fredreload

Right, but they modulate the radio wave as digital signal, not as analogue right?

Something like radio wave and radio receiver except convert it to wireless internet

https://documentation.meraki.com/MR/WiFi_Basics_and_Best_Practices/Wireless_Fundamentals%3A_Modulation Right, my bad, I just thought this seems computer science ish. I'd favor Quadrature Amplitude Modulation (QAM), althought I'm not sure what varying degree of amplitude it could generate P.S. Compression is a good idea, my idea is that transferring of data does not need to be in bit form, because all you do is transferring data, and once it's done you can just decode it, it can be in Arabic numbers or something, haven't thought it through

So I took an interest into signal modulation and I have not look into it yet. Pretty much for a signal you are able to modulate it, but to what degree? For a single wavelength you have amplitude and to what degree can the signals be passed and encoded? Also for the regular wireless internet, how is the signal passed and how can it be improved. I want to jeep the most amount of data into a single wavelength and I want to know how to do that. I'll look more into it tomorrow. Strange if you are reading this you get a head start

Sigh nevermind, I thought we can get like free wireless internet with the GPS technology, but GPS isn't technically connected to the internet, I'll leave it at this, feel free to visit my unbreakable DNA post at the speculation forum

GPS seems to have a lower latency then satellite internet?

Alright well explain to me them, what is the difference between GPS and satellite internet? They are the same thing right?

We build satellite on earth, then the satellite in the sky will have to receive earth satellite's GPS

Reverse satellite, we build satellite on earth

Thanks for the reply Strange. Well for sending information back to the satellite, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System What I originally had in mind is the light transmission, not the radio transmission, but then all you need is a point and then you can blink it on or off, 0 or 1 P.S. I'm saying this like every Pokemon can get an internet connection as long as they get a position, how much are they charging for satellite internet?

You receive signal from the satellite as a constant stream of data with a receive and get free internet, it's only a concept though

Right well, I agree that different tissue type might have a different division rate, but if we look the arm for example, my left arm does not age older then my right arm normally. It can be bigger, but they generally do grow at the same rate. And don't show me a picture of someone with two different aging arms I'm saying normal cases. P.S. My speculation is, if similar cells age at the same rate, then they must be controlled, not damaged P.S. Programmed theory of aging, I'm surprised we haven't found that gene

Really? That does not make much sense to me. That means parts of my body would age faster than other parts of my body. Where is this information from? P.S. Hmm it seems you just proved that it's not possible = =

Hmm, what I really want to look into is the scale of the laser scanning technology and how DNA can be visualized. I saw a clip about attosecond laser and it is pretty impressive. Keep in mind that DNA damage and DNA mutations are two different things, being near an electromagnetic radiation source does not make you age faster, speculation P.S. Good night

Right well, I'm thinking about this idea with the Crispr's molecular scissor in mind. If you check the Crispr method then you know they have a way of breaking the DNA apart and alter it. Right it's hydrogen bond, but you just need to adjust the strength and frequency of the laser, and accuracy, speculation

Right well, I posted an article about breaking molecular bonds with laser and guess what DNA is consists of in a chemical form, molecular bonds. If it's me I'll break the phosphate-oxygen molecular bond on the DNA so I can freely manipulate it. It's much easier to do and it does not require Crispr or nanomachine to enter the body.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20663262 2. The DNA of the germ cells also receive lesions and ages, but in meiosis I and meiosis II and become zygote and eventually baby have an important step that fixes these lesions with a perfect repair, not the usual partial repair we have in our cells, it could also be that the genes are shuffled around in meiosis I and meiosis II that fixes the damage. Why do I come to this conclusion? Because the baby is not of age 29 years old when it's born or the baby ages faster with a damaged DNA, the baby's DNA has to be perfect with no damages when it's born. I don't know about meiotic repair, you would have to cite something to prove your point. Nevertheless, repair mechanisms occur to re-age chromatin in germ cells: http://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2014/925121/ Now for the conclusions for speculations 1 and 2: 1. For speculation 1, if we can obtain an undamaged DNA from the germ cells then we know which part of the DNA is damaged in other cells of the body and attempt to replace them with the undamaged one assuming all the DNA in our body are the same but only differs with gene expression. 2. For speculation 2, we need to identify the step that does a perfect repair to the DNA and duplicate that process for all the cells in our body. Keep in mind that in order to change the DNA in our body we need a nanomachine, crispr also works but we need 100% accuracy. I haven't found a DNA nanomachine capable of altering DNA. I thought that different humans would receive different damage depending on exposure to different ROS, different chemicals (mutagenesis), different diet, different ages (older people accumulating more hypothesised damage, different genders, different professions etc... I think you would struggle to ask 100 women to donate their ova and for your research to be performed unless the legislative authorities allow experiments on human eggs. There is a serious ethical issue here, in my opinion, which religious groups would jump upon. As for nanomachines, I don't imagine that nanoscience has yet reached this stage. P.S. I feel that the DNA damage theory is a bit outdated, everyone follow a set age normally of 100+- years of age. You don't live longer or shorter because of damages done to your DNA For a short chart: 1. parent undamaged DNA + parent undamaged DNA -> baby undamaged DNA 2. perfect repair(parent damaged DNA) + perfect repair(parent damaged DNA) -> baby undamaged DNA How many sperm would be repaired given that there are 300 million approx. released per ejaculation? The idea is good and you posted in the correct place. But, it needs a bit more background research about what is possible and what is not yet in the vista of scientific capability. Well my idea is that every baby is born with a fresh copy of the DNA, there can't be any damages on it with or without repair, and mutations are out of the question for normal cases, so it is a perfect blue print. But either way, fixing the DNA would require the help of a nanomachine and as you've mentioned, they haven't reached the stage where they can freely modify DNA. To make this even more complex, the scientists aren't sure if the cells in the entire body all have the same DNA. It would be easy if the cells in the entire body all have the same DNA as an established idea, but scientists have found different. So until we find how gene is distributed across each cell there is no way of repairing. My idea is to monitor the DNA of a growing zygote at real time with laser scanning, but I'm not sure if our laser scanning technology is there yet

