazine:
Vacuum energy itself acts like a kind of anti-gravity pushing space-time apart. Calculations suggest that only when the density of this vacuum energy is larger than the density of matter in the universe will the expansion of space-time accelerate – but this is what we are currently observing.
The cosmic coincidence is that we are living at precisely the time when vacuum energy is starting to dominate. This drives some experts crazy because statistically, there’s less than a one per cent chance that this would be the case. Why, they ask, is this momentous event happening now, precisely when humans are alive to witness it?
It’s as if someone has just stepped on the accelerator of the universe, claim Charles Lineweaver and Charles Egan, astronomers at the Australian National University in Canberra and the University of New South Wales in Sydney, respectively.
In order to explain this so-called ‘cosmic coincidence’ problem, some scientists have proposed the idea of a ‘multiverse’, where different parts of the universe have different values of the vacuum energy.
The article states further that certain parts of the Universe “…physical laws can differ in different parts of the universe, and that what holds true for our corner of the cosmos might not be applicable in a different part …”
This is a huge boon to the anthropic principle people and possibly to scientists who hold to a belief system of a God or Creator that tweaks the laws of physics from outside of our known observed Universe. But the question I would ask of these scientists and God for that matter is, “Why tweak certain parts of the Universe and not others?”
It is stuff like this that causes more questions than answers. Combining philosophy and cosmology? It’s nothing new, the Sumerians, Egyptians and Mayans did it all the time.
Maybe they knew something we’re just starting to rediscover?