Dark Energy’s DNA Origin

DNA and living organisms emit biophotons, which radiation is coherent and blackbody, i.e. not thermal. DNA’s biophotonic emissions provide a holographic biofield for the generation of physical structures. A seed, for instance, changes itself from a particle state into the tree’s biofield for the purpose of self-reproduction. From the systems point of view a seed or genotype constitutes the phenotype tree system’s input and output.

According to Systems Cosmology if we reverse the expansion of the universe in time, we’ll find that the universe does not have a big bang origin, but a seed origin. In other words we’ll find that a cosmic seed or cosmic DNA constitutes the genotype of the phenotype cosmic system. Also we’ll find that just as a tree is the seed’s way of making reproductions of itself, the universe is the cosmic DNA’s way of making reproductions of itself. In a word, we’ll find that life constitutes the cosmic system’s input and output.

Thus the observation of a tree system allows us to infer that our universe yields life because the universe itself is the product of a seed of life. Based on this inference it is logical to propose that evidently dark energy — also called vacuum energy or zero-point field — is the cosmic DNA’s life energy.

Predictably dark energy — that fuels the expansion of our universe — is the same as the quantum vacuum’s zero-point energy, as well as the cosmic microwave radiation. The reason is that they all seem to originate from the cosmic DNA’s biophoton emissions, which blackbody radiation provides a holographic biofield for the generation of the physical universe.

Based on the fact that the biophotonic radiation emitted by DNA is coherent we may predict also that the cosmic DNA’s biophotonic field or "dark energy" is equally coherent.

Kazmer Ujvarosy
Forefront Research
Center for Systems Cosmology
San Francisco, CA 94109-4176-06

One thought on “Dark Energy’s DNA Origin”

  1. whose ideas have already been aired on Sciscoop as a 45,550 word story. Judging from the comments, sciscoop readers like his ideas as metaphors but not as science, and many regretted voting for it (it was so long they didn’t read it). He is almost incapable of logically defending his ideas and resorts to calling people names instead.

    Please dump this article.

Comments are closed.