I get how the Crispr matches the DNA and make the cut with its molecular scissors, but after this step, assuming you want to replace in another sequence of DNA at the place where you made the cut, where do you pull that DNA sequence from? Does it just happen to be nearby in the solution?

This is the structure of DNA. I want to break its molecular structure using a laser and piece it back together later, is it possible? P.S. Alright this baby should do the trick, now how do you get the right parts for recombination like Crispr

Keep in mind that DNA damage and DNA mutation are two different things when you are reading this post. So here I start another post based on jimmydasaint's request. The question revolves around DNA damage and aging again. About my speculation in simple term, when I was born my DNA is perfect with no DNA damage of aging because I start out as normal born baby. Now as time goes on my DNA starts to get lesions, not mutations, as I grow old, that's what the DNA damage theory says. Now this theory does not go into replication but I speculate that when I am 30 years old and my cell goes through mitosis, it produces an identical 30 years old cell, not baby cell, equally damaged because it is old. Speculation continues, now at age 30 I produce sperm and if I get lucky I would get a female mate of 28 and have a baby. Now the baby is not of age (30+28)/2=29 years old when it's born, the baby also doesn't age faster normally. This could only mean that the sperm and ovum cell's DNA does not have any lesions because the baby has a perfect DNA. The sperm is produced from the testes germ cells through mitosis. Now here's the important speculation part of two points for myself at 30 years old. 1. The DNA of the germ cells in the testes is a fresh copy ever since I am born. It remains the same and does not receive any lesions that would cause it to age. 2. The DNA of the germ cells also receive lesions and ages, but in meiosis I and meiosis II and become zygote and eventually baby have an important step that fixes these lesions with a perfect repair, not the usual partial repair we have in our cells, it could also be that the genes are shuffled around in meiosis I and meiosis II that fixes the damage. Why do I come to this conclusion? Because the baby is not of age 29 years old when it's born or the baby ages faster with a damaged DNA, the baby's DNA has to be perfect with no damages when it's born. Now for the conclusions for speculations 1 and 2: 1. For speculation 1, if we can obtain an undamaged DNA from the germ cells then we know which part of the DNA is damaged in other cells of the body and attempt to replace them with the undamaged one assuming all the DNA in our body are the same but only differs with gene expression. 2. For speculation 2, we need to identify the step that does a perfect repair to the DNA and duplicate that process for all the cells in our body. Keep in mind that in order to change the DNA in our body we need a nanomachine, crispr also works but we need 100% accuracy. I haven't found a DNA nanomachine capable of altering DNA. P.S. I feel that the DNA damage theory is a bit outdated, everyone follow a set age normally of 100+- years of age. You don't live longer or shorter because of damages done to your DNA For a short chart: 1. parent undamaged DNA + parent undamaged DNA -> baby undamaged DNA 2. perfect repair(parent damaged DNA) + perfect repair(parent damaged DNA) -> baby undamaged DNA

If DNA is capable of perfect repair then you wouldn't age, the repair is not perfect

Right well, I did mention DNA damage theory in the op. I just don't feel that there is a need to start a new thread consider most of the materials are already presented here. If you feel there is a need I can start a new one tomorrow

Well, our focus right now is on the DNA damage theory and having telomere being part of the DNA sequence we are just looking it as a whole. I'm bringing in the quote from Wikipedia Now why is it that none of this DNA damages is passed down to the offspring when all the DNA in all the cells are getting damaged? So I speculate that, well the germ cells contain an unbreakable copy of the DNA, ready to create sperm cells

Alright, but according to DNA damage theory, we age because our DNA is damaged. If the infants' DNA is damaged to begin with then they do not start out at age zero, a child could born old depending on how bad DNA damage is. Sure the infants' DNA might differ from the parent, but they can't be damaged P.S. My idea is that sperm and ovum cannot be damaged, maybe they have an original copy of the DNA, the non damaged one, assuming that is the case, then there isn't a perfect repair process =/ P.S. Here's DNA damage theory of aging Further searching I did finds that sperm comes from testes' germ cell, but stem cell still goes through DNA damage

Well, I get DNA damage and repair, but does the same apply to sperm cells? Do sperm cells also get DNA damage before it is passed on for fertilization? I really don't think a zygote is formed with damaged sperm and damaged ovum, I could be wrong P.S. How does the sperm and ovum remains undamaged? Could they survive a nuclear explosion?